Who Started World War II?

[Fahnenbohn]

CONTENTS

1. The Overwhelming English Guilt. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2375889&postcount=595

2. A crime against peace, a crime against France. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2376785&postcount=641

3. The share of responsability of the USA. I don't have enough documentation for now to be precise enough.

Threaty of Versailles was unfair :

4. The real causes of the First World War ... WIP *

5. How the Pan-slavics caused war in July 1914 ? ... WIP *


* This work won't be able to be published, because this thread is going to be closed in a few days by the moderators for unknown reason.

-----------------------------
How did this thread start ?

-------------------------
OLD

khm, Perfide Albion...
Many years ago I was inspired same idea - cured Mers-el-Kebir, Syria campaign of 1941, Madagaskar and Djibouti, Torch landing...

Yeah, the French had really an indecisive attitude during the war. Unfortunately, they didn't understand at all that Hitler didn't want to have a revenge against France, but an united and powerful Europe. And the English were the ennemies of this alliance, as they constantly show during the actions they led against the French fleet, and other facts. England was not the ally of France, but its rival.

[texelbo]

England was not the ally of France, but its rival.

For sure - 'no permanent ally, but permanent interests'.
:arrgh!:
We are, looking from east, considerd Hitler as English puppet, as hummer for destroing of remains of belle epoque in continental Europe. They had fault with Trotsky in USSR in 1927, but prompt had switch to 'plan B'.
This tricking gues from Island always succeed play off one their competitors against another. With catastrophic results for those both and profit to UK. It happened at 1870, 1914, 1939, 1941.
Or another tool - the 'revolutions' - at 1789, 1848, 1870, 1905, 1917, 1918.
Doesn't matter where it were - France, Germany or Russia.

It why I like sink british ships. :woot:

[Jimbuna]

Yeah, the French had really an indecisive attitude during the war. Unfortunately, they didn't understand at all that Hitler didn't want to have a revenge against France, but an united and powerful Europe. And the English were the ennemies of this alliance, as they constantly show during the actions they led against the French fleet, and other facts. England was not the ally of France, but its rival.

That begs four questions....

1) Which country invaded France?
2) Which country was it that sent the BEF to support France?
3) Which country gave exile/sanctuary to the Free French and its forces?
4) Which country played a major part in freeing France of occupation from her oppressors?

[Fahnenbohn]

That begs four questions....

1) Which country invaded France?
2) Which country was it that sent the BEF to support France?
3) Which country gave exile/sanctuary to the Free French and its forces?
4) Which country played a major part in freeing France of occupation from her oppressors?

Sorry, you don't give me the right to answer to these questions, beause this is ... HATE ! (lol !) And then , I get banned ... http://www.forumsig.org/images/smilies/mal/ANIMmal036.gif. The war is still continuing ...

http://www.forumsig.org/images/smilies/mal/mal010.png

[Fahnenbohn]

It why I like sink british ships.

What I like, and I'm saying it now, before being banned for the second time, is that the British have been humiliated three times during the war by the Germans (the "Nazis" !) : first at Dunkerque where they had a humiliating retreat, second during Rheinübung where their most prestigious battleship was sunk by the Bismarck, and third during Cerberus Operation when 3 german battleships sailed through the Channel !!!

:haha:

[Sailor Steve]

Sorry, you don't give me the right to answer to these questions, beause this is ... HATE ! (lol !) And then , I get banned ... http://www.forumsig.org/images/smilies/mal/ANIMmal036.gif. The war is still continuing ...

http://www.forumsig.org/images/smilies/mal/mal010.png
You don't get banned or anything else for answering questions and having debates. What we don't like is someone taking the subject off-topic and bringing up his own personal political beliefs in a game thread. In the future please keep that kind of comment to General Topics. For now, please answer the questions.

What I like, and I'm saying it now...
So you refuse to answer what you started, but you want to continue with your personal diatribe. You can't have it both ways. I promise that if you answer Jim's questions and engage in an honest debate, no harm will come to you. On the other hand if you continue with your off-topic diatribe but refuse to answer the questions, you will indeed find the trouble you seem to be looking for.

One or the other. Your choice.

[Fahnenbohn]

@ Sailor Steve : you got a PM.

[Jimbuna]

What I like, and I'm saying it now, before being banned for the second time, is that the British have been humiliated three times during the war by the Germans (the "Nazis" !) : first at Dunkerque where they had a humiliating retreat, second during Rheinübung where their most prestigious battleship was sunk by the Bismarck, and third during Cerberus Operation when 3 german battleships sailed through the Channel !!!

:haha:

I tell you what.....you answer the original four questions then after that how about you create a separate thread in GT focussing on what you consider to be 'hum iliating experiences' between both sides?

:know:

[Fahnenbohn]

1) Which country invaded France?
2) Which country was it that sent the BEF to support France?
3) Which country gave exile/sanctuary to the Free French and its forces?
4) Which country played a major part in freeing France of occupation from her oppressors?

1/2 : Germany made a counter-attack against the Anglo-French coalition.
3/4 : Free French was completely illegal, since the official french government signed an armistice with Germany.

But the good questions are :

1. Which country pushed Poland to refuse any negotiations with Germany about the scandalous Danzig corridor ?
2. Which country first declared war on Germany ?

[Wreford-Brown]

Britain delivered its declaration of war 15 mins before France, but both countries gave a deadline for the withdrawal of German troops from Poland the following day. Both declarations were conditional.

[Fahnenbohn]

Britain delivered its declaration of war 15 mins before France, but both countries gave a deadline for the withdrawal of German troops from Poland the following day. Both declarations were conditional.

Yes, but it's symbolic !

Another fact : French people was against the war with Germany. The declaration of war was illegal, the National Assembly's opinion has not even been asked ! A democratie ? lol !

We are always talking about the German officers who tried to assassinate Hitler. This is the French officers who should have had to refuse to obey to the orders, and should have had to make a State coup ! When war was over for France, the members of the government didn't assume their acts, and left the responsibility of the Armistice to a French officer (Petain). He should have understood who was the real ennemy of France, but he was too old, and was still thinking as in 1918 ...

1945 is the end of a free and powerful Europe.

:nope:

[Fahnenbohn]

From Hitler's speech, october 6, 1939 :

"I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of an Anglo-German understanding, nay, more than that, of an Anglo-German friendship. At no time and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests. Unfortunately I have only too often been forced to guard against instances of British interference in German affairs, even in cases which did not concern Great Britain in the least. I actually considered it as one of my life aims to reconcile these two peoples, not only through mutual understanding but through inner sympathy. The German nation has gladly followed my lead in this respect. If my endeavors have been unsuccessful, it is only because of an animosity on the part of certain British statesmen and journalists, which has deeply affected me personally. They made no secret of the fact that - for reasons which are unfathomable to us - their sole aim was to seize the first opportunity in order to resume the fight with Germany. The fewer reasons of substantial nature these men have for their schemes, the more they attempt to motivate their actions with empty phrases and assertions. But I believe even today that there can only he real peace in Europe and throughout the world if Germany and England come to an understanding. Because of this conviction I have often shown the way to an understanding. If in the end there was not the desired result, it was really not my fault."

and also :

"This I ask : If forty-six million Englishmen claim the right to rule over forty million square kilometers of the earth, it cannot be wrong for eighty-two million Germans to demand the right to live on 800,000 square kilometers, to till their fields and to follow their trades and callings, and if they further demand the restitution of those colonial possessions which formerly were their property, which they had not taken away from anybody by robbery or war but honestly acquired by purchase, exchange and treaties."

[Fahnenbohn]

No. As I told you privately, you don't get to make your points and then demand the conversation end there. I'm sure that others have counter-points that are just as good, and they get a chance to make them as well.

OK, no problem ! As I told you in PM, I'm honestly searching the truth, and I'm open to the debate.

[Cybermat47]

3/4 : Free French was completely illegal, since the official french government signed an armistice with Germany.


So you don't want to be independent? You'd much rather be a puppet to a genocidal government in Berlin that valued itself over it's own people, and cared even less about you?

[Fahnenbohn]

a genocidal government

@ Sailor Steve : You see ? :nope: Impossible discussion. This is MAGIC !

[Fahnenbohn]

From the same speech (see post #12) :

"My chief endeavor, however, has been to rid our relations with France of all trace of ill will and render them tolerable for both nations. I once set forth with the utmost clarity Germany's claims in this domain and have never gone back on that declaration. Return of the Saar territory was one demand which I regarded as an indispensable pre-condition of Franco-German understandings. After France herself had found a just solution of this problem, Germany had no further claims against France. No such claim exists any longer and no such claim shall ever be put forward. That is to say, I have refused even to mention the problem of Alsace-Lorraine not because I was forced to keep silent, but because this matter does not constitute a problem which could ever interfere with Franco-German relations. I accepted the decision made in 1919 and refused to consider ever embarking upon war for the sake of a question which, comparatively speaking, is of slight importance for Germany's vital interests, but which is certainly likely to involve every second generation in a deadly war fear. France realized this. It is impossible for any French statesman to get up and declare I have ever made any demands upon France the fulfillment of which would be incompatible with French honor or French interest. It is, however, true that instead of demands I have always expressed to France my desire to bury forever our ancient enmity and bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts. Among the German people, I have done my utmost to eradicate the idea of everlasting enmity and to inculcate in its place a respect for the great achievements of the French nation and for its history, just as every German soldier has the greatest respect for the feats of the French Army."

[Oberon]

Oh Great, another one of 'these' guys. We sure do pick them up. :nope:

Besides, WWII technically started in 1937 between Japan and China. :O:

[Skybird]

Lesson of this topic: nobody had a right and should have dared to stand up against and resist the Nazi empire. It's all their fault.

Why taking the bait, guys? You know how it smells in here. Use your noses.

[Dowly]

http://i.imgur.com/28C3mnr.gif

[Cybermat47]

Why taking the bait, guys? You know how it smells in here. Use your noses.

Terrible arguments like this guy's are perfect practice for actual debates :up:

[Sailor Steve]

This grew out of a comment made in the SH3 forums. I allowed it to stand because I want to see where it goes. I have my views I wanted to express, but since Jim is already involved I decided I needed to stay out and play referee.

I'll only say this once. If you have something to add, please feel free to do so. If you feel compelled to go beyond that, please just stay out of it. I want to see if it's possible to have a civil discussion about this.

[Betonov]

About France and Britain after WW1.
No one said rivals can't be friends :03:

[Cybermat47]

I'll only say this once. If you have something to add, please feel free to do so. If you feel compelled to go beyond that, please just stay out of it. I want to see if it's possible to have a civil discussion about this.

I see. Apologies if I caused any problems.

[Fahnenbohn]

I want to see if it's possible to have a civil discussion about this.

Yes, exactly. Me too ! :up:

[Cybermat47]

In my opinion, who started WWII doesn't matter as much as who took the most lives in it - and it's a reasonable assumption that it was the Nazis. 11000000 people are known to have died in the Holocaust alone.

But I have little difficulty in believing that Hitler started WWII. With the annexation of Austria and occupation of Czechoslovakia, it's obvious that he was aggressively expanding German territory.

[Oberon]

Alright, I'll bite, but I doubt this thread will go anywhere but down, it's not the first time we've been down a road like this.

And the English were the ennemies of this alliance, as they constantly show during the actions they led against the French fleet, and other facts. England was not the ally of France, but its rival.

England...or should I say Britain, and France were indeed rivals, until around 1904, when efforts were made by both sides to reduce the tensions between their respective empires as both were faced with the prospect of a rapidly industrialising Germany. The Franco-Prussian war had already ended in a very heavy defeat for France, and Britain had struggled during the Boer war and there was a fear in both nations that Germany was going to outpace both of them in regards to technology, weaponry and power projection and force.
If Britain and France were as much rivals as you seem to suggest they were then when Russia and Japan went to war in 1904 then Britain and France would have found themselves at war with each other due to France being allied to Russia and Britain allied to Japan.

To look at your other point, the actions of the Royal Navy against the French fleet, that is not a high point in Anglo-French relations, I will agree, however it was one isolated incident and I think due to poor diplomatic actions rather than malice. Contrast Mers-el-Kébir with the action at Alexandria where Admiral Cunningham successfully negotiated the disarmament of the French warships commanded by Admiral Godfroy. If there was an intended malice on the part of the British then these ships would have been taken by force or destroyed.
Besides, why would Britain want to give Germany such a propaganda coup? If you consider it in diplomatic terms it makes no sense to encourage the French people to look to Germany as a friend by purposefully targetting the French navy in malice.
To quote the Admiral in charge of the operation at Mers-el-Kébir, he considered it "...the biggest political blunder of modern times and will rouse the whole world against us...we all feel thoroughly ashamed..."

Now, as to who to assign the blame for 'World War II', that is a harder course of action because the victors of World War I certainly have their part to play in creating the conditions which would encourage the rise of the National Socialist German Workers Party, and the rather stupid partition of Danzig certainly didn't help matters, but this is something borne by hindsight and any attempt to rid Germany of her part in World War II is honestly an insult to those who died in the war.
Hitler could well have used diplomacy to fix his problems, he could have spent some of the goodwill he had created in Europe during his time in power to bring about a better solution to the Danzig problem, but his actions in Czechoslovakia turned European powers against him, despite their best attempts to seek some sort of avoidance to conflict.

Ultimately Hitler could have chosen not to persue Danzig, there was no immediate need to invade Poland, no-one was being massacred in Danzig, no one was threatening Germany with war unless she took the Danzig corridor, he could well have backed down and let Danzig slide. Heck, if he had then perhaps the Soviet Union would have invaded Poland later in the 1940s and we would have found Germany, France and the UK allied against the Soviet Union. It's something that some alternate history writers like to consider from time to time. Certainly France and the UK found themselves torn between the two evils of Fascist Germany and Italy and the Communist Soviet Union.
But no, Germany sought and signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and Germany invaded Poland, and that resort to force of arms over diplomacy puts the immediate blame for the war that followed upon Germany. One can argue the threads that lead to that declaration of war can trace back to the First World War and its conclusion, but the final decision to plunge Europe into another major conflict was Germanys.

[Tchocky]

Someday I want to have the same positive outlook on life that allows Oberon to respond in such good faith. :D

[Oberon]

Someday I want to have the same positive outlook on life that allows Oberon to respond in such good faith. :D

I don't even know where I get it from myself....It's probably the pills....

[Fahnenbohn]

11000000 people are known to have died in the Holocaust alone.

That's absolutely wrong, but I don't have the right to talk about this subject on this forum.

With the annexation of Austria and occupation of Czechoslovakia, it's obvious that he was aggressively expanding German territory.

By the Trianon and Saint Germain Treaty, the empire of Austria-Hungary is dismembered on behalf of the right of peoples to self-determination. Austria becomes an unsustainable state and requestes unification with Germany from March 1919 (on behalf of the right of peoples to self-determination). But this is denied against all logic.

A totally artificial state is created : Czechoslovakia. It should have been called Czecho-Germania (Czech = 47.2% / German = 23.4% / Slovak = 18.5%). These German minorities, called Sudeten Germans were concentrated in border regions with Germany and Austria and populated by 50% to 90% of Germans.

In March 1938, the annexation of Austria into the Reich is made (Anschluss), in accordance with the will of the immence majority of Austrians. Everywhere scenes of jubilation occur. This causes agitation of the Sudeten Germans who want their return to the motherland too. Facing this agitation, Britain sends Lord Runciman to investigate. He states in its report of October 7, 1938: "I consider that these districts border must be immediately transferred from Czechoslovakia to Germany." Again, this is only fair. The return of the Sudetenland to the Reich is also made in general jubilation.

On March 14, 1939, Slovakia declares its independence. The region of Bohemia and Moravia becomes a German protectorate. The artificial entity created by the victors in 1918 ceases to exist.

-> It's obvious that you don't know the subject at all !

F.

[Tchocky]

Yeah I guess the Sudetendeutsches Freikorps accidentally murdered Czech policemen and the orders they received from the Nazi regime were meant as jokes.

Take it elsewhere.

[Jimbuna]

I want to see if it's possible to have a civil discussion about this.

Yes, exactly. Me too ! :up:

And so we shall.

See the part in bold. That piece in paticular drew my attention.

Yeah, the French had really an indecisive attitude during the war. Unfortunately, they didn't understand at all that Hitler didn't want to have a revenge against France, but an united and powerful Europe. And the English were the ennemies of this alliance, as they constantly show during the actions they led against the French fleet, and other facts. England was not the ally of France, but its rival.

To which I have asked the following.

That begs four questions....

1) Which country invaded France?
2) Which country was it that sent the BEF to support France?
3) Which country gave exile/sanctuary to the Free French and its forces?
4) Which country played a major part in freeing France of occupation from her oppressors?

After numerous attempts at avoiding the fundamental questions you eventually answered.

1/2 : Germany made a counter-attack against the Anglo-French coalition.
3/4 : Free French was completely illegal, since the official french government signed an armistice with Germany.

But the good questions are :

1. Which country pushed Poland to refuse any negotiations with Germany about the scandalous Danzig corridor ?
2. Which country first declared war on Germany ?

The actual definitive answers are:

1) Germany
2) Great Britain
3) Great Britain
4) Great Britain

Whilst I accept there has been much rivalry and emnity over the centuries between Britain and France those relationships were practically non existant or at the very lowest level at the time in question.

Sending an armed force to assist then give exile and later further military aid and support is hardly the actions of anything but that which only an ally would give in a countries hour of need.

Germany on the other hand sent a military force of invasion to Belgium, Holland and France. Are we to believe this is the actions of a country partaking in a friendly alliance?

What I like, and I'm saying it now, before being banned for the second time, is that the British have been humiliated three times during the war by the Germans (the "Nazis" !) : first at Dunkerque where they had a humiliating retreat, second during Rheinübung where their most prestigious battleship was sunk by the Bismarck, and third during Cerberus Operation when 3 german battleships sailed through the Channel !!!

:haha:

Now you post the above and despite categoric assurances from Steve and now me publicly, there will be nobody getting banned provided forum rules are adhered to (what has happened previously and for what justification has already been adequately explained privately) you make assertions to real-life seriously tragic events which sadly are not uncommon during times of war. You introduce the word 'humiliated' and add a smiley which I am confident will be perceived as pouring scorn/mockery on forum members who lost loved ones on both sides of the conflict. ....My own interpretation can be encapsulated in one word 'Trolling'.

So let us debate your points...

Dunkerque:
Obviously a serious event, one in which Great Britain lost approx. 68,000 troops but surpassed by the fact over 300,000 were evacuated to fight another day.

I'm sure you'll remember the German 6th army were involved but I recall what their fate became eventually (over 91,000 POW's).

Care to remember the fate of the Africa Korps at Cape Bon?

Over 150,000 POW's and nearly one million German lives tragically lost in North Africa.

Rheinübung:

Bismarck, pride of the German Navy sinks HMS Hood on 24th May 1941 then Bismarck is sunk three days later whilst trying to reach a safe haven.

Perhaps we should discuss the Graf Spee, designed to prey on defenceless merchants, comes across two 6" and one 8" gunned cruisers which are hardly a match for 11" guns. What happens? another dash to a safe haven before scuttling herself without so much as a serious attempt at engaging the enemy. Hardly matching the true and ancient traditions of the Royal Navy (Senior Service).

How about Tirpitz....fired her main batteries in anger only once (bombarding Spitzbergen, Sept 43).

I guess you know her fate though....sunk by the RAF whilst holed up in what was thought to be another safe haven. The same RAF who were numerically inferior in numbers to the Luftwaffe by a ratio of 3-4 to one but who overcame all the odds in the Battle of Britain, a time when Britain stood alone against aggression.

The Channel Dash (Operation Cerebus):

Hardly a military victory when all the Germans were attempting was to get their vessels to a place of safety and out of reach of the RAF (for fear they would suffer the same fate as that eventually handed down to Tirpitz).

So what became of thes ships?

Sharnhorst, whilst attempting to attack convoy JW55B, believing it to be almost defenceless against the mighty armament of her is unfortunate to come up against HMS Duke Of York and accompanying cruisers. She is quickly overwhelmed and sunk as a result but at least she put up a fight.

Gneisenau, disarmed on the orders of that military genius Hitler (I'm confident you know the reasoning) and main batteries utilised as shore emplacements.

Prinz Eugen, expended as a target ship for nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll by the United States.

Humiliating? No, extremely tragic in all cases..

I believe I have answered the points you have raised and am happy to continue the debate should you so wish but hope you will maintain a respectful tone and not turn to mockery or undervaluing the efforts of all those from all sides who took part.

I am also of the belief that your opinions are seriously biased and blinkered toward one side of the conflict and looking at some of the responses on this thread (of a few nationalities, German included) it is obvious I am not alone in that thinking.

Much of my response does not only come from my extensive collection of books on the subject as well as the internet but most importantly from my father who was at Dunkirk (inward and outward), within hearing of the Hood/Bismarck exchange, arctic convoy service, last ship to leave Marseille before it fell and D-Day.

I look forward to a respectful and sensible continuation of said debate should you have the inclination.

If you choose the above then stick to factual outcomes and not opinionated bias.

@Oberon....Prior to posting (proofing) I notice further posts have been made so please understand I am commenting on your post three or four up.

Great post matey.

[Fahnenbohn]

Yeah I guess the Sudetendeutsches Freikorps accidentally murdered Czech policemen and the orders they received from the Nazi regime were meant as jokes.

I don't know the context, but this is right that there were tensions : you can't force people who don't want to live together to do so !

[Tchocky]

I don't know the context, but this is right that there were tensions : you can't force people who don't want to live together to do so !


You don't know the context? Why am I not surprised.

At the end of your post that was about the Sudeten Germans, you said the following to Cybermat47 -

-> It's obvious that you don't know the subject at all !

Open a book before telling other people they're uninformed. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself.

[Fahnenbohn]

You don't know the context? Why am I not surprised. Open a book before telling other people they're uninformed. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself.

Sorry, but I can't know all the thousands minor facts. If you want to be useful, please tell what you know, and also how (what documents you have read) you know it. I'm sure you don't tell the story in an honest and impartial way. Last thing, this is not the debate.

[Tchocky]

Mate, if you're trolling then 10/10. If you're being serious then this is a particularly ugly sort of historical revisionism.


The Nazi-trained, equipped, and directed terrorist organisation with almost 35,000 members that attempted a putsch in Czechoslovakia is NOT A MINOR FACT.


Seriously, stop it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetendeutsches_Freikorps


EDIT - I see your edit and this is just sad.

I'm sure you don't tell the story in an honest and impartial way."I don't know anything about what you're talking about but I'm sure you're wrong",

For God's sake.

Last thing, this is not the debate.Nice of you to let me know what I'm allowed to say. Funny the way fascists like to shut people up.

You're almost correct though, this is not a debate. This is you promoting a sick version of historical events designed to assuage those who worship psychopaths. And you're not even good at it.

[Fahnenbohn]

Instead of insulting me, just say to me : "this are the facts I would like you to know, and here are the sources. And this is why I consider this is something important, etc."

My question : Why was this Freikorps created ?

Nice of you to let me know what I'm allowed to say. Funny the way fascists like to shut people up. You're almost correct though, this is not a debate. This is you promoting a sick version of historical events designed to assuage those who worship psychopaths. And you're not even good at it.

I'm requesting the moderator to stop this sort of hateful posts. Where is the debate in this post ? Nowhere, except a link (wikipedia), all the rest is useless and disrespecting. If this sort of posts are still allowed, then I stop immediately the debate.

F.

PS : I'm writting an answer to Jimbuna and Oberon, but this takes time, because I do the effort to understand the other side, write arguments, and search for sources. I don't insult, unlike some people here.

[Sailor Steve]

Nice of you to let me know what I'm allowed to say. Funny the way fascists like to shut people up.
This is my first informal warning. Name-calling and personal attacks add nothing to the debate and will not be allowed.

[Raptor1]

By the Trianon and Saint Germain Treaty, the empire of Austria-Hungary is dismembered on behalf of the right of peoples to self-determination. Austria becomes an unsustainable state and requestes unification with Germany from March 1919 (on behalf of the right of peoples to self-determination). But this is denied against all logic.

A totally artificial state is created : Czechoslovakia. It should have been called Czecho-Germania (Czech = 47.2% / German = 23.4% / Slovak = 18.5%). These German minorities, called Sudeten Germans were concentrated in border regions with Germany and Austria and populated by 50% to 90% of Germans.

In March 1938, the annexation of Austria into the Reich is made (Anschluss), in accordance with the will of the immence majority of Austrians. Everywhere scenes of jubilation occur. This causes agitation of the Sudeten Germans who want their return to the motherland too. Facing this agitation, Britain sends Lord Runciman to investigate. He states in its report of October 7, 1938: "I consider that these districts border must be immediately transferred from Czechoslovakia to Germany." Again, this is only fair. The return of the Sudetenland to the Reich is also made in general jubilation.

On March 14, 1939, Slovakia declares its independence. The region of Bohemia and Moravia becomes a German protectorate. The artificial entity created by the victors in 1918 ceases to exist.

-> It's obvious that you don't know the subject at all !

F.

The German population in Czechoslovakia was, as you say, concentrated nearly entirely in the Sudetenland. Even if we grant that Germany was right in annexing it, why were the remaining Czech territories, in which Germans were a tiny minority, also occupied? Between 1938 and 1939 Czechoslovakia went from having less than 3 million Germans living in a country in which they were not the majority to about 7 million Czechs and other minorities living under direct German occupation (and another 3.5 million living in a German-controlled puppet state). This occupation was, rather typically, far harsher than the conditions the Sudeten Germans were living under beforehand. Territorial expansion was, ideologically and practically, Germany's primary goal both before and during the war; German actions in Czechoslovakia were quite consistent with that.

As for who started World War II (in Europe), I don't see how anyone else could have done it when Germany fired the first shots and initiated nearly all offensive actions for the next several years...

[Tchocky]

Instead of insulting me, just say to me : "this are the facts I would like you to know, and here are the sources. And this is why I consider this is something important, etc."

Oh don't even start with this garbage.

The reason I'm not doing that is because you were dismissive to a poster previously, asserting that they didn't know anything about the issue at hand. In your next post you show you didn't know anything about a major element of that historical period. Then you referred to the FS as a minor detail. Ten seconds of research would have told you they are not minor.

Your next move was to tell me that no matter how little you knew about the subject, I was definitely lying to you and misrepresenting history.

So there you are, assuming someone is wrong because they know something you don't.

This tells me you are not someone I should be too concerned about being nice to.


My question : Why was this Freikorps created ?

They were the paramilitary wing of the Sudeten German party. Very much akin to the SA. Do your own homework. Proper sources this time.



I'm requesting the moderator to stop this sort of hateful posts. Where is the debate in this post ? Nowhere, except a link (wikipedia), all the rest is useless and disrespecting.
Oh come on.

You're pushing a version of history that is only found in a few very particular places. Pointing this out isn't an insult, nor is it disrespectful.

You do that all by yourself.


If this sort of posts are still allowed, then I stop immediately the debate.

And nothing of value was lost.

this takes time, because I do the effort to understand the other side, write arguments, and search for sources. I don't insult, unlike some people here.


No you don't.

[Tchocky]

This is my first informal warning. Name-calling and personal attacks add nothing to the debate and will not be allowed.

I'll be good.

[Betonov]

Why should anyone understand the other side.
They were a bunch of xenophobic, genocidic, ruthlesss uninformed thugs led by the inner circle of a one testicled painting corporal.

It's like understanding a pack of retarded gorillas. Even David Attenborough woulnd't touch that.

[Torplexed]

Everyone knows WW2 was a perfidious ploy by the British to lose half a million lives, bankrupt their empire and allow the USA and USSR dominate the world stage.

And Der Fuhrer fell for it. :D

[Sailor Steve]

Why should anyone understand the other side.
They were a bunch of xenophobic, genocidic, ruthlesss uninformed thugs led by the inner circle of a one testicled painting corporal.

It's like understanding a pack of retarded gorillas. Even David Attenborough woulnd't touch that.
And this will be your informal warning. Personal opinions are welcome, but we are trying to discuss the causes of the war, and this sort of thing doesn't help.

[Betonov]

WWII was the final act of the colonial tensions that sprung up during the 19th century, peaked when WWI started and then reflamed 2 decades later.
The whole mess would have been avoided if Hitler wasn't such a good manure shuffler (I know a better word but it's NSFW), that he convinced the Germans that they should not have faith in the Weimar republic, that was on a good path to rebuild Germany to an industrial power without all that Prussian militarism.

And this will be your informal warning. Personal opinions are welcome, but we are trying to discuss the causes of the war, and this sort of thing doesn't help.

Just give me a formal one then.
The only remorse I will show when comparing nazis to retarded gorillas is that I'll offend retarded gorillas

[Fahnenbohn]

You introduce the word 'humiliated' and add a smiley which I am confident will be perceived as pouring scorn/mockery on forum members who lost loved ones on both sides of the conflict. .... Humiliating? No, extremely tragic in all cases..

It's true, I was stupid to laugh at that, I have not experienced these tragic events. But in military terms, this is a historical fact that the Royal Navy had not suffered so much competition since a lot of time !

About Graf Spee and Bismarck events : how could it be otherwise ? The british navy was far superior to the german navy. A frontal fight was not in favour of Germans.

About Tirpitz : there was not enough fuel in the end of the war (I recall that the equivalent of 25 atomic bombs (like the one on Hiroshima) was dropped on Germany).

I am also of the belief that your opinions are seriously biased and blinkered toward one side of the conflict and looking at some of the responses on this thread (of a few nationalities, German included) it is obvious I am not alone in that thinking.

Maybe it's true. It can also be your own beliefs that are distorted by post-war propaganda.

[Oberon]

It's true, I was stupid to laugh at that, I have not experienced these tragic events. But in military terms, this is a historical fact that the Royal Navy had not suffered so much competition since a lot of time !

Jutland
Raid on the Medway
Battle of Beachy Head
Battle of Chesapeake Bay
Battle of the Coronel

About Graf Spee and Bismarck events : how could it be otherwise ? The british navy was far superior to the german navy. A frontal fight was not in favour of Germans.

KMS Bismarck - Commissioned 1940
KMS Prinz Eugen - Commissioned 1940

HMS Hood - Commissioned 1920
HMS Prince of Wales - Commissioned 1941

See the problem here? The Hood, although one of the loved ships of the Royal Navy, was an old Battlecruiser, really not designed to take on something like the Bismarck. The more equal opponent to the Bismarck would be the King George V.
Yes, the Bismarck did inflict a nasty shock to a navy which was almost arrogant in its confidence in its superiority, but it wasn't the only one. The uboat campaign was another nasty shock, as were Japanese aircraft.
In return, well, let's remember what crippled the Bismarck, a very slow, very outdated biplane. :03: So slow, in fact, that the fire control of the AAA systems on the Bismarck didn't have a target speed selector that went low enough. :doh:

The Tirpitz acted well as a threat, just as Argentinas submarines acted well as a threat towards the Falklands fleet, but there was no way for Germany to carry out that threat, but of course, Britain did not know that and so expended resources to eliminate the threat.

In my opinion, the Kriegsmarine surface fleet was mostly a waste of time and resources that could have been spent improving and expanding the uboatwaffe, but then I'm a bit of Doenitz fan so I would go for the 300 uboats over Plan Z. :haha: Of course, fortunately for Great Britain, such a plan was not feasible.
http://uboat.net/forums/read.php?3,285,554

[Onkel Neal]

Sorry, but I can't know all the thousands minor facts. If you want to be useful, please tell what you know, and also how (what documents you have read) you know it. I'm sure you don't tell the story in an honest and impartial way. Last thing, this is not the debate.


Fahnenbon, I'm not sure what compels you to ignore a universe of accepted history, but I'm sure it would be interesting. I think you only have to read Mein Kampf to get the answer, straight from the man who engineered WWII.

[August]

I gotta get another Indiana Jones picture. :)

[Oberon]

I gotta get another Indiana Jones picture. :)

http://community.digitalmediaacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Indiana-Jones-meme.jpeg

[Fahnenbohn]

I think you only have to read Mein Kampf to get the answer, straight from the man who engineered WWII.

This argument is not valid. Mein Kampf was written long before Hitler came to power. The context was very different ! His book was a fighting book to galvanize his troops. His goal was to gain power. Once chancellor, he took into account the international context to act reasonably.

Hitler said himself to a journalist who was asking him about Mein Kampf : "I won't correct Mein Kampf by a new edition, but in the great book of History" (= by my own acts).

[Tchocky]

Jesus.

:roll:

[Fahnenbohn]

If you want to convince me that Germany was responsible for the war :

-> Prove to me that Poland has accepted peaceful negotiations with Hitler about Danzig Corridor, or prove to me that these negotiations were intolerable for Poland.

-> Prove to me that Hitler made no offers of peace in October 1939.

-> Prove to me that Britain and France accepted a conference with Germany to discuss the fate of Poland in october, 1939.

-> Prove to me that the treaty with Poland was still valid in September 1939.

-> Prove to me that the war was declared constitutionally in France.

I am alone to answer everyone, and I don't have enough time to do it. So now, I'm going to answer in French only, I'm loosing too much time to translate in two directions. Do as I do : use google translation !

[Tchocky]

That's not how argument works when your premise is this ludicrous.

Convince us that Germany was not the primary instigator.

I will only be answering in squirrel facts from now on. Do as I do and exercise your constitutional right to a constitutional!

[Dowly]

Convince us that Germany was not the primary instigator.
This. You (Fahnenbohn) have the burden of proof here.

[Fahnenbohn]

Convince us that Germany was not the primary instigator.

This. You (Fahnenbohn) have the burden of proof here.

I have a video of one hour on the subject. But all in french. So, I could make a synthesis and post it there. But you will have to translate in english by yourself.

[Skybird]

I want to see if it's possible to have a civil discussion about this.
Formally, maybe.

Whether it is worth anything, and tolerates the right guest, is something totally different.

Sometimes its better to scare evil off in the first, instead of trying to maintain an appearance of decency about it.

[Dowly]

I have a video of one hour on the subject. But all in french. So, I could make a synthesis and post it there. But you will have to translate in english by yourself.
Against all the countless of history books, you've got 1 video to somehow prove them wrong?

Maybe you could write some of the main claims said video makes?

[Raptor1]

Maybe you could write some of the main claims said video makes?

And some verifiable evidence for those claims, please.

EDIT: Or at least the arguments for them.

[Oberon]

Sometimes its better to scare evil off in the first, instead of trying to maintain an appearance of decency about it.

I would agree ordinarily but it depends on your definition of evil.

That being said, judging by an off-hand comment made by the OP I'd wager that he will fall into the category of Holocaust disagreer in terms of the amount of fatalities, if not an outright denier.
This puts him in contradiction to Subsims rules as stated in:

Subsim allows for a wide range of opinions, politics, and attitudes but we do not accept members who are associated with hate groups. Examples include but are not limited to Neo-Nazi groups, Westboro Baptist Church types, racist supremacists, Klansmen, black militants, Islamic militants, Jewish conspiracists, anti-Semites, posting links to racist music, propaganda denying the Holocaust.

But since he's not outrightly denying it, or is he claiming to be a Neo-Nazi then he's not actually violating any rules as far as I can see it. Ultimately though that will be up to Steve and Neal to decide.

[Fahnenbohn]

Against all the countless of history books, you've got 1 video to somehow prove them wrong?

The books are lying ... by omission. This video is showing all original and historical evidence about the subject. There are many facts that you have probably never heard about.

And some verifiable evidence for those claims, please. Or at least the arguments for them.

Yes, they are provided in the video.

[Oberon]

The books are lying ... by omission. This video is showing all original and historical evidence about the subject. There are many facts that you have probably never heard about.

Yes, they are provided in the video.

https://media.giphy.com/media/DQwcFdDUQqcWk/giphy.gif

[Dowly]

The books are lying ... by omission. This video is showing all original and historical evidence about the subject. There are many facts that you have probably never heard about.
Do please share these "facts" I've probably never heard about.

[Fahnenbohn]

Just let me the time to do the synthesis, which will probably be an open office document.

[Tchocky]

Well I'm certainly on the edge of my seat.

Can't wait to stop being brainwashed by the enemies of national socialism.

[Fahnenbohn]

Well I'm certainly on the edge of my seat.

Can't wait to stop being brainwashed by the enemies of national socialism.

:up:

[Sailor Steve]

That being said, judging by an off-hand comment made by the OP I'd wager that he will fall into the category of Holocaust disagreer in terms of the amount of fatalities, if not an outright denier.
Maybe, and maybe not. Fahnenbohn and I have already discussed that privately. This thread is to be about the causes leading to the war, who started it and nothing more.

[Onkel Neal]

.....But since he's not outrightly denying it, or is he claiming to be a Neo-Nazi then he's not actually violating any rules as far as I can see it. Ultimately though that will be up to Steve and Neal to decide.

Cheers, Oberon. I see this topic as silly and harmless at this point. Borderline trolling, but shrug.

Anyway, there may be some few people in the world who want to argue about who "started" WWII, but I can tell you who finished it. :smug:

[August]

Anyway, there may be some few people in the world who want to argue about who "started" WWII, but I can tell you who finished it. :smug:

BOOM there it is! :yep:

[ikalugin]

This argument is a bit too heated it seems. How about I contribute to defuse the tension?

So here it goes:
- WW2 was a fault of Poland for rejecting Soviet alliance. Should it have allied itself on good terms with the USSR, then far fewer people would have died in WW2 (Polish people included) and their post WW2 fate would have been better.

After all even if you do view USSR and communism as a horrible, totalitarian place to live, living is better than not living.

[ikalugin]

Cheers, Oberon. I see this topic as silly and harmless at this point. Borderline trolling, but shrug.

Anyway, there may be some few people in the world who want to argue about who "started" WWII, but I can tell you who finished it. :smug:
The Soviets, by liberating Manchuria, removing the sole IJ territory outside of Metropoly and murdering hope of conditional surrender via negotiations with the USSR?

(I post for sport)

[August]

You got it all wrong. Obviously WW2 was the fault of George Bush. :yep:

[ikalugin]

You got it all wrong. Obviously WW2 was the fault of George Bush. :yep:
Which one of them?

[nikimcbee]

You got it all wrong. Obviously WW2 was the fault of George Bush. :yep:

Damn, you stole my joke.:up:

I was gunna blame "W", Halliburton, Cheney. Did I miss anyone?
Oh, yeah....Forgot Steed!

[nikimcbee]

Oh, I blame Belicheck and Brady!
Those Bastards!!

No doubt he (Belicheck), tricked Hitler into attacking.:/\\k:

[Oberon]

This argument is a bit too heated it seems. How about I contribute to defuse the tension?

So here it goes:
- WW2 was a fault of Poland for rejecting Soviet alliance.

Would that be the same Soviets that attacked Warsaw and were defeated nineteen years prior? :hmmm:

[ikalugin]

Would that be the same Soviets that attacked Warsaw and were defeated nineteen years prior?
Same Soviets.
Same Russians that have partitioned Poland with Germans and Austrians.
Same Poles that were sitting in My Kremlin 336 years before the events of 1939 (discounting Polish troops under Napoleon).

One could always dig deeper. Plus in 1939 Poles were dreaming about a great empire of sorts and didn't know about General Plan East. So that suggestion was entirely retrospective.

[Cybermat47]

Anyway, there may be some few people in the world who want to argue about who "started" WWII, but I can tell you who finished it. :smug:

You can tell us when it's actually over :03:

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/abe-seeks-talks-with-putin-over-wwii-peace-treaty

[ikalugin]

Japanese are just slow. Remember all those people on random islands, who believed that the active shooting war was still ongoing decades after the autumn of 1945?

[HunterICX]

Would that be the same Soviets that attacked Warsaw and were defeated nineteen years prior? :hmmm:

Defeat? There's no such thing as defeat in the the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics it was just to fool the Poles that they could actually win over the Soviets and where proven horribly wrong years later.

[HunterICX]

Anyway, there may be some few people in the world who want to argue about who "started" WWII, but I can tell you who finished it. :smug:

This guy?
http://i.imgur.com/TxN5sPl.jpg?1

using these?
http://i.imgur.com/4lpkrOW.jpg?1

:D

[August]

So do you think that Hitler rage called Tojo on December 8th 1941 and said "I told you to attack the USSR not the USA!"

[Oberon]

So do you think that Hitler rage called Tojo on December 8th 1941 and said "I told you to attack the USSR not the USA!"

Tojo probably hadn't put his glasses on when he got the order.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/5/50734/1376621-tojo2.jpg
"SR? Chikushō!"

[U505995]

Well not to be blunt but the cause of WWII....
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/158/329/9189283.jpg

[Cybermat47]

Well not to be blunt but the cause of WWII....


Well, in Doctor Who, Hitler is both possessed by an alien (until Dunkirk) and encouraged by the Doctor to persevere after the Munich pustch, so you could be on to something.

[Fahnenbohn]

http://www.forumsig.org/images/smilies/new_extra/offtopic-929432.gif

We are talking about historical facts, not about movies.

[Onkel Neal]

Wait, now you want to switch to historical facts? Topic complete. :cool:

[Betonov]

Could it be ??
That WW2 was just an episode of a conflict between the UK and Germany for world dominance that started with the German unification in 1870 :hmmm:

Just look at it, WWI started due to colonial tensions and an industrial age arms race which peaked* in 1914-1918 and then reached a conclusion in 1945 when Germany and Britain both lost to the USSR and USA.


*peaked as when the bubble finally burst, WW2 was the peak of death and destruction

[Schroeder]

Could it be ??
That WW2 was just an episode of a conflict between the UK and Germany for world dominance that started with the German unification in 1870 :hmmm:

1871.:know:

[Betonov]

1871.:know:

After Sedan it was just a matter of signing the papers and placing the crown :03:

[Oberon]

Could it be ??
That WW2 was just an episode of a conflict between the UK and Germany for world dominance that started with the German unification in 1870 :hmmm:

Just look at it, WWI started due to colonial tensions and an industrial age arms race which peaked* in 1914-1918 and then reached a conclusion in 1945 when Germany and Britain both lost to the USSR and USA.


*peaked as when the bubble finally burst, WW2 was the peak of death and destruction

You could argue that way, although I'd slip France in there too, after all, one of the few things that Fahn has got right in this thread is when he pointed out the British and French rivalry. Before the unification of Germany the biggest threat to British dominance was France and vice versa, but Germanys sudden unification and crash course in industrialisation, not to mention its desire to try and get its own piece of the colonial pie despite arriving to the party when it had pretty much ended.

I remember a while ago I had a thought, that some wars can be seen as the end of empires, the First World War was definitely the end of Great Britains empire, although it took until the end of the Second World War for it to really start collapsing. Before that, one could say that the Napoleonic wars curbed the era of French domination, and the Thirty Years War saw the end of Spanish and Italian dominance which had risen during the Renaissance.

[August]

Before the unification of Germany the biggest threat to British dominance was France and vice versa

Didn't they end their rivalry earlier after the Crimean war?

[Betonov]

They ended mutual hatred.
Rivalry persisted to 1914 but the more Germany grew, the more the rivalry got friendly.

France had a large colonial empire and the British were somewhat threatened by it, while Germany had a sausage factory in Tanganyika. I think they saw Germany capable of taking on the Royal navy more than France and Germany being capable of forcing France to cede colonial territory to further threaten Britain.
I may contradict myself here but I hope you got the idea.

[Fahnenbohn]

Wait, now you want to switch to historical facts? Topic complete. :cool:

?

That WW2 was just an episode of a conflict between the UK and Germany for world dominance that started with the German unification in 1870.

Just look at it, WWI started due to colonial tensions and an industrial age arms race which peaked* in 1914-1918 and then reached a conclusion in 1945 when Germany and Britain both lost to the USSR and USA.

*peaked as when the bubble finally burst, WW2 was the peak of death and destruction

I tend to agree with you, except on the world dominance. No nation has ever claimed to rule the world.

And about WW1, the panslavisme was the true origin of it (I have also documents about that).

[Betonov]

Panslavism.
Do tell.
I'm a slav and I really want to hear about his one.

[Oberon]

Didn't they end their rivalry earlier after the Crimean war?

Unofficially you could say that the rivalry ended after the Napoleonic wars, but it wasn't put on to paper until the signing of the Entente Cordiale in 1904. The Cordiale probably would have been signed earlier but we were too busy arguing over who got what in Africa, we did dabble briefly with the idea of joining the Triple Alliance with Germany but in the end sided with France.
Then, of course there was the Russio-Japanese war which involved an ally from both France and Britain going to war with the other, which should have resulted in a war between France and Britain, but both of them decided that such a war would just strengthen Germany and so signed the Entente Cordiale to make sure that such a thing did not happen.

[Oberon]

Panslavism.
Do tell.
I'm a slav and I really want to hear about his one.

https://media.giphy.com/media/tOWyML1WPzKjm/giphy.gif

[Fahnenbohn]

Panslavism.
Do tell. I'm a slav and I really want to hear about his one.

OK, give me your mail adress, and I will send you the documents (in french).

Or maybe should I make them public ? Oh, Sailor Steve, I think we need another thread, haha !

[Betonov]

Make them public. In English.

[Jimbuna]

Maybe it's true. It can also be your own beliefs that are distorted by post-war propaganda.

Tell me, would you consider the atrocites committed at Oradour-sur-Glane in June 44 to be a part of post-war propaganda?

[Fahnenbohn]

Make them public. In English.

Let me first focus on the thread's subject : the origins and responsibilities of WWII.

[Fahnenbohn]

Tell me, would you consider the atrocites committed at Oradour-sur-Glane in June 44 to be a part of post-war propaganda?

Absolutely.
An investigation was also carried out on this point.

[Raptor1]

Let me first focus on the thread's subject : the origins and responsibilities of WWII.

The origins of World War I are directly relevant to World War II. I don't think this is off-topic.

I'd also like to know how Pan-Slavism can be responsible for the First World War while Germany's aggressive pursuit of Pan-Germanism was somehow not a factor in the start of the Second.

[Jimbuna]

Absolutely.
An investigation was also carried out on this point.

Then you're obviously out of kilter with those primary authorities which are far more knowledgeable:

On 6 June 2004, at the commemorative ceremony of the Normandy invasion in Caen, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder pledged that Germany would not forget the Nazi atrocities and specifically mentioned Oradour-sur-Glane.

On 4 September 2013, German president Joachim Gauck and French president François Hollande visited the ghost village of Oradour-sur-Glane. A joint news conference broadcast by the two leaders followed their tour of the site. This was the first time a German president had come to the site of one of the biggest World War II massacres on French soil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre

There are many sources out there should your conscience ever allow you to open your eyes and mind and enter the reality of the actual real world.

[Fahnenbohn]

The origins of World War I are directly relevant to World War II.

I think it's the contrary. ;)

[Fahnenbohn]

There are many sources out there should your conscience ever allow you to open your eyes and mind and enter the reality of the actual real world.

As I like to say : how the winners have treated Germany in 1918 was dismal and shameful. But that was even worse in 1945.

History is written by the winners, not by the losers. So the truth has to be established, and we have to work on historical facts and evidence. And sorry, the official historians HAVEN'T DONE THEIR JOB. Historians who are doing their job don't have the right to speak, and they are persecuted. Why ? Because it's always a lie that needs to be protected. The truth is sufficient unto itself.

About Oradour-sur-Glane, that's perfectly right that there was a human tragedy here. And no one disputes. But this is how events unfolded that was completely mystified by the French resistance. In particular, the death of women and children can't be attributed to the Germans.

But again, this is off-topic.

[mapuc]

This is a very interesting thread

[Fahnenbohn]

Before starting the subject, I would like to warn the forum's moderators.
There are laws in several countries that are condemning the public expression of some historical researches (Big Brother). So specify me right away what I don't have the right to say here (even if I give proper evidence).

*

[Tchocky]

The forum has it's own rules.

Follow those.

Nevermind how many international policemen are hunting you down for speaking the truth.

[Joefour]

The forum has it's own rules.

Follow those.

Nevermind how many international policemen are hunting you down for speaking the truth.


What you don't understand, sir, is that Fahnenbohn is living in France. I don't know the specifics of the french laws in question, but in several countries in Europe, France included, he could be jailed for even broaching a discussion of certain taboo subjects. What are the bastards afraid of?

Thank God I live in the United States where the 1st Amendment of the Constitution still reigns! (Well, sort of)

[mapuc]

In my countries Denmark and Sweden we have total free speech

If a person belief and try to convince other that Holocaust was a fake the person has the right to do so.


I guess I'm like the majority here at Subsim- been brainwashed by the winning side(the Allied) I can't wait for what I have missed.

Markus

[Tchocky]

What you don't understand, sir, is that Fahnenbohn is living in France.

I do know about the French laws. I think they're ridiculous but that's another conversation.

I'm not taking him very seriously because of the rather hilarious persecution complex going on throughout the thread, which is par for the course for the kind of these kind of people.

Those laws do a lot of damage because instead of standing up and being ridiculed for their ludicrous beliefs these sorts can pretend that Big Brother is stifling the truth.

As we can see here.

Thank God I live in the United States where the 1st Amendment of the Constitution still reigns! (Well, sort of)

It's the first one for a reason :up:

[Joefour]

In my countries Denmark and Sweden we have total free speech

If a person belief and try to convince other that Holocaust was a fake the person has the right to do so.


I guess I'm like the majority here at Subsim- been brainwashed by the winning side(the Allied) I can't wait for what I have missed.

Markus

I should have been more specific. Laws in France, Germany, and Austria.
Maybe a few other places also that have slipped my mind.

[mapuc]

I should have been more specific. Laws in France, Germany, and Austria.
Maybe a few other places also that have slipped my mind.


My father is from Germany so I know there are some restriction in that country.

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

First of all, as I've said more that once, this thread is about the claim that it was Britain and not Germany who started the war. Anything beyond that is off-topic, and I'll see that it's excluded and removed. So far no one has really debated this subject except the OP. Disagree if you like, but provide evidence to back up whatever you say. As for anything beyond that, my own personal ruling will be NO.

If Neal decides on a specific waiver to allow the thread to go beyond that in this one instance, then the more sensitive subjects will be discussed. If that doesn't happen, then I won't allow it.

I have my own ideas on the subject, but since we already have one moderator involved someone has to stay objective and actually moderate, and that leaves me.



[edit] Also, if it hasn't been apparent already, I plan to keep a very tight lid and a very tight grip on this. If you have a claim, be prepared to prove it. If your claim is that someone else's claim is wrong, prove it or don't say it.

[Joefour]

I do know about the French laws. I think they're ridiculous but that's another conversation.

I'm not taking him very seriously because of the rather hilarious persecution complex going on throughout the thread, which is par for the course for the kind of these kind of people.

Those laws do a lot of damage because instead of standing up and being ridiculed for their ludicrous beliefs these sorts can pretend that Big Brother is stifling the truth.

As we can see here.



It's the first one for a reason :up:

You don't have the power to put him in prison, but his government does.
Listen to what he has to say and if you disagree with him, then prove him wrong, IF you want an open and honest discussion. Ridiculing someone's statements with words like "ludicrous" or "conspiracy theories" borders on an AD HOMINEM attack-and that is an argument that has failed for the attacker.

I will quote one Fahnenbohn's countrymen, Voltaire--"I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

[Fahnenbohn]

My father is from Germany so I know there are some restriction in that country.

Surprising, isn't it ? :hmm2:

I will quote one Fahnenbohn's countrymen, Voltaire--"I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

:yeah:

[Sailor Steve]

...
Well said, and it should be obvious that I feel pretty much the same.

Just to make it doubly clear, in this particular case I plan to enforce it to the hilt. This will be a scholarly debate, and anything going beyond that from this point on will be deleted if I feel it necessary. This one won't get out of hand, because I'll close it if I think it's going too far.

[Fahnenbohn]

Also, if it hasn't been apparent already, I plan to keep a very tight lid and a very tight grip on this. If you have a claim, be prepared to prove it. If your claim is that someone else's claim is wrong, prove it or don't say it.

Just to make it doubly clear, in this particular case I plan to enforce it to the hilt. This will be a scholarly debate, and anything going beyond that from this point on will be deleted if I feel it necessary.

I totally agree with that.

[mapuc]

I'm going to follow Steve's advise and put my posting on hold. Going to follow the thread to see what kind of prof Fahnenbohn has.

Markus

[August]

What you don't understand, sir, is that Fahnenbohn is living in France. I don't know the specifics of the french laws in question, but in several countries in Europe, France included, he could be jailed for even broaching a discussion of certain taboo subjects. What are the bastards afraid of?

Well I question whether merely broaching a subject can actually get someone jailed but I guess it all depends on how it's broached right? :03: However in regards to laws like say Germany's ban on the swastika and other nazi symbols I see them as flawed strategies to marginalize the still alive and increasingly powerful European fascist movement.

[Fahnenbohn]

The only little problem is that all my documentation and many sources are in french. So, should I translate them first ? This can take a lot of time, because there are more than 30 pages (in small print) to translate just for our subject ... and 30 more pages for WWI origins ...

[Tchocky]

You don't have the power to put him in prison, but his government does.

Meh.

He seems to know that such laws exist and it's not our fault if he breaks them. I think the laws are stupid but it's still my fault if I run afoul of them.


Listen to what he has to say and if you disagree with him, then prove him wrong, IF you want an open and honest discussion.

I'd engage honestly if I thought he was doing the same thing.

Nothing about the way this thread has gone suggests that he is. I see a lot of highly selective historical reading, blatant ignorance of topics he professes a high degree of familiarity with, and a mindset that assumes anyone with contradictory information has been brainwashed or lied to.

As soon as other posters start engaging (Jimbuna, Oberon), suddenly there are "documents" that back up his nebulous claims, but only available in French.

Then it's a mystical hour-long "documentary" that is sadly only available in French.

Next - instead of arguing in support of his thesis suddenly the only thing we're supposed to do is prove him wrong.

Then he decides that we're all off-topic and he'll only continue in French. If we want him to explain we should post in French.

Of course being off-topic wasn't a problem when discussing conflicts that happened during the war between the Kriegsmarine and the Royal Navy.

You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason their way into.

I have zero interest in having a full and frank discussion here. There are better ways to spend one's time.


This might make me a bad forum user, but that is waaaaay down the priority list.

[Tchocky]

The only little problem is that all my documentation and many sources are in french. So, should I translate them first ? This can take a lot of time, because there are more than 30 pages (in small print) to translate just for our subject ... and 30 more pages for WWI origins ...

Here's a bright idea.

Post the names of the books you are translating so we can have a quick look for English versions/summaries.

Or the titles/authors of the documents.


Those wonderful documents.

[Fahnenbohn]

Well I question whether merely broaching a subject can actually get someone jailed but I guess it all depends on how it's broached right?

Not at all. Here in France, it's literally forbidden to express our opinions on certain historical subjects. Even historians are brought to justice. There is an OFFICIAL thesis (based on a contradictory story, by the bye), and you MUST believe in it.

Those laws do a lot of damage because instead of standing up and being ridiculed for their ludicrous beliefs these sorts can pretend that Big Brother is stifling the truth.

Yes, exactly. But it is the only way to prevent a debate to take place.
If revisionist thesis on Jews' extermination were wrong, it would be easy for historians to organize a debate in which they would eventually ridicule the liars. But what happens is the opposite ! The revisionist historians are asking for a debate for years, and the only answer is always : this historical fact is incontestable. So I say : we have the right to request proof of the official historians' competence prior to believe them. They have to debate... but now, it is forbidden ... strange, isn't it ?

[Tchocky]

Persecution is not validation of your premise.

Authors/titles?

[Joefour]

The only little problem is that all my documentation and many sources are in french. So, should I translate them first ? This can take a lot of time, because there are more than 30 pages (in small print) to translate just for our subject ... and 30 more pages for WWI origins ...

You might have to use a translation engine. I doubt if many on this particular forum can read french (pauvres sauvages).:)
It is primarily an english speaking group.

[Fahnenbohn]

Here's a bright idea.

Post the names of the books you are translating so we can have a quick look for English versions/summaries.

Or the titles/authors of the documents.

OK, I'm preparing this.

Just let me some time. This is a serious matter.

*

[Fahnenbohn]

Persecution is not validation of your premise.

I agree. But persecution is not justified neither.

[Tchocky]

I agree.

No you don't.

If revisionist thesis on Jews' extermination were wrong, it would be easy for historians to organize a debate in which they would eventually ridicule the liars. But what happens is the opposite !

[Fahnenbohn]

No you don't.

I agree because in theory you are right.

But in the facts, that's what happens in France, because persecution is the ONLY answer to the revisionist's thesis, which is far from ridiculous and light. Some historians have worked over 50 years of their life on the subject.

[Tchocky]

EDIT - It appears you've edited your post quite a bit.

Nevermind.

[Fahnenbohn]

Here is the bibliography of the study on the origin of WWI.

I have not completed the one about WWII, let me some time. I haven't reproduced all the documents here, only the most important ones.

*

Gustave Hervé, Nouvelle Histoire d’Europe (éd. de « La Victoire », Paris, 1931)

Georg Pfeilschifter, La culture allemande, le catholicisme et la guerre (éd. C.L. van Langenhuysen, Pays-Bas, 1916)

Henri Pozzi, Les Coupables (Éditions Européennes, Paris, 1935)

Henri Pozzi, La guerre revient (éd. Paul Berger, Paris, 1933)

[H. Pozzi], Black Hand over Europe, F. Mott and C°, [Londres, 1935]

P. Benaerts, L’unité allemande. 1806-1938 (éd. Armand Collin, 1948 [première édition de 1939])

Serge Cosseron et Philippe Faverjon, L’Europe de 1815 à nos jours (éd. La Manufacture, Besançon, 1991)

Raymond Poincaré, Les Balkans en feu (éd. Plon, Paris, réédition de 1945)

R. Poincaré, L’union sacrée (éd. Plon, Paris, 1927)

D. Stéfanovitch : Souvenirs et documents d’un diplomate serbe, manuscrit à paraître en 1937

Édouard Bénès, Détruisez l’Autriche-Hongrie, publiée à Paris en 1916

D. S. Sazonov, Les années fatales. Souvenirs de S. Sazonov. (éd. Payot, 1927) [D. S. Sazonov, Sechs Schwere Jahre, Berlin, 1927]

Maurice Paléologue, La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre (éd. Plon, Paris, 1922)

Le Livre Rouge austro-hongrois. Pièces diplomatiques concernant les antécédents de la guerre 1914 (Vienne, 1915)

British Documents on the Origins of the War [1898-1914], [London : His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1926], vol. XI

Un Livre Noir. Diplomatie d’avant guerre d’après les documents des archives russes (éd. La Librarie du Travail, s. d.)

Le Livre blanc allemand. Traduction autorisée. Documents sur les préliminaires de la guerre augmentés de documents nouveaux

Archives diplomatiques serbes, Présidence du Conseil, visas Pacù-Pachicht, case 19, dossier 11/B, folio 7 : « Pétersbourg », 2/15 juillet à 18/31 juillet 1914.

*

[Kongo Otto]

Do please share these "facts" I've probably never heard about.

Of course you have never heard of them, pretty obviously you are not wearing a tinfoil hat or are deliberatley not taking your medication like some other "person".

[Sailor Steve]

If revisionist thesis on Jews' extermination were wrong, it would be easy for historians to organize a debate in which they would eventually ridicule the liars.
First of all, as I've said more that once, this thread is about the claim that it was Britain and not Germany who started the war. Anything beyond that is off-topic, and I'll see that it's excluded and removed.
I'm letting your post stand in full, but this is your unofficial warning. I made sure the thread had the title it needed, and it will stay on that topic.

[Nippelspanner]

Tell me, would you consider the atrocites committed at Oradour-sur-Glane in June 44 to be a part of post-war propaganda?

Absolutely.
An investigation was also carried out on this point.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/57505931.jpg

[Cybermat47]

^^^

That's probably the best response.

Also, Fahnenbohn, take note of were Nippelspanner lives.

[Oberon]

Speaking of geography, we do seem to get a higher percentage of WWII revisionists from France, don't we? I recall our other resident Occidental expert (TM) is from the land of Le Pen.

Smells very Vichy to me. :hmmm:

[Tchocky]

You, sir, have been waiting to use that one!

[ikalugin]

Atleast this isnt Rezun aka Suvorov (and revisionists who use his stuff to go further). I mean how could we blame good old NAZIs, who didn't just defend themselves against evill backstabing barbarians of the east, barbarians who attacked first, but also tried to bring superior western enlightment, prosperity and culture to those barbarians?

[Catfish]

[...] Smells very Vichy to me. :hmmm:

"Name the French capital! Hint: it has five letters."
"When, exactly?"
:O:

[Jimbuna]

Meh.

He seems to know that such laws exist and it's not our fault if he breaks them. I think the laws are stupid but it's still my fault if I run afoul of them.




I'd engage honestly if I thought he was doing the same thing.

Nothing about the way this thread has gone suggests that he is. I see a lot of highly selective historical reading, blatant ignorance of topics he professes a high degree of familiarity with, and a mindset that assumes anyone with contradictory information has been brainwashed or lied to.

As soon as other posters start engaging (Jimbuna, Oberon), suddenly there are "documents" that back up his nebulous claims, but only available in French.

Then it's a mystical hour-long "documentary" that is sadly only available in French.

Next - instead of arguing in support of his thesis suddenly the only thing we're supposed to do is prove him wrong.

Then he decides that we're all off-topic and he'll only continue in French. If we want him to explain we should post in French.

Of course being off-topic wasn't a problem when discussing conflicts that happened during the war between the Kriegsmarine and the Royal Navy.

You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason their way into.

I have zero interest in having a full and frank discussion here. There are better ways to spend one's time.


This might make me a bad forum user, but that is waaaaay down the priority list.

No sir, you are not a bad forum user and your above views are probably shared by others around these parts.

This is what becomes of debates from time to time and frustrations often ensue as a consequence.

I have to admire the way Steve is overseeing matters because of my involvement, moderation is nearly always a double-edged sword (that should earn me a pint the next time we meet :)).

I tend to agree with what you have posted but I think it always the best option to have taken part, especially on topics that are pertinent to the memories of those who fought (on either side), many of whom made the ultimate sacrifice to maintain freedom and ridding the world of tyranny.

I can't honestly say if I'm pleased or not that my grandfather and father aren't around to read this thread.

Long may the debate continue but I fear it will all come to naught.

[Fahnenbohn]

Speaking of geography, we do seem to get a higher percentage of WWII revisionists from France, don't we? I recall our other resident Occidental expert (TM) is from the land of Le Pen. Smells very Vichy to me.

Haha ! Le Pen was on the side of Vichy ?

In November 1944, the young Jean-Marie, 16 years old, attempted to engage in the FFI (French Forces of the Interior = the local resistance) in the Free Corps commanded by Colonel Henri de La Vaissière ("Valin"). He himself came at the PC (command post) of Sainte-Anne d'Auray, and at the PC of Carnac.

Valin replied: "A number of young people have increades their age in signing their commitment procedure without the knowledge of their parents. Several were killed. Now order is given to ensure that our volunteers have well over 18 years old. Think of your mother !" (her father was dead on a mine at sea).

[Fahnenbohn]

Fahnenbohn, take note of were Nippelspanner lives.

Yes, and he's not the only one. This shows how re-educated the Germans have been after WWII, in order to hate themself and be american vassals. And this is not an insult, this is a fact.

Now, let's talk about our subject. You are always trying to change of subject.

[Tchocky]

This shows how re-educated the Germans have been after WWII, in order to hate themself and be american vassals. And this is not an insult, this is a fact.


Oh look, a wonderful example of why nobody is taking you seriously. You don't know the difference between your opinion on something and what the actual facts are.

You're confusing an interpretation with a fact.

Stop doing that.

Or, you know, whatever.

[ikalugin]

Well, I think that Germans do need to be a bit more assertive as a nation.

Improving police and armed forces may be a start. Especially the later - Bundeswehr is a shadow of it's former self. I mean Poland is stronger than they are, and we are forming 3 new divisions on the western axis.

[August]

The revisionist historians are asking for a debate for years, and the only answer is always : this historical fact is incontestable.

That's because it IS incontestable. Few events in human history have been as well documented as the holocaust. The nazis were ruthless murderers and thugs who deserved every bit of what they got from the world and no one but their supporters and apologists thinks otherwise.

So I say : we have the right to request proof of the official historians' competence prior to believe them. They have to debate... but now, it is forbidden ... strange, isn't it ?

So what constitutes proof of competence to you? Their academic credentials or is it whether their assessment jibes with what you want it to be?

The fact is I have complete confidence in their competence as does the entire world except for a few nazi supporters and apologists. I also have complete confidence in the millions of first hand accounts from the survivors themselves as well as the Allied soldiers who overran and uncovered these nazi death camps.

There is no doubt of nazi guilt except in the minds of those unable or unwilling to accept the truth. Which one are you?

[Fahnenbohn]

That's because it IS incontestable. [...] The fact is I have complete confidence in their competence.

This is fabulous ! You are saying that one side is right BEFORE the debate has took place. Really fabulous ! :rotfl2:

This is obvious that you never heard about revisionists's thesis. Otherwise, you would not say that they are nasty liars ! ...

Bye.

[Fahnenbohn]

Here is the bibliography of the study on the origin of WWII.

*

René Moulin, La Paix Assassinée (Librairie Académique Perrin, 1941).

Galeazzo Ciano, Journal Politique, 1939-1943, tome I (Presse Française et Étrangère, Paris).

Paul Schmidt, Sur la scène internationale. Ma figuration après de Hitler. 1933-1945 (éd. Plon, 1950)

V. Reynouard, Les Crimes « Libérateurs » contre la Paix [auto-édité, 1995]

P. Allard, Les Provocateurs à la Guerre, (Les Éditions de France, 1941)

A. Hillgruber, Les entretiens secrets de Hitler (Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1969)

Jean Montigny, France, libère-toi ! (Imprimerie commerciale de « La Sarthe », 1939)

Jean Montigny, Le complot contre la paix (éd. la Table Ronde, 1966),

Paul Faure, De Munich à la Cinquième République (éd. L’Élan, s.d.)

J. von Ribbentrop, Londres, Moscou. Mémoires (éd. Grasset, Paris, 1954)

Comte Galeazzo Ciano, Journal Politique, 1939-1943, t. I (éd. de la Baconnière, Neuchâtel, 1946)

Stéphane Rials, Textes Constitutionnels Français (P.U.F., collection « Que sais-je? », 1989)

Albert Lebrun, Témoignage (éd. Plon, 1945)

Pierre Monton et J. Rinaldi, Le Mensonge de Daladier « Un crime contre la France » (Éditions Jean-Renard, 1942)

Yves-Frédéric Jaffré, Les derniers propos de Pierre Laval (éd. André Bonne, 1953)

Le Livre Jaune Français (Imprimerie Nationale, 1939).

100 Documents relatifs à l’histoire des origines de la guerre (édité par le Service d’Informations allemand, Berlin, s.d.)

Documents Diplomatiques Français, 1932-1939, deuxième série (1936-1939), Tome XIX (Imprimerie nationale, 1986), Addenda I et II

Rapport définitif de sir Nevile Hendernson. Sur les circonstances qui ont déterminé la fin de sa mission à Berlin. 20 septembre 1939 (Paris, 1939)

Les relations polono-allemandes et polono-soviétiques au cours de la période 1933-1939. Recueil de documents officiels (éd. Flammarion, mars 1940), pièce n° 10

Journal Officiel de la République Française, Débats parlementaires, Sénat, Séance du samedi 2 septembre 1939

Journal Officiel du 3 septembre 1939, Débats parlementaires, n° 59, Chambre des Députés, 16ème législature, session extraordinaire de 1939, Compte rendu in extenso, 1ère séance, Séance du 2 septembre 1939

Haute Cour de Justice, Procès du Maréchal Pétain, 11ème fascicule

Le procès Laval. Compte rendu sténographique (éd. Albin Michel, 1946)

*

[Catfish]

[...] This shows how re-educated the Germans have been after WWII, in order to hate themself and be american vassals. And this is not an insult, this is a fact.

The re-education is of course a fact.
That does not automatically imply that it consisted partially or completely of outright lies.
Nor does it imply that the killings of minorities did not take place.
Some facts, please, and not a book list.


Also, i find it always "interesting", how - on one side - the killing is outright denied, but on the other hand the people claiming the denial obviously have not much sympathy for those minorities, may it be back then or today. So they do have an agenda, and one can easily deduct what would happen, if those people came to power again.

Regardless who started the war, there can be no doubt that the removal of Hitler was a very good decision.

[Rockin Robbins]

The facts are long established and debate is inappropriate and an insult to the millions of murdered victims.

You know what? I say World War II was started by nobody because World War II took place only on movie lots, in novels posing as "history" and in the imaginations of sick people. You can't prove otherwise and shouldn't be believed unless you debate me about it. Refusal to debate me results in proving I am right.

If you debate me you prove that the existence of World War II is in question. If you refuse I can pretend that you grant that I am right because you are "afraid" to debate me. It's a fine and bully game you play and it's pretty ridiculous.

[SS107.9MHz]

*Please either debate the topic or stay out of it*

[Fahnenbohn]

... on the other hand the people claiming the denial obviously have not much sympathy for those minorities, may it be back then or today.

That's wrong. Even some Jewish intellectuals and rabbis admit that revisionits say the truth. And the only question here is : is it right or wrong ? and not : is it "good" or "bad".

Regardless who started the war, there can be no doubt that the removal of Hitler was a very good decision.

From whose point of view ? ... Certainly not from the german one !

[Sailor Steve]

Okay, I will say this one more time: The argument arose as to who actually started the war. I've already asked the we stick to that subject and no other. If you have something add to that topic, say so and show your case. If not, please stop making snarky remarks and just stay out of it.

[Rockin Robbins]

Benito Mussolini started the war. He was the model for the autocratic, insane monster that Germany became. Since rabid dogs cannot be reasoned with they must be killed. Germany was and deservedly so. They are better for it today.

[Fahnenbohn]

Some facts, please, and not a book list.

All the text has to be translated in english first. Here is my problem : there are many complexe sentences, technical expressions, and full of subtleties quotes. A mistranslation could be responsible for misunderstandings or even misinterpretations. The text has to be translated in good english.

So here is what I propose :

- I need english speaking volunteers to translate into English some portions of the text.
- They ask me questions when they don't understand the meaning of a sentence.
- Then they give me their translation so I check that there are no errors.
- Finally, I will publish the results here.

F.

[Nippelspanner]

Yes, and he's not the only one. This shows how re-educated the Germans have been after WWII, in order to hate themself and be american vassals. And this is not an insult, this is a fact.

Now, let's talk about our subject. You are always trying to change of subject.
Please, enlighten me about my education? The topics of WW2 and Hitler/his rise to power and fall came up quite a bit, yes. But I do not remember that any of my teachers taught me to hate myself for it, or blame myself.
You do have a point when we talk about our politicians, because most of them act exactly that way - but on educational level?
Maybe you should stop commenting on things you don't know Jack about?
Also, I am the last German who rides the ridiculous shame-lane for something my ancestors did. I was born in the 80's, I won't be blamed for anything before that - nice try to swoosh away someone's arguments with unfounded and blatant accusations/claims, however.
Closing, boy, you really, REALLY picked the wrong guy to call an "American vassal" (:har:), but there is no point in explaining or arguing with you.

You have your truth - everyone else is wrong, indoctrinated, ill-advised, a propaganda victim or .

This isn't how this works, by the way.
To quote yourself:
@ Sailor Steve : You see ? :nope: Impossible discussion. This is MAGIC !
Exactly. Impossible - when 'everyone else is just wrong!'

I just realized, I have to quote you again:
I'm requesting the moderator to stop this sort of hateful posts. Where is the debate in this post ? Nowhere, except a link (wikipedia), all the rest is useless and disrespecting. If this sort of posts are still allowed, then I stop immediately the debate.
[I]You are talking respect?
As far as I know, Robert Hebras, (one of what, 6 or 7 survivors?) is still alive. He lost his mother and two sisters that day. Do I have to explain how insulting, hurtful and disrespectful your ridiculous claims are for people who survived this crime - or others?

Also, respect is something you earn, not demand - but how could you possibly know that? So go figure why some people here only have very direct words for your kind.

I don't even know where I get it from myself....It's probably the pills....
Can I have some, please? :shifty:

[Joefour]

Okay, I will say this one more time: The argument arose as to who actually started the war. I've already asked the we stick to that subject and no other. If you have something add to that topic, say so and show your case. If not, please stop making snarky remarks and just stay out of it.

Here, here! I've been following this thread this morning and all I see is that these people are not allowing this man to make his points with their slings and arrows coming from all directions.

[Nippelspanner]

Here, here! I've been following this thread this morning and all I see is that these people are not allowing this man to make his points with their slings and arrows coming from all directions.Oh please. He doesn't make any points! He makes claims and promotes absurd beliefs and the people don't fall for that, that's all!

[Joefour]

Oh please. He doesn't make any points! He makes claims and promotes absurd beliefs and the people don't fall for that, that's all!

You aren't allowing him to make any points. I for one, want to hear what he has to say!

[Fahnenbohn]

[I] have [my] truth [...] everyone else is wrong.

That's exactly YOUR attitude. For you : I'm wrong, even before I started to explain why the truth is deformed by the official story. You can't even consider that your belief is false and your judgment is biased.

My attitude is : I think I'm right, let me explain why, and perhaps you have better arguments to give me.

You'll convince no one by just saying that I'm wrong. You'll have to prove that my arguments are not valid.

*

[Catfish]

From whose point of view ? ... Certainly not from the german one !

What about german jews, of the time?

[MLF]

I have been following this "debate" with "interest".

Some book titles have been put forward by Fahnenbohn supposedly supporting his views. As those books/papers are in French Fahnenbohn has requested time to get the relevant supporting documentation translated into English. I would like to suggest that this thread is locked/closed until Fahnenbohn has his documentation translated and available and a new thread opened as a formal debate rather than this constant revolving around a fluid motion which can only fail/end up in tears. This could also give others time to get together material as a counter argument - if anyone is really interested.

No smileys or capitals in bold as this is a very emotive subject.

Regards,

MLF

[Oberon]

Well, to get over this language barrier, why not use Google Translate?

https://translate.google.co.uk/

Post the original French, then Google translate it, and then that will get the very basic element of what you're trying to get across, and if there are any bits that get lost in translation then we can fix them as we find them.

https://youtu.be/CxDGtu-aMi0?t=245

[Betonov]

You aren't allowing him to make any points. I for one, want to hear what he has to say!

This is not a in-person forum, one cannot shout over the other here.
You type, submit, it shows. If 10 others type at the same time your post will still show.

About panslavism and WW1.
Russia had no intentions of uniting the slavic nations under one flag. They had Serbia as an ally and a presence in the Balkans. They didn't really care about Slovenes and Croats under the Habsburg yoke.
Serbia would have had ideas of a panslavic country in the Balkans with Slovenes and Croats and they knew Austria-Hungary was sick. But they weren't dumb enough to agregate A-H directly.
Gavrillo princip and the Black hand worked alone, without Belgrade. When the assasination was done Belgrade begged and pleaded to Wien to defuse the situation peacefully. Unfortunately for the world, Franz Joseph was already demented and still living in the age of chilvary and war was the only honorable thing to do. The rest as they say is history.
It wasn't really panslavism, it was a demented Austrian emperor.

[HunterICX]

You'll convince no one by just saying that I'm wrong. You'll have to prove that my arguments are not valid.

*

You still have to start proving any of the arguments and claims you've made in this thread so why don't you start instead of making more claims and excuses when people ask about them to be backed up. So stop dodging the requests of that work you have and provide them (That they're in French matters little we can get the idea using raw translations from online and perhaps there are some other French people on this board who will bother to post the properly translated version of your work or you do it yourself in due time.)

-Your work of who started World War II according to you and those true historians.

-This video that proves the millions books people have red about history are wrong.

-Which investigation of Oradour sur Glane that the Das Reich Division of the Waffen SS that shot the men and burned the women and children in that church is post-war propaganda.

Provide it.

[Nippelspanner]

You aren't allowing him to make any points. I for one, want to hear what he has to say!
Don't even start this kind of BS with me, will ya?
I can't stop him from saying ANYTHING, therefore your whole accusation is moot.

That's exactly YOUR attitude. For you : I'm wrong, even before I started to explain why the truth is deformed by the official story. You can't even consider that your belief is false and your judgment is biased.

My attitude is : I think I'm right, let me explain why, and perhaps you have better arguments to give me.

You'll convince no one by just saying that I'm wrong. You'll have to prove that my arguments are not valid.

*
I do not have to prove your absurd claims to be wrong - you are the one who has to deliver here, not me.
What you say goes against everything in our history books and don't even start with "history is written by the victor", which is nothing but a cheap excuse to, again, dismiss someone's argument with a catchphrase that is nothing but that - a phrase.

Usually, I don't care about nutcases like you, but when you start to make claims that disrespect those who had to endure it, the fun ends - especially when you try to play the "muh respect, duh!" card!

[Joefour]

Don't even start this kind of BS with me, will ya?
I can't stop him from saying ANYTHING, therefore your whole accusation is moot.


I do not have to prove your absurd claims to be wrong - you are the one who has to deliver here, not me.
What you say goes against everything in our history books and don't even start with "history is written by the victor", which is nothing but a cheap excuse to, again, dismiss someone's argument with a catchphrase that is nothing but that - a phrase.

Usually, I don't care about nutcases like you, but when you start to make claims that disrespect those who had to endure it, the fun ends - especially when you try to play the "muh respect, duh!" card!

Now that WAS an AD HOMINUM attack. This type of argument would never hold up in a court of law.

Veritas delenda est.
Requiescat in pace.

[Jimbuna]

You aren't allowing him to make any points. I for one, want to hear what he has to say!

On the contrary, I'm of the opinion he has had many an opportunity.

Sailor Steve
#21 but since Jim is already involved I decided I needed to stay out and play referee
Jimbuna
#31 categoric assurances from Steve and now me publicly, there will be nobody getting banned provided forum rules are adhered to

The above means I post on this without moderation capability/capacity.

MLF
#162 I would like to suggest that this thread is locked/closed until Fahnenbohn has his documentation translated and available and a new thread opened as a formal debate

I beg to differ, categoric assurances have been given to Fahnenbohn and any further thread on the matter would be surplus to requirements and most certainly one more too many considering the course this subject has taken and would come back into my remit.

I'm appealing to you all as a forum member to remain calm and act sensibly because this thread is beginning to look like a no-win (no pun intended) situation for anyone and least of all Steve and potentially eventually Neal.

[Fahnenbohn]

I do not have to prove your absurd claims to be wrong - you are the one who has to deliver here, not me.

Good, so don't say that what I say is absurd before I've started to speak.

What you say goes against everything in our history books and don't even start with "history is written by the victor".

For having a better idea on the official story, please see here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR8OKJ8JO3A

[Raptor1]

If this material is so massive that it requires a multi-person translation effort, then I suggest you condense the information you think is important to a post (or a few) detailing your main claims and arguments supporting them. Anything else that you'd like can be brought in as needed. It'll be easier to stay on topic when there's something to debate about it, and it's also easier to discuss points made on the forum rather than trying to infer them from a reference document. This is a discussion forum, after all.

[Sailor Steve]

@ Fahnenbohn: Okay, stop right there. I've said several times that this thread was to be about your original claim, which was that the British started the Second World War. Now we have a link to a discussion on Britain's most famous Holocaust denier? You need to show me what that has to do with the subject. I'm waiting for a response from Neal concerning other subjects. Until you get my go-ahead or refusal, the topic is who started the war.

Stick to it.

@ Everybody: I too am getting tired of the attacks. Either say something about the subject or don't say anything.

[Joefour]

@ Fahnenbohn: Okay, stop right there. I've said several times that this thread was to be about your original claim, which was that the British started the Second World War. Now we have a link to a discussion on Britain's most famous Holocaust denier? You need to show me what that has to do with the subject. I'm waiting for a response from Neal concerning other subjects. Until you get my go-ahead or refusal, the topic is who started the war.

Stick to it.

@ Everybody: I too am getting tired of the attacks. Either say something about the subject or don't say anything.

Thank you, Steve.
I was beginning to worry that Fahnenbohn and this entire thread was going to be shouted down.

[Nippelspanner]

:hmmm:

Ah, right!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51qsGb-V3qL._SY355_.jpg

[Fahnenbohn]

It'll be easier to stay on topic when there's something to debate about it, and it's also easier to discuss points made on the forum rather than trying to infer them from a reference document.

Thank you, this is my wish too. But as you see, I'm permanently attacked by people who are behaving like children.

So now, please wait for having my explanation rather than saying unnecessary things.

[STEED]

For having a better idea on the official story, please see here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR8OKJ8JO3A

David Irving is a Hitler supporter and said many times the Holocaust was the work of others and Hitler played no part. This is a very sensitive area, David Irving went as far as questioning the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Yes I have read a couple of his books and I wonder if David Irving has read Commandant of Auschwitz by Rudolf Hoess.

[Betonov]

Speaking of the holocaust. Jews weren't the only victims.
Homosexuals, gypsies, slavs... They just gave jews priority, the war was over before they would have started to ''clean'' Yugoslavia.
As far as I'm concerned my grandparents we're on their kill list and an atempted murder of my grandparents is an atempted murder of me. That's why I may be a little personaly involved in this.

[Sailor Steve]

Speaking of the holocaust.
But we are specifically not doing that. We're speaking of who started the war.

[Betonov]

But we are specifically not doing that. We're speaking of who started the war.

The Nazis.

Nazis invaded Poland September 1st and set in motion the alliance system that brought Britain and France into the conflict.
Yes, Britain did declare war on Germany and not vice versa, but after Germany invaded an ally and refused to back out after repeated attempt by London to defuse the situation.

[MLF]

September 18, 1931
Japan invades Manchuria.

October 2, 1935–May 1936
Fascist Italy invades, conquers, and annexes Ethiopia.

October 25–November 1, 1936
Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy sign a treaty of co-operation on October 25; on November 1, the Rome-Berlin Axis is announced.

November 25, 1936
Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan sign the Anti-Comintern Pact, directed against the Soviet Union and the international Communist movement.

July 7, 1937
Japan invades China, initiating World War II in the Pacific.

March 11–13, 1938
Germany incorporates Austria in the Anschluss.

September 29, 1938
Germany, Italy, Great Britain, and France sign the Munich agreement which forces the Czechoslovak Republic to cede the Sudetenland, including the key Czechoslovak military defense positions, to Nazi Germany.

March 14–15, 1939
Under German pressure, the Slovaks declare their independence and form a Slovak Republic. The Germans occupy the rump Czech lands in violation of the Munich agreement, forming a Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

March 31, 1939
France and Great Britain guarantee the integrity of the borders of the Polish state.

April 7–15, 1939
Fascist Italy invades and annexes Albania.

August 23, 1939
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union sign a nonaggression agreement and a secret codicil dividing eastern Europe into spheres of influence.

September 1, 1939
Germany invades Poland, initiating World War II in Europe.

Source:= http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007306

[Nippelspanner]

The Nazis.

Nazis invaded Poland September 1st and set in motion the alliance system that brought Britain and France into the conflict.
Yes, Britain did declare war on Germany and not vice versa, but after Germany invaded an ally and refused to back out after repeated attempt by London to defuse the situation.
But... but... I...? :06:

[Betonov]

But... but... I...? :06:

Yes dear ally from a centruy ago ??

[Nippelspanner]

Yes dear ally from a centruy ago ??
It can't be that easy! ... can it?`:o

[Betonov]

It can't be that easy! ... can it?`:o

It's not.
If you go further back.
No nazis without German defeat in WW1, no WW1 without colonial tensions, no colonial tensions without a unified Germany....
Considering how history can be connected we can blame WW2 on Fred Flintstone

[Oberon]

The Nazis.

Nazis invaded Poland September 1st and set in motion the alliance system that brought Britain and France into the conflict.
Yes, Britain did declare war on Germany and not vice versa, but after Germany invaded an ally and refused to back out after repeated attempt by London to defuse the situation.

Well, technically it was Imperial Japan, but at that point it wasn't a world war...in fact, you probably couldn't call it a world war until 1941, but the first shots of World War II were most likely during Japans conquests of China.

Actually, I guess if you really wanted to go there you could say that the first shots of World War II were fired in Sarajevo in 1914...

So it was all Serbias fault! :O:

[Fahnenbohn]

... I wonder if David Irving has read Commandant of Auschwitz by Rudolf Hoess.

I know this man and his book, and I could say you a lot of things about them. But this is not our subject for now.

[Joefour]

David Irving is a Hitler supporter and said many times the Holocaust was the work of others and Hitler played no part. This is a very sensitive area, David Irving went as far as questioning the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Yes I have read a couple of his books and I wonder if David Irving has read Commandant of Auschwitz by Rudolf Hoess.

I too have read some of Irvings stuff, and I find it interesting, to say the least. And he has quite a bit on the start of WWII (like, who fired the first shot?). The thing is, all his detractors do is call him names and fire off stink bombs at his private presentations. To date, as far as I know, no one will publically debate him. I find that little factoid even MORE interesting.

[Catfish]

[...]
March 31, 1939
France and Great Britain guarantee the integrity of the borders of the Polish state.

[...]

August 23, 1939
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union sign a nonaggression agreement and a secret codicil dividing eastern Europe into spheres of influence.

[edit: how about "dividing Poland"]

September 1, 1939
Germany invades Poland, initiating World War II in Europe.


And on September 17th, 1939, 16 days after Nazi Germany invaded Poland from the west, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east.
The invasion and battle lasted for the following 20 days and ended on October 6th, 1939 with the two-way division and annexation of the entire territory of the Second Polish Republic by both Germany and the Soviet Union.

Then, England declared war to Germany. Because England did not "guarantee Poland's borders".
It only guaranteed Poland help in case of Germany violating Poland's borders.

[Joefour]

The Nazis.

Nazis invaded Poland September 1st and set in motion the alliance system that brought Britain and France into the conflict.
Yes, Britain did declare war on Germany and not vice versa, but after Germany invaded an ally and refused to back out after repeated attempt by London to defuse the situation.

Yes, but WHY did Germany invade Poland? That is the bone of contention, which should be in my opinion, the focus of this entire thread.

[Betonov]

Yes, but WHY did Germany invade Poland? That is the bone of contention, which should be in my opinion, the focus of this entire thread.

Lebensraum.
First to retake Ostpreusen they lost to Poland after WW1 and then expand to Russia to make room for the colonies were Germans will till fields and breed a master rase. At the expense of the slavs living there.

Hitler didn't want to go to war with France and England. He hoped the west would see him as a guardian against the USSR but miscalculated.

[Dowly]

To date, as far as I know, no one will publically debate him.That is because as a historian he has no credibility left.

I would recommend to read through the transcripts from the Irving v. Lipstadt case: http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/

[Fahnenbohn]

I dont agree at all.

No nazis without German defeat in WW1.

No nazis without Treaty of Versailles.

No WW1 without colonial tensions

No WW1 without ... wait for my presentation !

No colonial tensions without a unified Germany.

As Hitler said : " If forty-six million Englishmen claim the right to rule over forty million square kilometers of the earth, it cannot be wrong for eighty-two million Germans to demand the right to live on 800,000 square kilometers ".

[Joefour]

And on September 17th, 1939, 16 days after Nazi Germany invaded Poland from the west, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east.
The invasion and battle lasted for the following 20 days and ended on October 6th, 1939 with the two-way division and annexation of the entire territory of the Second Polish Republic by both Germany and the Soviet Union.

Then, England declared war to Germany. Because England did not "guarantee Poland's borders".
It only guaranteed Poland help in case of Germany violating Poland's borders.

So why didn't Britain declare war ALSO on the Soviet Union for invading Poland from the east? Instead, she allied herself with the russians. Makes no logical sense to me whatsoever, that is, unless something else was going on that we don't know about. Perhaps this should be explored too.

[STEED]

Who started WW2?

As in person or persons and are we taking into account cause and effect from past History? How far back do you go to find the very first domino that knocked down the rest? Or is this just a general question without going back and just focus on 1939.

[Oberon]

So why didn't Britain declare war ALSO on the Soviet Union for invading Poland from the east? Instead, she allied herself with the russians. Makes no logical sense to me whatsoever, that is, unless something else was going on that we don't know about. Perhaps this should be explored too.

Hitler launched his invasion first, there was debate on the possibility of declaring war on Russia, around about the time that Russia and Finland went to war I believe, but it was decided that to fight both Russia and Germany would be suicidal.
Then when Hitler declared war on Russia it was simply a case of 'My enemies enemy is my friend', Britain had no real love for the Soviet Union, heck we drew up plans to declare war on them after WWII had finished but they were thrown out as being suicidal, but Russia had the resources to defeat Germany, Britain did not, and so by supporting Russia and keeping Russia in the war, it both tied up the bulk of German forces on the other side of Europe from Britain, thus stopping Hitler from thinking about reinventing Sealion, and it gave a better chance of Germany being defeated, or at the very least keeping the war going long enough for the UK to persuade the USA to get fully involved.

[Bilge_Rat]

yes, saying the Nazis are responsible for WW2 is a bit like saying that the Americans were responsible for the American Revolution because they started the fighting. :D

The root causes of WW2 can easily be traced back to the Treaty of Versailles which was imposed by Britain and France on Germany, carving up German territory and imposing punitive reparation payments.

This had the twin effect of weakening the Weimar republic/German democracy from the start since they had agreed to the Treaty and weakening the German economy since vast amounts of wealth had to be transferred from Germany to Britain/France to pay them.

In addition, Germany was obliged to borrow large sums from the U.S. simply to pay the reparation payments to Britain/France. This had the additional effect that when the depression hit and U.S. loans stopped, the German economy collapsed. Germany was the european country hardest hit by the depression with 6 million unemployed.

All these factors allowed the Nazis to take power in Germany which led to WW2.

If the Versailles treaty had been more fair, more along the line of Wilson's 14 points and if the Weimar Republic had been supported, the Nazis do not come to power and WW2 does not happen.

...so yes, Britain and France are responsible for WW2...:ping:

p.s. - As I have stated previously, one of the best books to understand WW2 is "The Wages of Destruction" by Tooze. He goes into the pre-war economic forces in much more detail then I ever could. Highly recommended reading.

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Wages-Destruction-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208

[Fahnenbohn]

So why didn't Britain declare war ALSO on the Soviet Union for invading Poland from the east? Instead, she allied herself with the russians. Makes no logical sense to me whatsoever, that is, unless something else was going on that we don't know about. Perhaps this should be explored too.

Indeed.

[Mr Quatro]

Well, technically it was Imperial Japan, but at that point it wasn't a world war...in fact, you probably couldn't call it a world war until 1941, but the first shots of World War II were most likely during Japans conquests of China.


Correct :yep: How could there be a World War without the USA declaring war on Germany after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor?

The debate now has centered on Germany or England anything else is after those two fired the first shots at each other and by the way when was that?

[Raptor1]

No nazis without Treaty of Versailles.

While I don't think that Nazi ideology would necessarily not have developed without the Treaty of Versailles, it would have been less likely for them to come into power.

So why didn't Britain declare war ALSO on the Soviet Union for invading Poland from the east? Instead, she allied herself with the russians. Makes no logical sense to me whatsoever, that is, unless something else was going on that we don't know about. Perhaps this should be explored too.

Britain didn't ally itself with the Soviet Union at the time, it (and France) just failed to declare war on it. This was likely a pragmatic decision to avoid cementing a German-Soviet alliance or fighting a two-front war.

[MLF]

1939
23 août

Le pacte germano-soviétique

L'URSS et l'Allemagne signe à Moscou un pacte de non-agression valable pour 10 ans. Un protocole secret répartit leur zone d'influence en Europe de l'Est. Hitler, qui obtient ainsi la neutralité de l'URSS, déclarera la guerre à la Pologne le 1er septembre. Staline en profitera alors pour agresser la Finlande, annexer les pays baltes et envahir la Roumanie. Ce pacte sera rompu lorsque Hitler lancera une attaque contre l'URSS le 22 juin 1941.
Voir aussi : Dossier histoire de l' URSS - Hitler - Staline - Histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale

Source :- http://www.linternaute.com/histoire/categorie/57/a/1/1/histoire_de_la_deuxieme_guerre_mondiale.shtml


Google Translate

1939
August 23

The Nazi-Soviet pact

The USSR and Germany signed in Moscow a valid non-aggression pact for 10 years. A secret protocol divides their area of influence in Eastern Europe. Hitler, who thus obtained the neutrality of the USSR declared war on Poland on September 1. Stalin then take the opportunity to attack Finland, annexing the Baltics and invade Romania. This pact will be broken when Hitler launch an attack against the USSR June 22, 1941.
See also: Folder history of the USSR - Hitler - Stalin - History of WWII

[Joefour]

That is because as a historian he has no credibility left.

I would recommend to read through the transcripts from the Irving v. Lipstadt case: http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/

That's not an answer. No one has EVER to my knowlege offered to debate him. I think there is some prize money involved too.

When I have time I will read thru those transcripts. To be honest, I really don't put much faith in the court system. Having been involved for a number of years in the civil judgment system here in Washington State, I can tell you from personal experience that it is a cesspool. Corrupt judges who refuse to follow the law, take bribes, and generally make it extremely difficult for justice to prevail. The most laughable moment was when my judge had to stop the proceedings, leave the courtroom and go get enlightened by her clerk as to what a "Writ of Execution" was. That was when I started packing up my toys and eventually got out of the business.

[Fahnenbohn]

Yes, saying the Nazis are responsible for WW2 is a bit like saying that the Americans were responsible for the American Revolution because they started the fighting.

Yes, that's it. Under the International law, "This is not the one who attacks first whi is responsible for the war, but the one who made war inevitable."

*
Let me summarize your post : Fr/Br are responsible for the nazis who are responsible for WWII. I just add this at the end of the sentence : ... by the fault of Britain, and also the French government (which declared war illegally, and I will prove it).

[Joefour]

David Irving is a Hitler supporter and said many times the Holocaust was the work of others and Hitler played no part. This is a very sensitive area, David Irving went as far as questioning the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Yes I have read a couple of his books and I wonder if David Irving has read Commandant of Auschwitz by Rudolf Hoess.


I'd love to read this book by Hoess that you mentioned by I find that it is out of print!

[Oberon]

Yes, that's it. Under the International law,

What International law?

[Fahnenbohn]

While I don't think that Nazi ideology would necessarily not have developed without the Treaty of Versailles, it would have been less likely for them to come into power.

Yes, sure. One thing : Nazism was NOT an ideology, but a pragmatic policy to get out of the deadly ideologies of capitalism and communism. But this is another debate.

http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2016/01/12//16011209434118069013889790.png (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16011209434118069013889790.png)
(... against high finance and marxism)

Britain didn't ally itself with the Soviet Union at the time, it (and France) just failed to declare war on it. This was likely a pragmatic decision to avoid cementing a German-Soviet alliance or fighting a two-front war.

Really, do you think that war was a solution to solve the problem between Germany and Poland ?

[Betonov]

Yes, that's it. Under the International law, "This is not the one who attacks first whi is responsible for the war, but the one who made war inevitable."

.

So if I get really honest what I think about you and your ideology and Steve throws me in the brig, will that be your fault not mine, since you didn't made my rage inevitable ??

[Joefour]

Lebensraum.
First to retake Ostpreusen they lost to Poland after WW1 and then expand to Russia to make room for the colonies were Germans will till fields and breed a master rase. At the expense of the slavs living there.

Hitler didn't want to go to war with France and England. He hoped the west would see him as a guardian against the USSR but miscalculated.

Forgive me for not being more exact in my language. What events sparked the movement of german troops across the border into Poland?

[Betonov]

Forgive me for not being more exact in my language. What events sparked the movement of german troops across the border into Poland?

Orders from superiors ??
Like hitler

[Raptor1]

Really, do you think that war was a solution to solve the problem between Germany and Poland ?

Germany seemed to think so.

Forgive me for not being more exact in my language. What events sparked the movement of german troops across the border into Poland?

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was probably the deciding factor in the exact timing of the invasion, but it had been planned before that.

[Joefour]

Hitler launched his invasion first, there was debate on the possibility of declaring war on Russia, around about the time that Russia and Finland went to war I believe, but it was decided that to fight both Russia and Germany would be suicidal.
Then when Hitler declared war on Russia it was simply a case of 'My enemies enemy is my friend', Britain had no real love for the Soviet Union, heck we drew up plans to declare war on them after WWII had finished but they were thrown out as being suicidal, but Russia had the resources to defeat Germany, Britain did not, and so by supporting Russia and keeping Russia in the war, it both tied up the bulk of German forces on the other side of Europe from Britain, thus stopping Hitler from thinking about reinventing Sealion, and it gave a better chance of Germany being defeated, or at the very least keeping the war going long enough for the UK to persuade the USA to get fully involved.

And thereby making the world not safe for "democracy" but rather safe for communism.

[Oberon]

And thereby making the world not safe for "democracy" but rather safe for communism.

"Democracy" seems to have done alright for itself over the past seventy years, and I'd hardly call what NASDAP Germany had a "Democracy". :hmmm:

[Joefour]

Orders from superiors ??
Like hitler

I can see I'm losing you, so I digress.
Anyone else care to tackle my question?

[Joefour]

yes, saying the Nazis are responsible for WW2 is a bit like saying that the Americans were responsible for the American Revolution because they started the fighting. :D

The root causes of WW2 can easily be traced back to the Treaty of Versailles which was imposed by Britain and France on Germany, carving up German territory and imposing punitive reparation payments.

This had the twin effect of weakening the Weimar republic/German democracy from the start since they had agreed to the Treaty and weakening the German economy since vast amounts of wealth had to be transferred from Germany to Britain/France to pay them.

In addition, Germany was obliged to borrow large sums from the U.S. simply to pay the reparation payments to Britain/France. This had the additional effect that when the depression hit and U.S. loans stopped, the German economy collapsed. Germany was the european country hardest hit by the depression with 6 million unemployed.

All these factors allowed the Nazis to take power in Germany which led to WW2.

If the Versailles treaty had been more fair, more along the line of Wilson's 14 points and if the Weimar Republic had been supported, the Nazis do not come to power and WW2 does not happen.

...so yes, Britain and France are responsible for WW2...:ping:

p.s. - As I have stated previously, one of the best books to understand WW2 is "The Wages of Destruction" by Tooze. He goes into the pre-war economic forces in much more detail then I ever could. Highly recommended reading.

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Wages-Destruction-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208

Finally, a breath of fresh air. I think we are finally getting somewhere.

[Fahnenbohn]

What International law?

http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2016/01/12//16011210333318069013889848.png (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16011210333318069013889848.png)

[Oberon]

http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2016/01/12//16011210333318069013889848.png (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16011210333318069013889848.png)

And under what authority is that law enforced?

[Joefour]

"Democracy" seems to have done alright for itself over the past seventy years, and I'd hardly call what NASDAP Germany had a "Democracy". :hmmm:

I don't think you understood my statement, and I have no idea how old you are. I didn't imply that Nazi Germany was a democracy, far from it.
I know I'm dating myself but I've been around since the Eisenhower administration and lived through the "Cold War" and witnessed all the murders of millions in the "workers' paradises".

And then the Coup d'etat that murdered Jack Kennedy took place and we went over the precipice.

[Jimbuna]

Having discussed matters with Neal and Steve we have come to the joint decision I should take over the role of moderation here, not in order to undermine Steve but more in releasing him from the constraints moderation brings and allowing him to join in the debate and give his views.

I hope we can all agree on the following points:

1) This topic is about who started WWII and nothing else.
2) Talk of the holocaust is verboten and will not be tolerated.
3) Sufficient pleas for common sense and civility have been made and no further warnings will be forthcoming.

Trust me when I say I understand how emotive a topic like this can be but if we all remain mindful of the three points above and treat each other with a level of understanding and consideration this thread could well turn into one of great interest to many in our community.

I thank you all in advance for your co-operation.

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn : "Really, do you think that war was a solution to solve the problem between Germany and Poland ?"

Germany seemed to think so.

I mean war against Germany of course.

By the way : How is it possible to multi-quote a message (the function seems to be broken, I have to add my original message manually)

[Bilge_Rat]

Dealing with the Polish corridor, again you have to look to the Treaty of Versailles. There was really no precedent for carving out territory which had been part of Prussia/Germany for 150 years.

Even the Weimar republic refused to recognize the eastern frontier:

The creation of the corridor aroused great resentment in Germany, and all post-war German Weimar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic) governments refused to recognize the eastern borders agreed at Versailles, and refused to follow Germany's acknowledgment of its western borders in the Treaty of Locarno (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Locarno) of 1925 with a similar declaration with respect to its eastern borders.[64] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-Wolf-64)

The Polish government also did not help by adopting blatant anti-german policies:

In 1925 the Polish government enacted a land reform program with the aim of expropriating landowners.[76] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-Blanke-76) While only 39% of the agricultural land in the Corridor was owned by Germans,[76] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-Blanke-76) the first annual list of properties to be reformed included 10,800 hectares from 32 German landowners and 950 hectares from seven Poles.[76 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-Blanke-76)

which led to an exodus of German refugees back to Germany proper:

According to Wolff, 800,000 Germans had left Poland by 1923,[64] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-Wolf-64) according to Gotthold Rhode (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthold_Rhode&action=edit&redlink=1), 575,000 left the former province of Posen and the corridor after the war,[65] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-Blanke3334-65) according to Herrmann Rauschning, 800,000 Germans had left between 1918 and 1926,[65] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-Blanke3334-65) contemporary author Alfons Krysinski estimated 800,000 plus 100,000 from East Upper Silesia,[65] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-Blanke3334-65) the contemporary German statistics say 592,000 Germans had left by 1921,[65] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-Blanke3334-65) other Polish scholars say that up to a million Germans left.[ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-Blanke3334-65)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#Allied_plans_for_a_corridor_in_the _aftermath_of_World_War_I

as many scholars have pointed out before, the Treaty of Versailles did not secure "peace in our time", it only sowed the seeds to an even bigger conflict.

[Oberon]

I don't think you understood my statement, and I have no idea how old you are. I didn't imply that Nazi Germany was a democracy, far from it.
I know I'm dating myself but I've been around since the Eisenhower administration and lived through the "Cold War" and witnessed all the murders of millions in the "workers' paradises".

And then the Coup d'etat that murdered Jack Kennedy took place and we went over the precipice.

Never claimed that the 'Workers paradise' was a force for good, but do you honestly think that we should have sided with Hitler against the Soviet Union in the 1930s?

[Fahnenbohn]

I hope we can all agree on the following points:

1) This topic is about who started WWII and nothing else.
2) Talk of the holocaust is verboten and will not be tolerated.
3) Sufficient pleas for common sense and civility have been made and no further warnings will be forthcoming.

Trust me when I say I understand how emotive a topic like this can be but if we all remain mindful of the three points above and treat each other with a level of understanding and consideration this thread could well turn into one of great interest to many in our community.

I thank you all in advance for your co-operation.

Full respect for you, Jimbuna ! :yeah:

[Fahnenbohn]

Do you honestly think that we should have sided with Hitler against the Soviet Union in the 1930s?

Yes, I think so. USSR was planning to invade Europe. But this is one more time another debate !

[STEED]

Yes, I think so. USSR was planning to invade Europe. But this is one more time another debate !

Not that old one..."icebreaker" :rolleyes:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n6p22_Bishop.html

[Fahnenbohn]

And under what authority is that law enforced?

This is the international law that made consensus at the time.

[Fahnenbohn]

Not that old one..."icebreaker".

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n6p22_Bishop.html

I don't remember exactly, but I read an article saying that recent discoveries in soviet archives prove this fact. I have to found it. But this is not my priority for today.

[Fahnenbohn]

Dealing with the Polish corridor, again you have to look to the Treaty of Versailles. There was really no precedent for carving out territory which had been part of Prussia/Germany for 150 years.

It would be as if : in order to give Switzerland an access to the sea, we would have cut France in two parts by a Swiss corridor. What French could have accepted that ?

http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2016/01/12//16011211125718069013889879.png (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16011211125718069013889879.png)

[Joefour]

Never claimed that the 'Workers paradise' was a force for good, but do you honestly think that we should have sided with Hitler against the Soviet Union in the 1930s?

Speaking as an American, my country should have stayed the hell out of it. But there were many Americans who had the same view that FDR threw in jail. For one, Lindbergh would have ended up behind bars if he were not so beloved by the American public.

You may not know it, but FDR had evil designs on YOUR empire and played Winnie like an old violin.

[Joefour]

Not that old one..."icebreaker" :rolleyes:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n6p22_Bishop.html

I see that you just ignore Mr. Suvarov's article without addressing it. Isn't he a russian scholar?

[SS107.9MHz]

Yes, I think so. USSR was planning to invade Europe. But this is one more time another debate !

Next you'll be asking who started the spanish civil war and try to persuade us that those pesky leftists we're the ones to blame by winning the elections...

[Fahnenbohn]

If this material is so massive that it requires a multi-person translation effort, then I suggest you condense the information you think is important to a post (or a few) detailing your main claims and arguments supporting them. [...] It'll be easier to stay on topic when there's something to debate about it, and it's also easier to discuss points made on the forum rather than trying to infer them from a reference document.

Yes it is.

1. WWII : The overwhelming english guilt.

http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2016/01/12//16011211593818069013889901.png (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16011211593818069013889901.png)

2. A crime against peace, a crime against France.

http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2016/01/12//16011211593818069013889902.png (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16011211593818069013889902.png)

Sorry, I fear that I can't condense the information. All aspects are important.

First, I can give you the plan of the argumentation. It is already a big job.

*

[Raptor1]

I mean war against Germany of course.

After Germany invaded Poland, I don't see why not.

Dealing with the Polish corridor, again you have to look to the Treaty of Versailles. There was really no precedent for carving out territory which had been part of Prussia/Germany for 150 years.

Even the Weimar republic refused to recognize the eastern frontier:

The Polish government also did not help by adopting blatant anti-german policies:

which led to an exodus of German refugees back to Germany proper:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#Allied_plans_for_a_corridor_in_the _aftermath_of_World_War_I

as many scholars have pointed out before, the Treaty of Versailles did not secure "peace in our time", it only sowed the seeds to an even bigger conflict.

The Polish Corridor was part of Polish-Lithuanian territory before it was annexed by Prussia in the late 18th century, it had a majority Polish population which steadily grew in the interwar period and was important to the Polish economy. Certainly its incorporation into Poland was one of many harsh terms the Treaty of Versailles inflicted on Germany, but I don't think it lacked precedent or somehow justified the German invasion, which wasn't interested solely in securing it to begin with.

I see that you just ignore Mr. Suvarov's article without addressing it. Isn't he a russian scholar?

Suvorov was a Soviet officer and turned into a historian after his defection. There are many problems with his arguments that the Soviet Union was immediately threatening to invade Germany, mostly relating to how the state of the Red Army at the time was utterly inadequate for this sort of operation, but sticking to the subject seems to be strictly maintained in this thread.

[Jimbuna]

Received a complaint the above (#229) brings issues to a members system (accompanied by some ad which prevents the recipient closing said file) so I'd appreciate it if you would save each page to a text file before posting in future.

[Fahnenbohn]

Received a complaint the above (#229) brings issues to a members system (accompanied by some ad which prevents the recipient closing said file) so I'd appreciate it if you would save each page to a text file before posting in future.

Mmmh ... strange. These are only two screenshots of 2 documents written in french. I've posted them in order to show that it will be a big job to translate all this in english.

[Jimbuna]

Mmmh ... strange. These are only two screenshots of 2 documents written in french. I've posted them in order to show that it will be a big job to translate all this in english.

TBH I'm having difficulties also so there must be a problem here.

[Mr Quatro]

It helps to know who one is debating ... Mr Fahnenbohn can you please explain your user name?

I only found this interesting tidbit in researching your name ... not to injure your pride or anything.

http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/German-court-rejects-appeal-upholds-ban-on-words-with-Nazi-link


Germany's highest court on Thursday rejected an appeal by a far-right party member and upheld a ban on three words appearing in sequence because of their link to a former anthem of the Nazi party, Reuters reported. The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe rejected an appeal by a member of a far-right party who was fined 1,750 euros after he was convicted of wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the words "die Fahnen hoch" in 2007.

The court said the words, which appeared as the final part of an eight-word slogan on the shirt and literally translate as "the flags on high," were too similar to the opening line of the Nazi anthem, the Horst Wessel song. "

[razark]

I've posted them in order to show that it will be a big job to translate all this in english.
Why don't you start by stating your strongest arguments, in your own words? That will give the people here some idea of what your case is, and allow you time to work on getting the reference documents translated. If something comes up in discussion, you can then spend the effort on that specific point, and the discussion can carry on. Otherwise, you will continue to complain about people not addressing the arguments and continue to seem evasive about actually presenting your view.

[Joefour]

TBH I'm having difficulties also so there must be a problem here.

I'm having problems with the docs also. When I click on them or try to zoom in they go out of focus to the point where they are illegible.

[Jimbuna]

I will add at this juncture that we need to make progress because failure to do so will eventually turn into a position or claim of being 'disingenuous' and my patience is not infinite.

Make your point and let the debate flourish or let the natural consequence become a reality.

[August]

This is fabulous ! You are saying that one side is right BEFORE the debate has took place. Really fabulous ! :rotfl2:

No this debate took place long ago in a town called Nurenburg Germany under the eyes of the entire world by people not hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.

This debate was conducted in great form and detail and resulted in a bunch of criminals getting their just deserts. I fail to see the value in repeating this debate ad nauseum just because one side doesn't want to face up to their criminal history.

[Joefour]

No this debate took place long ago in a town called Nurenburg Germany under the eyes of the entire world by people not hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.

This debate was conducted in great form and detail and resulted in a bunch of criminals getting their just deserts. I fail to see the value in repeating this debate ad nauseum just because one side doesn't want to face up to their criminal history.

Partypooper! I think it's interesting and want to see where it goes.

[Fahnenbohn]

Make your point and let the debate flourish or let the natural consequence become a reality.

OK. In my next post, I will write the synthesis of the argumentation, without all the details and sources, all quotes, and so on. I think this is the best way. If you want the proof of what I say, I will explain you in more details.

[August]

Correct :yep: How could there be a World War without the USA declaring war on Germany after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor

Actually Germany declared war on the USA first, three days after we declared war on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The little corporal could have avoided war with us altogether (at least until we knocked off Japan).
Therefore without a shadow of a doubt it was hitler and the nazis that started World War II. End of debate. :up:

[Fahnenbohn]

Actually Germany declared war on the USA first, three days after we declared war on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The usa were already technically at war with Germany.

[August]

The usa were already technically at war with Germany. End of the debate. :up:

No technically they were not at war and you well know it but if you really want to go down that road then it was the Germans who first shot at US ships starting back in 1939 not the other way around so sorry the nazi's loose yet again.

[Oberon]

This is the international law that made consensus at the time.

The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 which was signed by Germany states that nations should not use war to solve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them."

Now, we've danced around causes and effects in this topic, but the ultimate question "Who started World War II" boils down to who fired the shots, because until the actual outbreak of hostilities it cannot be classed as a war. If you wish to cite the invasion of Poland as the beginning of WWII, then I think we can all agree on the fact that Germany fired on Poland first. Poland did not invade Germany, nor, despite the best attempts of Goebbels, did Polish soldiers attack a German radio station.
At the point in which Germany invaded Poland it was not under threat of invasion from any other nation. Britain and France were hostile after being shown up by Hitler disregarding the Munich Agreements, but both were in a defensive stance rather than offensive. Poland was decided as the red line, if Hitler had not crossed that red line, then Britain and France would not have declared war. In fact, if Hitler had shown a bit more diplomatic acumen, he could have easily have drawn Britain and France into an anti-Soviet alliance. However he was too busy enlarging the German Reich to focus on diplomatic overtures, and resorted to force rather than diplomacy. So ultimately we wound up on the side of the Soviets against Hitler, even though we'd already fought the Soviets once already and up until the remilitarisation of the Rhineland...in fact up until the invasion of Czechoslovakia, Britain and France, Britain especially, saw the Soviet Union as the much greater threat to European peace. Both were desperate to avoid another great war, they wouldn't have thrown Czechoslovakia under the bus if they hadn't have been, but really Hitler pushed his luck too far and too fast. The rest is history.

Speaking as an American, my country should have stayed the hell out of it. But there were many Americans who had the same view that FDR threw in jail. For one, Lindbergh would have ended up behind bars if he were not so beloved by the American public.

You may not know it, but FDR had evil designs on YOUR empire and played Winnie like an old violin.

Staying out of the war really wasn't an option for America, especially after Germany declared war on the Soviet Union. Because after that point one of two things was going to happen, either Germany would win, gain the massive land and manpower, then turn its sights on overthrowing America as a dominant power, or the Soviet Union would win and steamroller through the whole of Europe. Either which way America would have lost the foothold in Europe that gave it the power needed to rival the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Eventually the war would have come to Americas shores, and the enemy would have been twice as powerful as the ones America has faced before.
America wouldn't have been occupied, or any thing like 'The Man in the High Castle', but it would have been humiliated, and perhaps forced into disarmament and reparations.

So yeah, staying out was not really an option. Oh, and about FDR screwing us over, we were already screwed, between being screwed by Hitler or being screwed by FDR, it's better the screwing you know. :woot:

[Joefour]

No technically they were not at war and you well know it but if you really want to go down that road then it was the Germans who first shot at US ships starting back in 1939 not the other way around so sorry the nazi's loose yet again.


Yes, technically Fahnenbohn IS right. FDR was supplying Britain with war materiel in violation of international laws.

Here is just one article on the subject www.historyarticles.com/undeclared-war/ (http://www.historyarticles.com/undeclared-war/)

That's just one. Plenty more available out there if you need 'em.

[Joefour]

The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 which was signed by Germany states that nations should not use war to solve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them."

Now, we've danced around causes and effects in this topic, but the ultimate question "Who started World War II" boils down to who fired the shots, because until the actual outbreak of hostilities it cannot be classed as a war. If you wish to cite the invasion of Poland as the beginning of WWII, then I think we can all agree on the fact that Germany fired on Poland first. Poland did not invade Germany, nor, despite the best attempts of Goebbels, did Polish soldiers attack a German radio station.
At the point in which Germany invaded Poland it was not under threat of invasion from any other nation. Britain and France were hostile after being shown up by Hitler disregarding the Munich Agreements, but both were in a defensive stance rather than offensive. Poland was decided as the red line, if Hitler had not crossed that red line, then Britain and France would not have declared war. In fact, if Hitler had shown a bit more diplomatic acumen, he could have easily have drawn Britain and France into an anti-Soviet alliance. However he was too busy enlarging the German Reich to focus on diplomatic overtures, and resorted to force rather than diplomacy. So ultimately we wound up on the side of the Soviets against Hitler, even though we'd already fought the Soviets once already and up until the remilitarisation of the Rhineland...in fact up until the invasion of Czechoslovakia, Britain and France, Britain especially, saw the Soviet Union as the much greater threat to European peace. Both were desperate to avoid another great war, they wouldn't have thrown Czechoslovakia under the bus if they hadn't have been, but really Hitler pushed his luck too far and too fast. The rest is history.



Staying out of the war really wasn't an option for America, especially after Germany declared war on the Soviet Union. Because after that point one of two things was going to happen, either Germany would win, gain the massive land and manpower, then turn its sights on overthrowing America as a dominant power, or the Soviet Union would win and steamroller through the whole of Europe. Either which way America would have lost the foothold in Europe that gave it the power needed to rival the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Eventually the war would have come to Americas shores, and the enemy would have been twice as powerful as the ones America has faced before.
America wouldn't have been occupied, or any thing like 'The Man in the High Castle', but it would have been humiliated, and perhaps forced into disarmament and reparations.

So yeah, staying out was not really an option. Oh, and about FDR screwing us over, we were already screwed, between being screwed by Hitler or being screwed by FDR, it's better the screwing you know. :woot:

The war come to OUR shores? The Type IX boats did a lot of damage up and down the coastal waters because the Navy had it's head buried in the sand but that was it.
I can see the headlines clearly: "Waffen SS Troops Have Disembarked in New York City-First Order of Business is to Blow Up Statue of Liberty"

You've got to be kiddin' me fella.

[Oberon]

The war come to OUR shores? The Type IX boats did a lot of damage up and down the coastal waters because the Navy had it's head buried in the sand but that was it.
I can see the headlines clearly: "Waffen SS Troops Have Disembarked in New York City-First Order of Business is to Blow Up Statue of Liberty"

You've got to be kiddin' me fella.

If the Soviet Union and the UK had been defeated, do you really think that America and Nazi Germany could have lived side by side, happy as best buddies? I mean, that's not even taking Japan into the equation here, the Japan who Germany was technically allied with.

[Fahnenbohn]

Staying out of the war really wasn't an option for America, especially after Germany declared war on the Soviet Union. [...] either Germany would win, [...] then turn its sights on overthrowing America as a dominant power.

This is a pure phantasm. Hitler never wanted to dominate the world. He said : "Germany will be a great power." He didn't say "the" great power.

[Oberon]

This is a pure phantasm. Hitler never wanted to dominate the world. He said : "Germany will be a great power." He didn't say "the" great power.

But he did insinuate that in the future that "a struggle for world domination might take place between the United States and a European alliance comprising a "new association of nations, consisting of individual states with high national value". "

Furthermore, in the Zweites Buch he also states that long term, the greatest potential opponent was the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweites_Buch

[Joefour]

This is a pure phantasm. Hitler never wanted to dominate the world. He said : "Germany will be a great power." He didn't say "the" great power.

I agree. My own personal studies over the past 40+ years have shown me that the idea that Germany was out to conquer the world was nothing more than a Churchillian myth.

JEEZ! You guys must be nightowls! It's 7:00 PM here and I'm Zulu -7 hrs. behind you.