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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

Persecution is not validation of your premise.

Authors/titles?

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.

OK, I'm preparing this.

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

*

I agree. But persecution is not justified neither.

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.

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

Nevermind.

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.

*

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".

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.

^^^

That's probably the best response.

Also, Fahnenbohn, take note of were Nippelspanner lives.

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:

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

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?

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