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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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)

*

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.

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.

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

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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 [insertrandomandunfoundedreason].

This isn't how this works, by the way.
To quote yourself:
Exactly. Impossible - when 'everyone else is just wrong!'

I just realized, I have to quote you again:
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.

Can I have some, please? :shifty:

Origins of WWII
 

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!

Origins of WWII
 

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

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.

*