Who Started World War II?

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Oberon

[...] Smells very Vichy to me.

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

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

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]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

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]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

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]

Originally Posted by August

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 !

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]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

[...] 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.