Did he?Hobbes' Choice wrote: Nah..
Hitler declared war on the US.
Oh! I get it, Jap attacked Pearl Harbour, America declared war on them, they were an ally of the Nazi so they declared war on America?
Did he?Hobbes' Choice wrote: Nah..
Hitler declared war on the US.
No great fan of his and didn't know about the Cold War starting so early nor that we were responsible for the Generals.Hobbes' Choice wrote:It was Churchill that allowed the massacre of the Athenians.
No I think it was due to the US supplying stuff to the UK, and US ships had attacked some Uboats. Hitler sis not know that Pearl Harbour was going down and was not under an obligation to declare war if Japan was an aggressor.Arising_uk wrote:Did he?Hobbes' Choice wrote: Nah..
Hitler declared war on the US.
Oh! I get it, Jap attacked Pearl Harbour, America declared war on them, they were an ally of the Nazi so they declared war on America?
In any event, Hitler knew that war with the U.S. was inevitable. The U.S. would never allow the defeat of Britain. Churchill was adamant about getting America into the war and Roosevelt would have been more than obliging if it weren't for public opinion prior to Pearl Harbor, the planned "bait" the Japs fell for. After that, both Churchill and Roosevelt got their wish to declare war on both Germany and Japan.Hobbes' Choice wrote:No I think it was due to the US supplying stuff to the UK, and US ships had attacked some Uboats. Hitler sis not know that Pearl Harbour was going down and was not under an obligation to declare war if Japan was an aggressor.Arising_uk wrote:Did he?Hobbes' Choice wrote: Nah..
Hitler declared war on the US.
Oh! I get it, Jap attacked Pearl Harbour, America declared war on them, they were an ally of the Nazi so they declared war on America?
11/12/41
Show me.Dubious wrote:Arising...
All the quotes given are documented and a part of history...which you know nothing about. Even your responses don't make sense in context of what they're responding to. Just the usual super glib slippery bullshit of one liners the kind you specialize in most of your posts.
And you're another in the long line of revisionists who ignore that the French died in their droves to fight the Nazi and that the Nazi was intent upon creating the third Reich for Europe. That you appear to wish for it is your bag.You're just another clone of the stupid gene one among the billions out there not worth the time of day who know fuck all but think they know a lot.
Dubious wrote:Arising...
All the quotes given are documented and a part of history...which you know nothing about. Even your responses don't make sense in context of what they're responding to. Just the usual super glib slippery bullshit of one liners the kind you specialize in most of your posts.
Show you what? The only way possible is to embed quotes or supply links of which there can be many more. In your case since they only amount to "one line thoughts" any further attempts are obviously useless no matter how many links are posted.Arising_uk wrote:Show me.
The quotes given were paragraphs of complete thoughts which attempted to "show you" at least some aspect of the story. Happy to supply the links if you like. Your brilliant one liners are all yours as given in most of the posts you make...looks to me like you're trying to pad an already existing superiority complex with the least amount of expense.That they are one-liners is in response to the one-line thought that was presented.
You still don't get it. That's the reason the Germans sarcastically pointed out the English will fight to the last Frenchman, England and France being allies.And you're another in the long line of revisionists who ignore that the French died in their droves to fight the Nazi...
...once again, a load of croc from one of the best providers of it on the site. I'll refer you to this "one line thought" as further indication of ignorance immune to inquiry:...and that the Nazi was intent upon creating the third Reich for Europe.
In which post or in what way have I wished for that? Show me! if you wish to prove that you aren't some disgusting distorter and liar after all.That you appear to wish for it is your bag.
And yet you called it capitulation?Dubious wrote:...
You still don't get it. That's the reason the Germans sarcastically pointed out the English will fight to the last Frenchman, England and France being allies. ...
Who said they were? But you're off your trolley if you think Britain was looking for another war in Europe as they did everything to avoid it. Such as doing nothing when he invaded Czechoslovakia, etc. Something Churchill vehemently opposed.Research and revision of the two World Wars is in full swing and one of its most salient revelations is that the Nazis weren't the only fuckers on the stage. ...
Because it's been this country's way for a long-time but with FOI this is changing.Stories once told have been revised and retold. A fair question, why is there so much secret information, not to be released for decades, still being held in the British Archives ?
Interesting points and ones I read with interest but where did he think things were going to go when he broke the Versailles Treaty and rearmed? When he entered the Rhineland? When he annexed Czechoslovakia? When he invaded Poland?...once again, a load of croc from one of the best providers of it on the site. I'll refer you to this "one line thought" as further indication of ignorance immune to inquiry:
http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068
No, I pretty much read all links I'm given.You're more screwed up than the usual suspects you interminably try to correct. Sending you links is futile. You'll only consider those as "one line thoughts" as well regardless of whatever amount of data is linked to.
The link speaks for itself but it seems you still have comprehension deficit disorder.Arising_uk wrote:
But you're off your trolley if you think Britain was looking for another war in Europe as they did everything to avoid it. Such as doing nothing when he invaded Czechoslovakia, etc. Something Churchill vehemently opposed.
Let me guess, you're also a holocaust revisionist.Dubious wrote:The link speaks for itself but it seems you still have comprehension deficit disorder. ...
Nice slant but not quite as whilst it's true we bombed German cities first it was not area or carpet bombing of civilian centers(thought up by the Germans and didn't the Dutch and Basque regret it) and from the looks of it it was a series of cock-ups all the way as both sides appeared fairly loathe to indulge in such behaviour at first but when those Greman plans accidentally bombed London we bombed Berlin and off it went.It was Britain who declared war on Germany both times and then had to beg the Americans to help them out each time, let's not forget that. They were the first to bomb German cities in WW2. Hitler held off retaliating but warned Churchill to stop with the nonsense but he wouldn't listen; Coventry and London were the consequences but Brits always like to think they were the first to be attacked. ...
It looks like Chamberlain regretted backing down about the Czechs and had to save face and presumably hoped his political career, given how British politics works.Why did Britain give Poland an unsolicited security guarantee if not to foment a reason to start a war with Germany? That was mentioned in the link as well but it seems to have gone over your head. ...
I doubt it, given that if the Reich had managed to spread to the Pacific I seriously doubt they'd have left the British and French at their backdoor and by then we'd have stood no chance even with America's help given the way the Nazi turned the conquered populations into forced military labour.Hitler didn't want war with England as the article makes clear and there would have been no war between England and Germany but for Churchill. ...
Could be, could be, but I tend to think History probably more complicated than that.Maybe the British people didn't want war just like the Germans didn't want war but unfortunately there was Churchill on one side and Hitler on the other and that clinched it.
My, you really do have a simplistic, media-and-propaganda-driven view of history and politics (and you are so condescending about it). If something is true then it's just that: 'true'. It can't be agenda-driven. Holocaust 'revisionists' are liars who know they are lying but the lie suits their sick agenda. They are scum. That doesn't mean that every single thing that Hitler did was automatically evil, or that he necessarily wanted to conquer the planet. It doesn't make the criminal destruction of Dresden OK, nor the mass rapes that went on after Germany lost. It also doesn't automatically make the 'liberators' into heroes. Fuck, even after being released from the concentration camps many of the released women were raped and ended up having to hide from their 'liberators'. They then went 'home' to find their homes confiscated, with strangers living in them. No one helped them. The simpletons who make up the general public were satisfied with photos of the 'heroic liberators' freeing concentration camp victims. What happened to them after that they didn't want to know. Then there are the millions who were 'rescued' from Hitler, only to be thrown under the bus to Stalin. Hitler or Stalin. What a great 'choice'.Arising_uk wrote:Let me guess, you're also a holocaust revisionist.Dubious wrote:The link speaks for itself but it seems you still have comprehension deficit disorder. ...Nice slant but not quite as whilst it's true we bombed German cities first it was not area or carpet bombing of civilian centers(thought up by the Germans and didn't the Dutch and Basque regret it) and from the looks of it it was a series of cock-ups all the way as both sides appeared fairly loathe to indulge in such behaviour at first but when those Greman plans accidentally bombed London we bombed Berlin and off it went.It was Britain who declared war on Germany both times and then had to beg the Americans to help them out each time, let's not forget that. They were the first to bomb German cities in WW2. Hitler held off retaliating but warned Churchill to stop with the nonsense but he wouldn't listen; Coventry and London were the consequences but Brits always like to think they were the first to be attacked. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic ... rld_War_II
Don't get me wrong tho', I think the later carpet-bombing campaign by us and the Yanks pretty much a war-crime against civilians but then, rightly or wrongly, my grandad et al just thought 'fuck 'em! They started it' as he was a Londoner.
Although the Germans had no compunction about bombing civilians in cities and did so in Poland, France and the Netherlands, in fact it was pretty much a standard' blitzkrieg' tactic honed when practicing in Spain against towns and small cities.It looks like Chamberlain regretted backing down about the Czechs and had to save face and presumably hoped his political career, given how British politics works.Why did Britain give Poland an unsolicited security guarantee if not to foment a reason to start a war with Germany? That was mentioned in the link as well but it seems to have gone over your head. ...I doubt it, given that if the Reich had managed to spread to the Pacific I seriously doubt they'd have left the British and French at their backdoor and by then we'd have stood no chance even with America's help given the way the Nazi turned the conquered populations into forced military labour.Hitler didn't want war with England as the article makes clear and there would have been no war between England and Germany but for Churchill. ...Could be, could be, but I tend to think History probably more complicated than that.Maybe the British people didn't want war just like the Germans didn't want war but unfortunately there was Churchill on one side and Hitler on the other and that clinched it.
Decidedly not. The holocaust, as pertaining to Jews only, constitute approximately half of the total killed. It amounted to more like 13 or 14 million the rest being mostly Slavs from Eastern Europe and Russia. We all know Nazis weren't nice and not loath to go beyond whatever they decided to do. When desperate, they were just as dangerous to other Germans especially during the final months of the war...a monumental horror story in itself.Arising_uk wrote:Let me guess, you're also a holocaust revisionist.
Dubious wrote:It was Britain who declared war on Germany both times and then had to beg the Americans to help them out each time, let's not forget that. They were the first to bomb German cities in WW2. Hitler held off retaliating but warned Churchill to stop with the nonsense but he wouldn't listen; Coventry and London were the consequences but Brits always like to think they were the first to be attacked.
Interesting article. Here’s a UK link pertaining to one of your own higher ups there with Churchill. It just about says it all. Direct statements; no mincing of words:Arising_uk wrote:Nice slant but not quite as whilst it's true we bombed German cities first it was not area or carpet bombing of civilian centers(thought up by the Germans and didn't the Dutch and Basque regret it) and from the looks of it it was a series of cock-ups all the way as both sides appeared fairly loathe to indulge in such behaviour at first but when those Greman plans accidentally bombed London we bombed Berlin and off it went.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic ... rld_War_II
Dubious wrote:Why did Britain give Poland an unsolicited security guarantee if not to foment a reason to start a war with Germany?
That doesn’t answer the question - being rhetorical, the reason already inherent - of why did Britain give Poland an unsolicited security guarantee if not to intentionally invoke a war with Germany!Arising_uk wrote:It looks like Chamberlain regretted backing down about the Czechs and had to save face and presumably hoped his political career, given how British politics works.
Dubious wrote:Hitler didn't want war with England as the article makes clear and there would have been no war between England and Germany but for Churchill. ...
This doesn’t add up. What you’re implying is the reason for war with Germany was based on a speculation. Also don’t know what you mean by “forced military labour” unless it refers to those make to work in munition factories. Anyways, based on what’s known this argument is a cop out. The real reason has more to do with a British Empire hangover in retaining the status quo which obviously backfired.Arising_uk wrote:I doubt it, given that if the Reich had managed to spread to the Pacific I seriously doubt they'd have left the British and French at their backdoor and by then we'd have stood no chance even with America's help given the way the Nazi turned the conquered populations into forced military labour.
Dubious wrote:Maybe the British people didn't want war just like the Germans didn't want war but unfortunately there was Churchill on one side and Hitler on the other and that clinched it.
For sure! History is indeed more complicated than that. I recall having made that remark before in response to some of yours.Arising_uk wrote:Could be, could be, but I tend to think History probably more complicated than that.