WWI: What if the U.S. stayed neutral?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

If it is the number of lives who are snuffed out that is the criteria, why didn't Britain declare war on Stalin when he was killing millions?

Which millions are these ?


Could you be specific, just for once, do you think ?


You keep referring to millions of innocents killed in World War II supposedly because of the aggressive actions of France and Great Britain (oh, if only they'd let Nazi Germany keep Poland. I'm sure Hitler would have been just as nice to the people in those areas as he was to the Germans, Austrians, Czech and Slovaks and Jews who didn't like him...).


Any idea how many millions the Soviet Union lost in Hitler's attack on Russia ?

Between 18-20 million civilians.

You're the one who keeps bringing up the number of lives lost through World War II.

I'm the one who keeps asking you how many lives are worth not going to war against Hitler for.

You keep avoiding the question.

But, who appointed her policeman of Europe?

The question is irrelevant. War was declared on an ally. Hitler had received notice. He chose to ignore the warning.

Nothing to do with Great Britain being the policeman of Europe.

Move on to something else, that record is long played out.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Molly, I conduct a search and found a site that was discussing this peace offer and the British response. The site said that the Brit records were to remain sealed well into the 21st Century, which seems a bit unusual.

What search ?

What were you looking for ?

What British records in particular ? Who maintained the site ?

What was the site about ?

All pertinent questions. Care to answer any of them ?

If you conduct your own search, you will find it.

Right.... Pardon me, but I do serious historical research- I visit sites such as the old Yiddish Theatre and the Sephardic synagogues in Amsterdam, the Public Record Office, that sort of thing.

And you'd like me to spend my valuable time trawling the internet for a site which you yourself are vague about and admit that you have:

...tried to replicate the search and find it again for you, but I have been unsuccessful.

You've gone from being offensive to farcical.

An internet site you can't find is what you base your 'theory' on.

Will wonders never cease...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Lend Lease.

U.S. companies traded with Nazi Germany. I fail to see how Lend Lease is the United States' military engaging in war with Nazi Germany.

So, just plain wrong.

Again.

US warships attacking german warships.

They did ? Which U.S. warships, and which German warships ?

Where did these engagements take place and when ?

If you're going to make allegations like these, try to be reasonably specific.

The US attacked Germany first.

Apparently you think Great Britain and France 'attacked' Nazi Germany first because they declared war on Germany thus in your view 'beginning World War II'.

But now, when Nazi Germany declares war on the United States, apparently the U.S. attacked first- despite not having declared war on Germany.

Can't you even see how twisted your logic is ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Not like that. Even the average German would have thought him insane if he talked like that in public.

Shall we see some extracts from Hitler's public speeches ?


And then shall we see you eat your words ?

(1) We look on Bolshevism as a world peril for which there must be no toleration.

(2) We use every means in our power to keep this peril away from our people.

(3) And we are trying to make the German people immune to this peril as far as possible.

It is in accordance with this attitude of ours that we should avoid close contact with the carriers of these poisonous bacilli.

Hitler's Reichstag speech, January 30th 1937

Note he refers to Bolsheviks/Communists as 'carriers of poisonous bacilli'.

Hitler, speech at the Reichstag January 1939:

For hundreds of years Germany was good enough to receive these elements (Jewish immigrants), although they possessed nothing except infectious political and physical diseases. What they possess today, they have by a very large extent gained at the cost of the less astute German nation by the most reprehensible manipulations.

Note again the identification of human beings as either disease carriers or spreaders.


But let's look at early, echt Hitler:

Until the present day the half-hearted and the lukewarm have remained the curse of Germany... if a people is to become free, it needs pride and will-power, defiance, hate, hate, and once again hate.

Munich, April 10th 1923

Adolf again:

...we shall have the further duty of taking these creators of ruin (the November criminals) these clouts, these traitors to their State, and of hanging them to the gallows to which they belong.

Munich, April 13th 1923

Hmm, hate and hanging. Very respectable.

As an aside, was 'Mein Kampf' published in code ? Or could ordinary Germans buy or borrow it and read it ?

I've already mentioned his speech at the Nuremberg rally of 13th September 1937 in which the struggle between National Socialism and Bolshevism is likened to the clash between Christianity and Islam. He identifies Communism explicitly with a 'Jewish world conspiracy' directed from Moscow.

We've already seen that he thinks of Jews and Bolsheviks as disease carriers.

Hitler, 27th February 1925:

To this struggle of ours there are only two possible issues: either the enemy pass over our bodies or we pass over theirs, and it is my desire that, if in the struggle I should fall, the Swastika banner shall be my winding sheet.

That seems plain- struggle to the death.

But let's let Adolf make it clearer:

When people cast in our teeth our intolerance we proudly acknowledge it- yes, we have formed the inexorable decision to destroy Marxism in Germany down to its very last root.

Speech at Dusseldorf, 27th January 1932

On Jews- and this I find so offensive I can only reproduce it in part:

The Jew has never founded any civilization, though he has destroyed hundreds.... it is foreigners who shed their blood for him... the Aryan alone can form States... the Jew cannot... all his revolutions must be international. They must spread as pestilence spreads. ...with his envious instinct for destruction he seeks to disintegrate the national spirit of the Germans and to pollute their blood.

Hitler's speech, Munich 28th July 1922

Yet again the obsessive linkage of Jews and Communists and Marxists with blood, defilement and disease.

But let's be sure of what he really means:

When the other world has been delivered from the Jews, Judaism will have ceased to play a part in Europe... Those nations who are still opposed to us will some day recognize the greater enemy within.

Then they will join us in a combined front, a front against international Jewish exploitation and racial degeneration.

Hitler's speech, January 30th 1941

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
NYE, Yes. But he was talking about fighting for freedom, not for empire.

I may have missed the foundation of the British Empire on the continent of Europe.

Where was that exactly ?


And how much 'freedom' did Austrians and Czechs and Poles get under Hitler ?

Let alone the Germans.

Can't see the wood for the trees, can you Ned ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I have seen all this on the internet, but some time ago.

But the report on the records being sealed I saw just this week. I cannot find that document again for the life of me even though I have spent hours looking for it.

Did the dog eat your homework too ?


Pathetic.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


The problem you and others are having is that this whole conversation is so different from what you have been told before about these events that you are simply unbelieving.

No, this 'conversation' is exactly the same one that you always trot out, based it seems to me, on the same revisionist bullsh!t you always come out with, only this time we have as reliable historical sources:

1. David Irving- a writer revealed to be a liar in open court, who deliberately falsified and distorted information. An anti-Semitic Holocaust denier.

2. An avowedly anti-Semitic website.

3. Your sister's experience of anti-Americanism in post-WWII West Germany

4. A Ukrainian you met once, somewhere, some time.

5. A television programme you saw

6. A website you can't find that said unspecified British documents were unavailable.

Oh, and outright lies about the neutrals in WWII and about what I supposedly said about Nazi treatment of Slavs and the usual unsupported hysterical claims about what the British and French might have done or should have done, or really wanted to do, and when the U.S. entered the war, et cetera et cetera et cetera.

All without a shred of proof, or direct quotes of documents or from relevant politicians.


I'm guessing you aren't aware of the concept of shame or have so little self-awareness you can't feel any.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Ah, come on now, The Stinger. Why were Britain and France negotiating with Germany about the Sudetenland and Poland? Who the F*** put them in charge of Europe to tell peoples where they could live and not live, and to decide where borders lie?

Can't you see that a large part of the problems in the world were CAUSED by Britain in its arrogant line drawing on maps? India/Pakistan. Afghanistan/Pakistan. Arabia. Arabia/Palestine.

Versailles and the other treaties that settled WWI.

They all caused unending disputes that would not and have not gone away dispite the passage of years. When His Majesty's government (with the French) tried to enforce Versailles, we got WWII, a bloodbath that will live in human infamy to the end of recorded time.

Historians can say that WWII started with the invasion of Poland, but the cause of the war was not NAZIism or Hitler. It was Britain and France and Versailles.

That was was not a war to save democracy or any other garbage that might be spewed forth from British and American propagandists. It was a war to enforce Versailles against Germany and for the very purpose of destoying her government or any German government that wanted to undo that treaty.

Deutschland erwache! Juda verrecke !

Time to polish those jackboots, Herr Nedler...

[Ned]

Molly, Hitler's racial ideas and his Jewish conspiracy ideas are bizzare by today's standards that we would naturally think that anyone holding them was a complete lunatic. But times have changed. That era was an era of racism and it was not confined to Hitler or to NAZIs or to Germany. I can give you chapter and verse, but I would hope that you would acknowledge this at least.

As to the USSR, didn't Stalin mass-starve Ukraine by denying food aid when he introduced communes into the area? Didn't he murder thousands in various of his purges.

Didn't he invade Romania (after the British gave Romania a guarantee). Didn't he invade the Baltic states. Didn't he invade Poland? Didn't he invade Finland? Didn't he got to war against Japan in Mongolia? Didn't he say that his goal was to spread communism to the whole world by conquest? Even his successor, Kruschev, pounded his shoe at the UN while raving that he would conquer us?

But the only enemy of world at the time peace was Hitler?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
Even his successor, Kruschev, pounded his shoe at the UN while raving that he would conquer us?

I won't bother with the rest, but this, no, he was mistranslated deliberately. He said, paraphrased, "we will still be here when you are dead and buried", and it was translated as "we will bury you".

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, Hitler's racial ideas and his Jewish conspiracy ideas are bizzare by today's standards that we would naturally think that anyone holding them was a complete lunatic.

People thought his 'racial' ideas were offensive and unbelievable at the time too. They couldn't believe they would be taken seriously.

But times have changed.

Oh. So that's why you referenced David Irving, anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, is it ?

And that's why one of your 'sources' is an avowedly anti-Semitic revisionist website...

That era was an era of racism and it was not confined to Hitler or to NAZIs or to Germany.

And yet only one country managed to completely disenfranchise its Jewish population, force emigration on a great number of them, and finally murder them and other Jews in Europe in industrialized extermination camps.

Stalin didn't manage it; Huey Long didn't do it with black Americans. Even the Japanese couldn't get around to disposing of racially inferior Asians in quite such an efficient way. Just the Nazi regime and its satellites and allies.

I can give you chapter and verse, but I would hope that you would acknowledge this at least.

Why start now ?

So far you've simply glossed over the issue of Nazi domestic affairs with a blithe reference to the regime's 'popularity' and an attempt to downplay Hitler's more rabid racist remarks.

As to the USSR, didn't Stalin mass-starve Ukraine by denying food aid when he introduced communes into the area?

And haven't I asked you to provide evidence of this ? You know, with facts and figures ?

And aren't we still waiting for chapter and verse ?

Oh yes....

Didn't he murder thousands in various of his purges.

You keep harping on about Stalin.

You keep avoiding mentioning the hundreds of thousands killed in the initial attack and occupation of Poland by Nazi Germany, let alone the deaths in Nazi Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia.

Didn't he invade Romania (after the British gave Romania a guarantee).

Give the date.

Didn't he invade the Baltic states.

Was this after the Nazi-Soviet Pact ?

Yes or no. Give the dates.

Didn't he invade Poland?

See above. Give casualty figures for Soviet occupied Poland as against Nazi occupied Poland.

Didn't he invade Finland?

Give date.

Didn't he got to war against Japan in Mongolia?

Did he ? Please provide us with facts to show who attacked whom.

Was it before or after the Anti-Comintern Pact of November 1936 ?

Didn't he say that his goal was to spread communism to the whole world by conquest?

Did he ? Shouldn't be too difficult for you to find this then, should it ?

But the only enemy of world at the time peace was Hitler?

Who has said that ? Not I.

Still, it's refreshing to see you haven't managed to get over your habit of making excuses for Adolf.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned
Ah, come on now, The Stinger. Why were Britain and France negotiating with Germany about the Sudetenland and Poland? Who the F*** put them in charge of Europe to tell peoples where they could live and not live, and to decide where borders lie?

Can't you see that a large part of the problems in the world were CAUSED by Britain in its arrogant line drawing on maps? India/Pakistan. Afghanistan/Pakistan. Arabia. Arabia/Palestine.

Versailles and the other treaties that settled WWI.

They all caused unending disputes that would not and have not gone away dispite the passage of years. When His Majesty's government (with the French) tried to enforce Versailles, we got WWII, a bloodbath that will live in human infamy to the end of recorded time.

Historians can say that WWII started with the invasion of Poland, but the cause of the war was not NAZIism or Hitler. It was Britain and France and Versailles.

That was was not a war to save democracy or any other garbage that might be spewed forth from British and American propagandists. It was a war to enforce Versailles against Germany and for the very purpose of destoying her government or any German government that wanted to undo that treaty.

The UK and French governments would not have objected to a democratic Germany renegotiating versaille, indeed no one really thought that the germans were not within their rights to occupy the Rhineland.

However I fail to see how annexing Austria Czechoslovakia and invading Poland is connected to Versailles.

If it was a war to enforce Versailles, why was the UK outnumbered by about 20 to 1 in term sof amroured divsions and a by a ridiculous amount of infantry ones.

If the UK had this evil plan to dominate the world don't you think they might have done it a bit better

[Ned]

The Stinger, I agree that it was one thing to put Germans back in Germany, but it was another to occupy Czechoslovakia. To the extent that Hitler wanted to restore German borders through diplomacy to reflect reality, this was completely unnecessary and wrong. He should have realized that the willingness of the allies to negotiate was nearing its end.

Instead, history points out that British and French weakness only emboldened him. He really believed they would do nothing serious over Poland and was shocked when they refused his peace offer of October.

I have repeatedly said that Hitler shares blame for WWII.

WWI showed us the folly of interlocking alliances and blank checks. WWII showed us the follow of two things:

1) Treaties that punish the loser of a war; and

2) Appeasement followed by a hard line in dealing with international disputes.

But in this case, the bad treaty and appeasement were linked, were they not? Germany's positions on Versailles had merit that even the allies recognized which made taking a hard line early unreasonable.

Which gets us back to the treaty as the source of the whole problem.

[notyoueither]

Only to a neo-Nazi, crying over the result.

And who says after Austria and Czechoslovakia was early? Oh, yes, neo-Nazis.

Take your crap somewhere else, Ned. I for one have enough of this schtick. If you're trolling, too bad. You've lost, massively. If you're serious, you're one sad ****.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Just the Nazi regime and its satellites and allies.

in fairness even many of the satellites and allies thought it was loony. The Italian military certainly did, and the Hungarians were reluctant, and the Bulgarians protected "their" Jews, and even the romanians tried to protect the assimilated Jews of Bucharest (while running their own camps for the Bessarabian Jews)