# Roosevelt/WWII



## midcan5 (Jun 25, 2008)

The greatest would have to be FDR, crippled, a world wide depression, the great war, how many could have gone through all that, and yet he screwed up with the Japanese internment. Definitely tough times, and that work laid the foundations for our liberal democracy that raised the boats for so many. LBJ continued that tough leveling task. Reagan was the beginning of the end and while I think he realized he screwed up, his ideas appealed to the greedy and imperialists and today we see the fruits of Reagan in corporate greed and an illegal war.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 25, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> The greatest would have to be FDR, crippled, a world wide depression, the great war, how many could have gone through all that, and yet he screwed up with the Japanese internment. Definitely tough times, and that work laid the foundations for our liberal democracy that raised the boats for so many. LBJ continued that tough leveling task. Reagan was the beginning of the end and while I think he realized he screwed up, his ideas appealed to the greedy and imperialists and today we see the fruits of Reagan in corporate greed and an illegal war.



The Great War was World War I (FDR was not president)--but I know what you mean.  I agree the FDR is up their also, for the crap he had to deal with in office.  Those Roosevelts are BAD A!  We should look for a descendant.


----------



## Swamp Fox (Jun 25, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> The greatest would have to be FDR, crippled, a world wide depression, the great war, how many could have gone through all that, and yet he screwed up with the Japanese internment. Definitely tough times, and that work laid the foundations for our liberal democracy that raised the boats for so many. LBJ continued that tough leveling task. Reagan was the beginning of the end and while I think he realized he screwed up, his ideas appealed to the greedy and imperialists and today we see the fruits of Reagan in corporate greed and an illegal war.



Figures you would pick all the ones with socialist leanings.  How about some respect for those who felt Americans should be able to stand for themselves and not suck off the government tit for their well being?


----------



## Gunny (Jun 25, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> Figures you would pick all the ones with socialist leanings.  How about some respect for those who felt Americans should be able to stand for themselves and not suck off the government tit for their well being?



Y'know, I actually agree that FDR was one of the best.  I don't agree with socialism, but you have to put FDR in context with his time.  We were in a world-wide depression.  He had to pull us out of it.  I think he did it the best way he knew how, and the best way it could be done in the amount if time it was.

However, some of the socialist programs that still linger from that time have hurt us.  They created a couple of generations of people and their descendents who have this mentality that they are entitled instead of having to make their own way.  You see some on these message boards.  The government should be mollycoddling anyone with a cut or scrape ... well so long as they support thise programs.

I just think given the circumstances he was, he did the right and only thing he could.  I also think programs like social security are a antiquated and should be put out of their misery.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 25, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Y'know, I actually agree that FDR was one of the best.  I don't agree with socialism, but you have to put FDR in context with his time.  We were in a world-wide depression.  He had to pull us out of it.  I think he did it the best way he knew how, and the best way it could be done in the amount if time it was.
> 
> However, some of the socialist programs that still linger from that time have hurt us.  They created a couple of generations of people and their descendents who have this mentality that they are entitled instead of having to make their own way.  You see some on these message boards.  The government should be mollycoddling anyone with a cut or scrape ... well so long as they support thise programs.
> 
> I just think given the circumstances he was, he did the right and only thing he could.  I also think programs like social security are a antiquated and should be put out of their misery.




He would have been a great president if he would have ripped the throat out of the soviet union. Instead, he is just an opportunistic Jew-tool.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 25, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> He would have been a great president if he would have ripped the throat out of the soviet union. Instead, he is just an opportunistic Jew-tool.



Who?  Roosevelt?  We don't really know WHAT he would have done.  He died before WW II ended.  Truman had the reins.  That he was willing to not confront Stalin while Stalin was keeping Hitler busy on one flank is just sound strategy.  The USSR really DID take a BIG brunt of the war.

Besides, Churchill was talking out his butt.  The Euro-Allies faced the same thing Hitler did ... Russia is a LOT bigger than people think.  The expanse alone is too much.  

We'd have had to nuke them.  No one had a large enough army to tackle and occupy Russia at the time.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 25, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Who?  Roosevelt?  We don't really know WHAT he would have done.  He died before WW II ended.  Truman had the reins.  That he was willing to not confront Stalin while Stalin was keeping Hitler busy on one flank is just sound strategy.  The USSR really DID take a BIG brunt of the war.
> 
> Besides, Churchill was talking out his butt.  The Euro-Allies faced the same thing Hitler did ... Russia is a LOT bigger than people think.  The expanse alone is too much.
> 
> We'd have had to nuke them.  No one had a large enough army to tackle and occupy Russia at the time.



No one needed to occupy the country, just get rid of all the communist leaders. There was a reason the commie cocksucks had orders, and routinely performed them, for shooting citizens who would not fight for the soviets. It's also why the Nazis found it very easy to get recruits in already conquered parts of the USSR. They knew who the real evil was, and it wasn't Hitler.

Now the dumb fuck antics of FDR not only damned eastern europe to hell for decades, but it forced us into the coldwar. Add up the fucking dollars we could have spent on something usefel instead of enough nukes to blow out fucking planet up 20 times over.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 26, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> No one needed to occupy the country, just get rid of all the communist leaders. There was a reason the commie cocksucks had orders, and routinely performed them, for shooting citizens who would not fight for the soviets. It's also why the Nazis found it very easy to get recruits in already conquered parts of the USSR. They knew who the real evil was, and it wasn't Hitler.
> 
> Now the dumb fuck antics of FDR not only damned eastern europe to hell for decades, but it forced us into the coldwar. Add up the fucking dollars we could have spent on something usefel instead of enough nukes to blow out fucking planet up 20 times over.



I don't disagree that Stalin and the Soviet machine were an "evil."  The in no way lessens the fact that Hitler and the 3rd Reich were every bit as much so.  

I'm still not sure what "antics" you are blaming on FDR.  He made a strategically sound decision to support the Soviet Union.  They were keeping Hitler otherwise occupied while we did our usual piddling around of building up our forces.  Had Hitler only to concentrate on England and let his damned generals run the war, he could easily have taken it.  That leaves us without a stationary aircraft carrier and supply depot which was the UK.  

FDR also had a two-front war to deal with.  

And don't kid yourself.  Whoever is our President at the time might be a dolt, and our government may suck at any one given time, but you step foot on US soil as an invading army and YOU are the enemy.  Perhaps a few of those that took the short end of the stick from the Soviets would turn, but by and large, most would fight on the side of their nation.


----------



## Annie (Jun 26, 2008)

It appears nomdeplume has been reading Pat Buchanan. What do you think of Israel, Nom?


----------



## jillian (Jun 26, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Who?  Roosevelt?  We don't really know WHAT he would have done.  He died before WW II ended.  Truman had the reins.  That he was willing to not confront Stalin while Stalin was keeping Hitler busy on one flank is just sound strategy.  The USSR really DID take a BIG brunt of the war.
> 
> Besides, Churchill was talking out his butt.  The Euro-Allies faced the same thing Hitler did ... Russia is a LOT bigger than people think.  The expanse alone is too much.
> 
> We'd have had to nuke them.  No one had a large enough army to tackle and occupy Russia at the time.



not to mention that Roosevelt let how many millions of Jews die while sitting around? 

I agree it was a strategic thing, but "jew tool"? only to an antisemite, since Roosevelt wouldn't have thought twice about letting the rest die if it suited his interests. (and yes, I know I'm preaching to the choir).


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> not to mention that Roosevelt let how many millions of Jews die while sitting around?
> 
> I agree it was a strategic thing, but "jew tool"? only to an antisemite, since Roosevelt wouldn't have thought twice about letting the rest die if it suited his interests. (and yes, I know I'm preaching to the choir).



Hey dumb fuck, no one knew anything about Jews being massacred wholesale until after the war. You might try to actually  spend your time educating yourself on things before you offer your ignorant opinion of those things. OR you can go back to rep whoring and being an ignorant twat the rest of your miserable life.

Edit: btw, we did know BEFORE the war and DURING the war of the soviets genocide of Christians and Ukrainians, but the Jew-owned media in this country never felt like telling you ignorant hoi polloi.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> not to mention that Roosevelt let how many millions of Jews die while sitting around?
> 
> I agree it was a strategic thing, but "jew tool"? only to an antisemite, since Roosevelt wouldn't have thought twice about letting the rest die if it suited his interests. (and yes, I know I'm preaching to the choir).



The way I have read and heard it, FDR knew about the Nazi extermination camps and kept the info secret because he feared it would cause a loss of support at home for the war.  

I guess it depends on how you want to look at it.  What would disclosure of the  knowledge to the general public have gained?  Nothing from a strategic standpoint.  We STILL wouldn't have gotten to them any sooner.  But it could have harmed support for taking out Hitler if the Jew-haters in this country and others -- most notably England -- had managed to twist it into a "We're fighting for the Jews" thing.

Big-picture-wise, I think he made the right decision that led to quickest conclusion there was going to be.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 26, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Hey dumb fuck, no one knew anything about Jews being massacred wholesale until after the war. You might try to actually  spend your time educating yourself on things before you offer your ignorant opinion of those things. OR you can go back to rep whoring and being an ignorant twat the rest of your miserable life.
> 
> Edit: btw, we did know BEFORE the war and DURING the war of the soviets genocide of Christians and Ukrainians, but the Jew-owned media in this country never felt like telling you ignorant hoi polloi.



Tone down the language please.

I disagree.  England knew, and they told Roosevelt before even Operation Overlord took place.  See my previous post.


----------



## Annie (Jun 26, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Tone down the language please.
> 
> I disagree.  England knew, and they told Roosevelt before even Operation Overlord took place.  See my previous post.



Thank you. First moderation of this guy I've seen. He may have valid points, or not, but his way of expressing shuts down dialog.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 26, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> The way I have read and heard it, FDR knew about the Nazi extermination camps and kept the info secret because he feared it would cause a loss of support at home for the war.



Source or its bullshit.



GunnyL said:


> I guess it depends on how you want to look at it.  What would disclosure of the  knowledge to the general public have gained?  Nothing from a strategic standpoint.  We STILL wouldn't have gotten to them any sooner.  But it could have harmed support for taking out Hitler if the Jew-haters in this country and others -- most notably England -- had managed to twist it into a "We're fighting for the Jews" thing.
> 
> Big-picture-wise, I think he made the right decision that led to quickest conclusion there was going to be.




Do you know how many people stalin and his comisars genocidally cleansed from Russia? Many, many times more than the nazis did. Do you know what we could have done scientifically with the massive amounts of money and resources both the USSR and the USA wasted in the cold war?

It was the single greatest, most stupid choice ever. We should have let the Germans destroy the soviets infrastructure entirely. By that time, their resources would have been so taxed, soldiers so low in morale from constant war, and most troops so far removed from Germany, we could have swept in and taken Germany nearly bloodlessly. Then the troops would give up. Even though it was surrender, they would have destroyed the greatest threat the earth has evver seen.  

Hitler let all the allies live and escape at Dunkirk because he thought that they would realize that the real threat to the world was the USSR and actually fight against them at some point. He underestimated the bigotries of the British however, and the control Jews exerted on american media and political life.

Remember that both Germany and the USSR invaded Poland at the exact same time, yet war was only declared against the Germans. These are old bigotries and jingoisms that go back to world war 1 where the "allies" were humilated and nominally defeated by the much smaller in number yet much better and more effecient Germans. 

Now a better question, why the fuck did we get into WW1 that actually lead to WW2? Our wonderful Jew friends. Initially the Jew media was propagandizing the war FOR the Germans. Why? Because they hated imperial Russia. Then the British offered Israel for the Jews, in subtle terms, and then it was jusyt like a switch that went on, then the noble Germans suddenly morphed into muderous Belgium baby eating monsters.


----------



## Annie (Jun 26, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Source or its bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dunno:

Anti-Semitism Rife on Yahoo Message Boards - June 26, 2008 - The New York Sun



> Anti-Semitism Rife on Yahoo Message Boards
> 
> By JOHN THOMPSON, Special to the Sun
> June 26, 2008
> ...


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 26, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> I dunno:



I do.

Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour


----------



## Swamp Fox (Jun 26, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Do you know how many people stalin and his comisars genocidally cleansed from Russia? Many, many times more than the nazis did. Do you know what we could have done scientifically with the massive amounts of money and resources both the USSR and the USA wasted in the cold war?



Most scientific and medical achievements come from war, witness the new bandages and stuff developed during the Iraqi war used to prevent battlefield infections.



nomdeplume said:


> It was the single greatest, most stupid choice ever. We should have let the Germans destroy the soviets infrastructure entirely. By that time, their resources would have been so taxed, soldiers so low in morale from constant war, and most troops so far removed from Germany, we could have swept in and taken Germany nearly bloodlessly. Then the troops would give up. Even though it was surrender, they would have destroyed the greatest threat the earth has evver seen.



Maybe, maybe not.  No way to know for sure.  And hindsights alway 20/20.  It's easy to sit back here years after the fact and criticize people for the decisions they made based on what they knew at the time.



nomdeplume said:


> Hitler let all the allies live and escape at Dunkirk because he thought that they would realize that the real threat to the world was the USSR and actually fight against them at some point. He underestimated the bigotries of the British however, and the control Jews exerted on american media and political life.



What's that line you used?  "Source or its bullshit!"  



nomdeplume said:


> Remember that both Germany and the USSR invaded Poland at the exact same time, yet war was only declared against the Germans. These are old bigotries and jingoisms that go back to world war 1 where the "allies" were humilated and nominally defeated by the much smaller in number yet much better and more effecient Germans.



And what's the source for this dramatic yet erroneous statement.



nomdeplume said:


> Now a better question, why the fuck did we get into WW1 that actually lead to WW2? Our wonderful Jew friends. Initially the Jew media was propagandizing the war FOR the Germans. Why? Because they hated imperial Russia. Then the British offered Israel for the Jews, in subtle terms, and then it was jusyt like a switch that went on, then the noble Germans suddenly morphed into muderous Belgium baby eating monsters.



Wow.  Just for future reference, A History of the Jewish People by David Dukes isn't considered a reliable source.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 26, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Source or its bullshit.



Oh?  I believe YOU made the first claim, slick.  Your source that they didn't know?  Guess you already know what it is if you can't provide one.

Shall I set my tv on the history channel and ship it to you, or would prefer I fax you a couple of books?  

News from the Washington File

Green Left - The Allies' role in the Holocaust

Let me know if you need some more.



> Do you know how many people stalin and his comisars genocidally cleansed from Russia? Many, many times more than the nazis did. Do you know what we could have done scientifically with the massive amounts of money and resources both the USSR and the USA wasted in the cold war?
> 
> It was the single greatest, most stupid choice ever. We should have let the Germans destroy the soviets infrastructure entirely. By that time, their resources would have been so taxed, soldiers so low in morale from constant war, and most troops so far removed from Germany, we could have swept in and taken Germany nearly bloodlessly. Then the troops would give up. Even though it was surrender, they would have destroyed the greatest threat the earth has evver seen.
> 
> ...



So your REAL problem here is that Nazis were stopped from exterminating Jews and you are attempting to use the Cold War as smoke screen?

Dude,  Nazi Germany was a problem.  Russia was a problem LATER.  Your argument defies history, logic and shows only that you have some major issues with Jews.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 26, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> I do.
> 
> Dear Lord Rothschild,
> I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
> ...



So what's your problem?  Israel was established so the Allied powers that were could wash their hands of the Jews and move them far, far away.  That seems to suit your sensibilities just fine.  Had they carried it out in 1924, the Holocaust would never have happened.  

So what you're really trying to say is there is no place for Jews in the world, right?  Or do you have some specific place in mind you would like to round them all up and keep them?


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 26, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Oh?  I believe YOU made the first claim, slick.  Your source that they didn't know?  Guess you already know what it is if you can't provide one.
> 
> Shall I set my tv on the history channel and ship it to you, or would prefer I fax you a couple of books?
> 
> ...



You can't disprove a negative, Sherlock. The first site is completely a red herring. Nothing is stated in there of what was known of any holocaust. You may think it does, but you are grasping at straws and want it to be so when it just isn't so. The second site is written by a zionist liar. He states that messages were intercepted via the broken code that detailed the holocaust. Complete bullshit. The entire record of those conversations has been scrubbed by the IHR and Nizkor constant debates on the holocaust.







GunnyL said:


> So your REAL problem here is that Nazis were stopped from exterminating Jews and you are attempting to use the Cold War as smoke screen?
> 
> Dude,  Nazi Germany was a problem.  Russia was a problem LATER.  Your argument defies history, logic and shows only that you have some major issues with Jews.




I don't know if you are a Jew or just a bgoted American, or a just bigot against Germans, because if you had any knowledge of the war, you would know that the Germans did not start killing Jews till near the end of the war. They had originally intended to deport them all out of their territories. *We caused *the holocaust by supporting Russia and the UK. The same bullshit that started WW2 in the first place. We caused WW2, and we caused the holocaust by getting involved in things that were not our business.

Don't give this crap about Russia not being major issue until later. Ya, FOR AMERICA, not for all the tens of millions of europeans butchered by the commies. The writing was on the wall, additionally, they are the most resource rich country on the planet! The Germans were completely reliant on imports to support itself. We had no allies next to Russia, yet we had tons of allies next to Germany, too.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 26, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> You can't disprove a negative, Sherlock. The first site is completely a red herring. Nothing is stated in there of what was known of any holocaust. You may think it does, but you are grasping at straws and want it to be so when it just isn't so. The second site is written by a zionist liar. He states that messages were intercepted via the broken code that detailed the holocaust. Complete bullshit. The entire record of those conversations has been scrubbed by the IHR and Nizkor constant debates on the holocaust.



Can you teach ME to dance like YOU?  You did not make a negative statement.  Roosevelt did not know of the Holocaust before the war ended.  That is a positive statement of fact, implying that there is evidence to support it, and has nothing to do with proving a negative.

As far as the first link goes, it states clearly that should you read the documents disclosed; which you may feel free to do if you wish, there are parts that contain information as to what the US government/allies knew about the extermination camps.

O-o-o-o-h-h-h ...... and the second is written by a Zionist liar.  GMAFB.  

Feel free while you are proving your statement of fact in regard to knowing of the Holocaust until after the war to also provide the documentation that supports your assertions that whoever scrubbed whatever in regard to the second link.

Is this where I point out you aren't doing very well?



> I don't know if you are a Jew or just a bgoted American, or a just bigot against Germans, because if you had any knowledge of the war, you would know that the Germans did not start killing Jews till near the end of the war. They had originally intended to deport them all out of their territories. *We caused *the holocaust by supporting Russia and the UK. The same bullshit that started WW2 in the first place. We caused WW2, and we caused the holocaust by getting involved in things that were not our business.



I happen to be neither a Jew, nor a bigotted American ... unless you consider the fact I am bigotted against ridiculous hatred steeped in bullshit so deep it's take week to dig to sunlight.

The Germans didn't start murdering Jews until near the end of war.  We caused WWII.  We caused the Holocaust. 

I'll argue history any day with most anyone.  But not you.  That last paragraph  is about as ignorant of actual history as I've seen.



> Don't give this crap about Russia not being major issue until later. Ya, FOR AMERICA, not for all the tens of millions of europeans butchered by the commies. The writing was on the wall, additionally, they are the most resource rich country on the planet! The Germans were completely reliant on imports to support itself. We had no allies next to Russia, yet we had tons of allies next to Germany, too.



Geez ... you are a SERIOUS piece of work.  I can honestly say I've never run into anyone that hated so much and is as screwy as you are.  Where DO you get this crap from?


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 26, 2008)

You have completely devolved into a babbling clown. You don't debate because you know you are outclassed and outgunned, and, most improtantly, you don't what you are talking about. I "get this stuff" from studying history. I probably knew more by the time I was 12 then you will ever learn in your entire life. I'm Jewish by talmudic law, btw, and native american by american law. I don't harbor resentments toward anyone specifically, or anyone group, but when you say complete bullshit and you deny the obvious, well, I'm gonna crush you.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> You have completely devolved into a babbling clown. You don't debate because you know you are outclassed and outgunned, and, most improtantly, you don't what you are talking about. I "get this stuff" from studying history. I probably knew more by the time I was 12 then you will ever learn in your entire life. I'm Jewish by talmudic law, btw, and native american by american law. I don't harbor resentments toward anyone specifically, or anyone group, but when you say complete bullshit and you deny the obvious, well, I'm gonna crush you.




I'm going to tell you two things ...

One, if you wish to engage in a name-calling contest with me ... bring it.  I'm about sick of you freakin' newbies acting like you've got some corner on nastiness.

Second, if your posts in this thread ate any indication of your studying history, then I suggest you demand a refund.  You got screwed.  Based on your "extensive knowledge," due to lifelong study, I'd say you were about 8 years old, if that.  All I see coming out of you is agenda-driven, hatemongering and revisionist bullshit that sounds like some kind of warped SNL parody.

You want to hate Jews, be my guest.  You have that right.  But don't come on here trying to blow smoke up anyone's asses attempting to rewrite history to support your hatred.  

You have demanded I support my argument which I have done.  You have yet to support one word of yours.  Either get hot on it, or get back in your corner where you can blindly lash out at anyone who thinks differently than you; which, I suspect is most anyone capable of rational thought.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 27, 2008)

There is evidence that the US and the British knew of the concentration camps around 1943, as I recall. The decision was made not to disclose the information because it was believed it would not help the war effort.

The Jews were being murdered BEFORE the US ever joined the war. Ohh and by the way? Hitler DECLARED WAR ON US. It was not just Jews though and it was not just in camps. In the Soviet Union slaughter was conducted on site by special units. Slaughter of Jews and other Undesirables.

More importantly is the simple fact EVERYONE knew before the war how Germany treated her undesirables. There was as I recall a ship full of Jews from Germany before the war that NO country would allow to land, including us.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is evidence that the US and the British knew of the concentration camps around 1943, as I recall. The decision was made not to disclose the information because it was believed it would not help the war effort.
> 
> The Jews were being murdered BEFORE the US ever joined the war. Ohh and by the way? Hitler DECLARED WAR ON US. It was not just Jews though and it was not just in camps. In the Soviet Union slaughter was conducted on site by special units. Slaughter of Jews and other Undesirables.
> 
> More importantly is the simple fact EVERYONE knew before the war how Germany treated her undesirables. There was as I recall a ship full of Jews from Germany before the war that NO country would allow to land, including us.



Exccellent point.  Hitler did indeed declare war on the US the day after the US declared war on Japan, IIRC.   But haven't you heard?  "We" started it.


----------



## editec (Jun 27, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> Figures you would pick all the ones with socialist leanings. How about some respect for those who felt Americans should be able to stand for themselves and not suck off the government tit for their well being?


 
Which President do you have in mind whose policies actually lived up to that sentiment?


----------



## editec (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Hey dumb fuck, no one knew anything about Jews being massacred wholesale until after the war. You might try to actually spend your time educating yourself on things before you offer your ignorant opinion of those things. OR you can go back to rep whoring and being an ignorant twat the rest of your miserable life.
> 
> Edit: btw, we did know BEFORE the war and DURING the war of the soviets genocide of Christians and Ukrainians, but the Jew-owned media in this country never felt like telling you ignorant hoi polloi.


 

You've just been misinformed about the history of when the world knew about the holocaust.

Yes, they knew.



> On October 22, 1939, the _Forward_, a New York Yiddish daily with the largest circulation and an organ of Jewish labor, charged that the Nazis were not interested in founding a Jewish State, but a concentration camp, where Jews would be held under the poorest conditions and suffer great deprivation. (22) The American Jewish Committee declared that "If this fantastic plan is carried out, it would mean that 2,000,000 Jews now in Germany or in territories under German domination, would be confined in what would be a large concentration camp, where they would be doomed to degradation, misery and death." (23)


 


> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In an editorial on January 24, 1940, the _New York Times_ explained it had been reluctant to report atrocity stories coming out of Poland because "All we have heard until now have been unofficial accounts of such horrors that we chose to disbelieve them as exaggerated."(32) But the _Times_ acknowledged it could no longer ignore these accounts because the Vatican radio station had broadcast that it had been receiving almost daily reports from Warsaw, Krakow, Pomerania, Poznan, and Silesia that told of "destitution, destruction and infamy of every description." (33) The Vatican "has spoken with authority that cannot be questioned; and has confirmed the worst intimations of terror which comes out of the Polish darkness," the _Times_ reported. (34) Jews and Poles were being moved into hermetically sealed ghettos that were inadequate to sustain the millions destined to live there. (35)[/FONT]
> [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]



> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Throughout 1941, the condition of European Jews continued to deteriorate. The Jewish press provided almost daily accounts of the confiscation of Jewish property, (53) expulsions, deportations,(54) mass arrests, forced labor, wanton executions (55) and brutal conditions in the Jewish ghettos. (56) When members of the Iron Guard, a Romanian fascist and antisemitic movement, attempted to overthrow General Ian Antonescu in Romania in January 1941, the Jewish press published a graphic eyewitness account of how Jews were brutalized and killed.(57) The _Times_, on January 26, 1941, published a report provided by the American Friends Service Committee about the horrible plight of the Jews in the Gurs, one the largest concentration camps in France.(58) Perhaps one of the most import revelations of the period appeared on May 5, 1941 in The _New Republic_, a liberal weekly magazine, when it acknowledged that an unnamed dignitary of the Catholic Church revealed that "85,000 blind, incurably ill or aged Germans were put to death by the Gestapo in September, October and November of 1940." (59) William Shirer, the American CBS radio correspondent described these killings in his book _Berlin Diary_. On July 18, the _American Hebrew_ provided additional details about the "mercy killings" and quoted the report as having concluded, "these reports... bear further proof as to the menace Nazism constitutes to the entire world, including the followers of Nazism." (60)[/FONT]
> [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]



> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Throughout the first six months of 1942 reports of the systematic slaughter of the Jews on the Russian front continued to be widely reported in the Jewish press. There were many eyewitness accounts of mass executions from Russian, Jewish Polish and Hungarian sources as well as from neutral diplomats. (65) On March 25, a report by a Bavarian Catholic priest estimated the Nazis had gassed 10,000 Dutch Jews in poison gas experiments at the Mathausen concentration camp in Austria. On April 5 the Dutch Government-in-exile confirmed this report; on June 8, an American diplomat confirmed it. (66)[/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Other dispatches told of deportation of tens of thousands of Jews to concentration camps, to forced labor and to "unknown destinations," (67) of the Berlin order to execute typhus-stricken Jews, (68) of appeals for help, (69) and of the thousands of Jews who had died of starvation and froze to death in the ghettos. (70) One of the most dramatic of these accounts came from S. Bertrand Jacobson, a JDC a representative in Eastern Europe who had returned to New York. He reported that "240,000 Jews who had been deported from Germany and all parts of Central Europe to the German-held Ukraine were murdered by the Gestapo, according to the testimony of Hungarian soldiers returning from the eastern front." One Hungarian soldier said that at one great tract of land near Kiev, he saw the ground "move in waves." The Germans had buried the Jews even before they were dead. Jacobson asserted that the Nazis had one solution to the Jewish question'mdash;extermination and destruction, which is being carried out in every country under German control. In Yugoslavia, the Jewish population had been reduced from 68,000 before the Nazi invasion on April 6, 1941 to a maximum of 25,000. The Jews in Belgrade were " rounded up and taken in trucks, a hundred at a time, to nearby forests and executed."(71)[/FONT]
> [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

The world witnessed the event as the holcaust unfolded.  

They knew of the original slughters by soldiers as the German's invaded Poland, and they knew about the ghettos, they they knew about the camps, and then they  knew about the gas chambers, too.

Long _long_ before the invasion of Europe, the world knew what was going on.

There is no doubt about this.

The historica record of what we knew and when we knew it is quite clear.



[/FONT] 
[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## AtlasShrieked (Jun 27, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> Figures you would pick all the ones with socialist leanings.  How about some respect for those who felt Americans should be able to stand for themselves and not suck off the government tit for their well being?



you mean all those barons of the industrial revolution who sucked off the tits of government contracts? 

maybe the billionaires like Ross Perot who's ships were tied up at the piers marked: government $$$$$$?


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 27, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Exccellent point.  Hitler did indeed declare war on the US the day after the US declared war on Japan, IIRC.   But haven't you heard?  "We" started it.



We *caused* world war 2. Even the most novice historian knows as much. We casued the holocasut, too.

Just because you ignorant morons here never knew these facts, don't kill the messenger. You ever heard of the madagascar plan? It would have went through had we not been bankrolling, as well as using other means of supporting, all of Germany's enemies by guess who? The USA.


----------



## Annie (Jun 27, 2008)

Other than Pat Buchanan, what sources are you using? BTW, he isn't close to being any kind of historian, not a novice or master.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 27, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Other than Pat Buchanan, what sources are you using? BTW, he isn't close to being any kind of historian, not a novice or master.



I've seen Pat Buchanan on TV maybe 30-50 times, none of which did he detail anything about WW2 or WW1. Other than that, I have no idea of anything he has to say. I haven't even read anything from him, op-eds or otherwise.

Only reason WW2 started was because of the way WW1 ended, when america got involved in a war they had no business being in. Well, that's not entirely true. There was one other reason other than that which allowed WW2 to start, and that was the brutal and blood-stained creation of the communist state of the USSR, the most populous and resource rich european country. Desperate times require desperate measures.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 27, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Tone down the language please.
> 
> I disagree.  England knew, and they told Roosevelt before even Operation Overlord took place.  See my previous post.



Of Course we knew.  We knew and did nothing militarily.  We continued to supply the Allies and only got involved when we were attacked...which is fine with me.  What alot of people didn't realize, is that Americans hated Jews just as much as Germans did.  I've attended presentations by Jewish scholars that retold their stories of coming to America during the war.  All of them came here and spoke of discrimination from Americans.  I think American British forces (from what I've read) found out through various types of intelligence.  Underground operatives, aerial photographs, and the enigma machines.  The problem was that many concentration camps were in Poland and deep into Germany...well out of effective range to liberate early in the war.  Even so, they really couldn't just side-step around the German Army to liberate these camps.


----------



## Annie (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> I've seen Pat Buchanan on TV maybe 30-50 times, none of which did he detail anything about WW2 or WW1. Other than that, I have no idea of anything he has to say. I haven't even read anything from him, op-eds or otherwise.
> 
> Only reason WW2 started was because of the way WW1 ended, when america got involved in a war they had no business being in. Well, that's not entirely true. There was one other reason other than that which allowed WW2 to start, and that was the brutal and blood-stained creation of the communist state of the USSR, the most populous and resource rich european country. Desperate times require desperate measures.



Funny but every issue you've brought up, can be found by googling <Buchanan and the term> ie., Madagascar Buchanan

Here's a real historian's response to Buchanan's rantings:

VDH's Private Papers:atrick J. Buchanan


----------



## jillian (Jun 27, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Funny but every issue you've brought up, can be found by googling <Buchanan and the term> ie., Madagascar Buchanan
> 
> Here's a real historians response to Buchanan's rantings:
> 
> VDH's Private Papers:atrick J. Buchanan



Everyone knows Buchanan's an isolationist and a revisionist when it comes to WWII history. I won't go into the reasons for that, but even he laughed at the thought that it was ever possible for a bunch of Jews in Boca Raton, FL to vote for him in 2000.

But reliance on that type of revisionist trash does prove Goebbel's theory that a lie repeated often enough can be proffered as truth.


----------



## Annie (Jun 27, 2008)

jillian said:


> Everyone knows Buchanan's an isolationist and a revisionist when it comes to WWII history. I won't go into the reasons for that, but even he laughed at the thought that it was ever possible for a bunch of Jews in Boca Raton, FL to vote for him in 2000.
> 
> But reliance on that type of revisionist trash does prove Goebbel's theory that a lie repeated often enough can be proffered as truth.



Yep, Buchanan is dangerous, always has been.


----------



## jillian (Jun 27, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Yep, Buchanan is dangerous, always has been.



Problem with Buchanan is that he's also a brilliant political operative. Has an instinctive sense of where the jugular is.

But yeah, dangerous as all getout. 

He was also one of the first people to whine about the Supreme Court.... so yes, very dangerous.


----------



## Annie (Jun 27, 2008)

jillian said:


> Problem with Buchanan is that he's also a brilliant political operative. Has an instinctive sense of where the jugular is.
> 
> But yeah, dangerous as all getout.
> 
> He was also one of the first people to whine about the Supreme Court.... so yes, very dangerous.



Jillian, we at least partially agree. 

Did you read this?

The Volokh Conspiracy - -


----------



## jillian (Jun 27, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Jillian, we at least partially agree.
> 
> Did you read this?
> 
> The Volokh Conspiracy - -



Now, Kathianne, you have to know by now how little I think of Volokh. BTW, his comparison of Breyer's decisions in the two cases.... absurd. They're apples and oranges.

His analysis doesn't impress me.... come to think of it, I can't really remember when it did, though I might have agreed with him once.


----------



## Annie (Jun 27, 2008)

jillian said:


> Now, Kathianne, you have to know by now how little I think of Volokh. BTW, his comparison of Breyer's decisions in the two cases.... absurd. They're apples and oranges.
> 
> His analysis doesn't impress me.... come to think of it, I can't really remember when it did, though I might have agreed with him once.



That was Orin Kerr.

How about Randy Barnett? 

News Flash: The Constitution Means What It Says - WSJ.com


----------



## editec (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> We *caused* world war 2. Even the most novice historian knows as much. We casued the holocasut, too.
> 
> Just because you ignorant morons here never knew these facts, don't kill the messenger. You ever heard of the madagascar plan? It would have went through had we not been bankrolling, as well as using other means of supporting, all of Germany's enemies by guess who? The USA.


 
I have yet to read Buchannan's books on the Second World War, but I look forward to doing so. 

Pat comes at these issues with a novel approach, and unlike you nondeplume, he doesn't appear to me to be motivated to look a history from the stance of an jew-hater. 

HOWEVER...I agree with you that WWII could have been prevented

I think it not completely unreasonable to suggest that we (meaning the Western Powers) DID CAUSE WORLD WAR II, as well, but likely not for the same reasons you might.

First of all the Treaty of Versailles was a cruel joke played not only on the German people, but on many people throughout the world, including, for example, the Arabs who were our ALLIES in that conflict.

Secondly, the reparations demanded of the German people were absurd and guaranteed to destroy that people's ability to recover from the war. 

We can mostly blame the FRENCH for this, but ENGLAND deserves it's share of the blame, too.

No, I do not blame the USA for that mess since they'd pretty much given up in disgust of their former allies for being such dickheads as to destroy Europe's best hope for peace. (which would have been a viable democractic Germany)

Finally, we can blame both England AND France for pussying out when Hitler began rearming, taking back the disputed territories, and for the destruction of Czechoslokia, too.

Had France stood up to Hitler when he rolled into Alsace-Lorraine (the French outnumbered the Germans troops considerably and could have crushed that move easily) Hitler would likely have been removed from office by the German military establishment by a coupe d' etat and there would NOT have been second world war.


----------



## jillian (Jun 27, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> That was Orin Kerr.
> 
> How about Randy Barnett?
> 
> News Flash: The Constitution Means What It Says - WSJ.com



I read the first sentence. He's wrong. It wasn't exemplary in its reasoning and it didn't mean the constitution "means what it says". Scalia didn't even adddress the issue of militia.

That was simply insulting...and horrific reasoning.... even if the result got to the right place.

To me? That decision was yet another F-U to the next president whose supreme court nominees are going to be saddled with some of the worst caselaw ever to come out of the court.... no matter how the right wants to spin it.

I think I asked you this earlier...I could be wrong.... but do tell me if McCain will be whining about judicial review today?


----------



## Annie (Jun 27, 2008)

jillian said:


> I read the first sentence. He's wrong. It wasn't exemplary in its reasoning and it didn't mean the constitution "means what it says". Scalia didn't even adddress the issue of militia.
> 
> That was simply insulting...and horrific reasoning.... even if the result got to the right place.
> 
> ...



I'm not discussing Obama's walking away from the 'Constitutionality of the DC ban', why bring up McCain? 

I can respect your opinion for 'interpretation', but not your contempt for many distinguished opinions on the opposite side. Considering that Kerr was cited by both the majority and minority, both Volokh and Barnett too were cited, there seems to be some good grey cells to rub together?


----------



## jillian (Jun 27, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> I'm not discussing Obama's walking away from the 'Constitutionality of the DC ban', why bring up McCain?
> 
> I can respect your opinion for 'interpretation', but not your contempt for many distinguished opinions on the opposite side. Considering that Kerr was cited by both the majority and minority, both Volokh and Barnett too were cited, there seems to be some good grey cells to rub together?



I have contempt for those opinions because they go against 200 years of Constitutional interpretation. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, Kathianne, but I know it when I see it. I didn't know the answer on the gun issue, and frankly, I had little more than an intellectual curiousity about it. However, like much of his writing, Scalia starts from an incorrect premise to get to a result he wants.

Scalia has total and complete contempt for everyone else... the fact that he refused to deal with the militia issue was insulting and the fact that the spinners on the right are ignoring that lapse doesn't endear me to their facile editorials on the case.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Obama ever made a statement that didn't recognize that gun ownership, in some form, was guaranteed by the Constitution. McCain, however, a week ago, was a whining, sniveling baby complaining that the High Court had the temerity to review legislation..... pathetic to anyone who knows anything about the law.

Again, Bush's court is saddling the next Court with some of the worst precedents in history.... and intentionally so.


----------



## Annie (Jun 27, 2008)

jillian said:


> I have contempt for those opinions because they go against 200 years of Constitutional interpretation. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, Kathianne, but I know it when I see it. I didn't know the answer on the gun issue, and frankly, I had little more than an intellectual curiousity about it. However, like much of his writing, Scalia starts from an incorrect premise to get to a result he wants.
> 
> Scalia has total and complete contempt for everyone else... the fact that he refused to deal with the militia issue was insulting and the fact that the spinners on the right are ignoring that lapse doesn't endear me to their facile editorials on the case.
> 
> ...



He backed the idea of 'no guns' in cities. He also acknowledges that it doesn't work. What to make of that? 

Barack Obama on Gun Control

Oh and before you go off on 'bias', may I suggest you take a look at the homepage? I gave you the direct link to positions and sources.


----------



## Annie (Jun 27, 2008)

A recent post by Barnett, links at site:

The Volokh Conspiracy - -


> [Randy Barnett, June 27, 2008 at 5:40am] Trackbacks
> So What Gun Regulations Are Reasonable? Perhaps the question most commonly asked by reporters about yesterday's decision in Heller, is how it will affect the constitutionality of other gun laws. I believe Justice Scalia signaled that regulations short of a ban should be scrutinized the way we do "time, place, and manner" regulations of speech when he equated the Second Amendment with the First: "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendments right of free speech was not."
> 
> An article by Gary Barnett, a rising 3L at Georgetown Law, just appeared in the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy contending that the doctrines construing the individual rights in the First Amendment should be applied analogously to the rights protected Second Amendment. (This is what he calls the Common Law Constructive Method.) He provides a very useful survey of First Amendment doctrines and then considers how they might need to be altered or refined to work in the Second Amendment context.
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> We *caused* world war 2. Even the most novice historian knows as much. We casued the holocasut, too.
> 
> Just because you ignorant morons here never knew these facts, don't kill the messenger. You ever heard of the madagascar plan? It would have went through had we not been bankrolling, as well as using other means of supporting, all of Germany's enemies by guess who? The USA.



The fact that we supported Germany's enemies logistically in no way means we caused WWII.  WWII was in fact in motion WITHOUT us.  We were one of if not the last to enter the war and only after Pear Harbor.

Please clarify your stance ... is it that you just hate Jews?  Think Nazi Germany was right in just taking whatever the Hell Hitler felt like he wanted?  Or both?  

Again for the slow ... the US was attacked FIRST by Japan.  We declared war on Japan and Germany declared war on the US in keeping with its mutual defense alliance with Italy and Japan.  That's just the way it was.  The US was not active participants in WWII until those events took place.  

What caused WWII was a couple of dictators and a military run amock having alligator mouthes and bumblebee asses.  They got those bumblebee asses waxed.  Tough shit.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 27, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> The fact that we supported Germany's enemies logistically in no way means we caused WWII.  WWII was in fact in motion WITHOUT us.  We were one of if not the last to enter the war and only after Pear Harbor.
> .



You keep babbling the same tired, ignorant  bullshit. You just don't get it: WW2 didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because of how WW1 ended.


----------



## Annie (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> You keep babbling the same tired, ignorant  bullshit. You just don't get it: WW2 didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because of how WW1 ended.



Either you ARE Pat Buchanan or you're channeling him.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 27, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Either you ARE Pat Buchanan or you're channeling him.



Maybe he speaks the truth. You believe what you need to believe so that little head of yours gets plenty of sleep at night.


----------



## Annie (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Maybe he speaks the truth. You believe what you need to believe so that little head of yours gets plenty of sleep at night.



Closest you've come to admitting your 'ideas' are from someone else.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 27, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Closest you've come to admitting your 'ideas' are from someone else.



I don't get any of my 'ideas' from anyone else. I leave that up to memes like you.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> You keep babbling the same tired, ignorant  bullshit. You just don't get it: WW2 didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because of how WW1 ended.



Odd, I was thinking the same thing about the shit dribbling out of your flap.  

WW1 didn't cause WWII.  The dissatisfaction with terms from the Treaty of Versailles by the Germans was used as a catalyst in the fascist movement in Germany, and naturally being the losers, they sucked it up.

The fact is, Germany lost and Germany agreed to terms.  So what you're saying is it's okay to break your given word later if you decide later you don't like the terms.  Why pay for your car then?

WWII was caused by German and Japanese aggression, period.  Hitler was appeased far more than I would have given him and he STILL had to have more.

So you need to take your little anti-American books and be a good little Nazi and burn them as they did at Reflections on Nazi Book Burning 75 Years Later


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 27, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Odd, I was thinking the same thing about the shit dribbling out of your flap.
> 
> WW1 didn't cause WWII.  The dissatisfaction with terms from the Treaty of Versailles by the Germans was used as a catalyst in the fascist movement in Germany, and naturally being the losers, they sucked it up.
> 
> ...



I'm getting really tired of having to explain this shit to you like you are a two year old, just because you want to stay drunk on your bigoted jingoism of America being able to do no wrong.

The only reason Germany lost WW1 is because of our support, which first was clandestine and despicable. We were supporting britian and helping blockade goods from going into Germany. They were still winning. Then we entered the war ourselves, and then was just too much fire power to combat. We had no good reason to get into WW1, but we did. At first cowardly and clandestinely, and then totally. If Germany would have won WW1, WW2 would have never happened. There also would not have been deep resentment enough for the Jews that a group like the Nazis could ever bribe and kill to get themselves into power.

Pretty fucking simple, even for an apparent simpleton.


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> I'm getting really tired of having to explain this shit to you like you are a two yearr old, just because you want to stay drunk on your bigoted jingoism of America being able to do no wrong.
> 
> The only reason Germany lost WW1 is because of our support, which first was clandestine and dispicable. We were supporting britian and helping blockade good from going into Germany. They were will winning. Then we entered the war ourselves, and then was just too much fire power to combat. We had no good reason to get into WW1, but we did. At first cowardly and clandestinely, and then totally. If Germany would have won WW1, WW2 would have never happened. There also would not have been deep resentment enough for the Jews that a group like the Nazis could ever bribe and kill to get themselves into power.
> 
> Pretty fucking simple, even for an apparent simpleton.



did america trick germany into starting ww1 just so they could kick their ass twice?.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> You keep babbling the same tired, ignorant  bullshit. You just don't get it: WW2 didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because of how WW1 ended.



And we NEVER ratified the treaty that ended the war because WE did not agree with Reparations. Technically we remained at war with Germany until the end of WW2 if one wants to get technical.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 27, 2008)

We in the USA are always given a bullshit version of history. It's mostly due to Jews owning most publishing companies, hence they only release things that support their agenda.

As an undergrad I scanned every history book this state has for every highschool. Somewhere around 25 different books. Every single one of them detailed the "Japense internment" in some detail. But, some dirty little details were left out. The fact that thousands of German and Italian americans were also detained. They also do not distinguish "relocation" camps with interment camps. It was a big difference as those that were relocated could have easily avoided being taken to the camps and  could leave the camps ANY TIME THEY WANTED if they could show they had some place to live that was not withinsome set of miles off the west coast(I think it was 500 miles, maybe 1000). 90% of the Japenese were relocated, not interned. They also all got a day in court, if they wanted it. None of the Germans or Italians got that right.

They also did not mention that while the Japenese americans got monetary compensation for their ordeal, yet none of the German or Italian Americans got it for going through an even worse ordeal. The Germans and Italians never received an apology either, while the Japanese did.

And get this: the German americans were largely held for a YEAR after the war was fucking over! The Japenese nor the italians were held the additional year. WHY?? The Japanese were the ones that attacked us, right? 

You don't want to know why. Cause Jews own this country and felt like kciking around a few Germans. If they actually include this stuff in hsitory books, people start asking critical questions. And the powers that be, the United States of Israel, just don't want you stupid goyim asking any questions.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> We in the USA are always given a bullshit version of history. It's mostly due to Jews owning most publishing companies, hence they only release things that support their agenda.
> 
> As an undergrad I scanned every history book this state has for every highschool. Somewhere around 25 different books. Every single one of them detailed the "Japense internment" in some detail. But, some dirty little details were left out. The fact that thousands of German and Italian americans were also detained. They also do not distinguish "relocation" camps with interment camps. It was a big difference as those that were relocated could have easily avoided being taken to the camps and  could leave the camps ANY TIME THEY WANTED if they could show they had some place to live that was not withinsome set of miles off the west coast(I think it was 500 miles, maybe 1000). They also all got a day in court, if they wanted it. None of the Germans or Italians got that right.
> 
> ...



Provide a source for your claim.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Provide a source for your claim.



Internment of German Americans in the United States during World War II

Did I also mention we were even shipping Germans americans BACK TO GERMANY to be blown up in war? Your country, your history, hidden from you.

But don't ask question. Watch american idol, drink some pepsi, listen to cRAP music and be happy.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> We in the USA are always given a bullshit version of history. It's mostly due to Jews owning most publishing companies, hence they only release things that support their agenda.
> 
> As an undergrad I scanned every history book this state has for every highschool. Somewhere around 25 different books. Every single one of them detailed the "Japense internment" in some detail. But, some dirty little details were left out. The fact that thousands of German and Italian americans were also detained. They also do not distinguish "relocation" camps with interment camps. It was a big difference as those that were relocated could have easily avoided being taken to the camps and  could leave the camps ANY TIME THEY WANTED if they could show they had some place to live that was not withinsome set of miles off the west coast(I think it was 500 miles, maybe 1000). 90% of the Japenese were relocated, not interned. They also all got a day in court, if they wanted it. None of the Germans or Italians got that right.
> 
> ...



While I agree with your discontent of the subject, I do not beileve that this is "being hidden"...considering any joe blow (not meaning you) can google it on the internet.  The reason you haven't found it in school history books is because unfortunately, history is the most informative subject there is.  And also unfortunately, the people who write curriculum have to wade through years of potential information and eventually settle on the most logical to teach students.  It is already difficult for history teachers to cramm 250 years of American history into 187 days.  World History teachers have it the worst, by attempting to cram millions of years into 187 days.  I believe that teacher should mention Italian and German internment camps while teaching about Japanese Internment camps, but to dedicate an entire week to it would be asking a little too much, given time limits.  There is however, a recent push for teachers to not just give students information and expect them to learn it, but teach them to do what we all (on this message board) do.  We use the internet and other sources to find out information.  One of my goals as a teacher is to attempt to delve deeper into subject matter...


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 27, 2008)

BrianH said:


> While I agree with your discontent of the subject, I do not beileve that this is "being hidden"...considering any joe blow (not meaning you) can google it on the internet.



It's much more than just being "hidden". Why did it happen to begin with, forget the interment itself. Why hold the Germans another year? Why did the Germans and italians get no apology or compensation? 

Getting back to history books: 
Lack of space/time, really? So why did most of them I read talk at length about the Buffalo soldiers?(about 75% of them did) And in flattering terms no less. My native american relatives remember well the Buffalo soldiers. Their favorite activity was genocide, either explicitly by raiding camps of women and children when the braves were away or implicitly by slaughtering the buffalo, which was the REAL reason they got the name "buffalo soldier". According to the books the title "buffalo soldier" was an honorable title given to them because the native americans being butchered by them thought they were really noble warriors. ROFLMFAO. Orwell is laughing in his fucking grave. Instead of informing the reader of the muderous fiends that they actually were, they are branded as "heroes". However, they take a much more critical, negative, and condescending look at white soldiers that engaged in the same behaviors in the American West. The Buffalo soldiers were actually the worst there was in the American West, butchers, yet history books retell them as heroes. Why? Because they are black. Why were the others more critically treated? Because they happened to be white.

IT's a bullshit marxist agenda, mixed with a lot of Jew-bias. Sometimes its hard to tell the two apart, really. Minorities good, whitey bad. Japenese good, Germans bad. Pretty tough to call america a racist piece of shit country that interned some japenese only because of a racist grudge against the "yellow peril"  when they interned a bunch of Germans and Italians, too, and treated them even much more shitty. Right? So we better not include that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Internment of German Americans in the United States during World War II
> 
> Did I also mention we were even shipping Germans americans BACK TO GERMANY to be blown up in war? Your country, your history, hidden from you.
> 
> But don't ask question. Watch american idol, drink some pepsi, listen to cRAP music and be happy.



Your link has this in it.... for one..



> Dec. 11, 1941 US declares war on Germany and Italy.



no mention what so ever that Germany Declared war on the US and ours was just in response to theirs. In fact there is some doubt that we would have declared war on Germany right away without Germany doing us the favor of solving that political problem.

Also your site says 11000 interned, there was a hell of a lot more then 11000 American German citizens and aliens in the US at the time. I suggest the Government had a reason for the internments other than " those damn Germans"

But do keep making that claim.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your link has this in it.... for one..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ya they are gonna intern two-thirds the fucking white population, three fourths if you count italians too. You = moron. Ya "they had their reaosn". Uhuh. And Nazis had their reasons for killing Jews too. Your pure white america not looking so prirtine now, eh? a little crack in the bullshit veneer you built around your idea of America. Again, don't fucking bitch at the messenger who has taken his time to dispel a tiny bit of your ignorance.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 27, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> It's much more than just being "hidden". Why did it happen to begin with, forget the interment itself. Why hold the Germans another year? Why did the Germans and italians get no apology or compensation?
> 
> Getting back to history books:
> Lack of space/time, really? So why did most of them I read talk at length about the Buffalo soldiers?(about 75% of them did) And in flattering terms no less. My native american relatives remember well the Buffalo soldiers. Their favorite activity was genocide, either explicitly by raiding camps of women and children when the braves were away or implicitly by slaughtering the buffalo, which was the REAL reason they got the name "buffalo soldier". According to the books the title "buffalo soldier" was an honorable title given to them because the native americans being butchered by them thought they were really noble warriors. ROFLMFAO. Orwell is laughing in his fucking grave. Instead of informing the reader of the muderous fiends that they actually were, they are branded as "heroes". However, they take a much more critical, negative, and condescending look at white soldiers that engaged in the same behaviors in the American West. The Buffalo soldiers were actually the worst there was in the American West, butchers, yet history books retell them as heroes. Why? Because they are black. Why were the others more critically treated? Because they happened to be white.
> ...



You done yet?  You ready to have a decent discussion?  Or apparently you missed the beginning of my other post that said I agree with you.  

As far as teaching it, it is a time issue.  And if you expect teachers to teach it with the over-exaggerated emotion and biased that you have, expect alot of angry parents.  Also, it doesn't matter what the frickin textbook says, it doesn't mean that teacher spends 75% of their lesson talking about the buffalo soldiers.   If you knew anything about teaching kids, is that they don't remember crap if it's not interesting to them.  There is no possible way for you to teach all of the crap that you mentioned (and make it interesting), along with current curriculum to students and actually expect them to learn it.  There's a little place you can go to after high school called COLLEGE and you can learn things that you mention.  There is also this nice digital world called the internet where you can find information like this.  What needs to be done is teaching students to look this stuff up.  If you're really concerned about what students are not learning, then get into education and start revising curriculum.  Bitching about it solves nothing.


----------



## editec (Jun 28, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Either you ARE Pat Buchanan or you're channeling him.


 
I think nondeplume is absolutely right about this fact.

WWII was the second round of the same damned war that was pretty much inevitable because the treaty of Versaille made a viable Germany pretty much impossible.

Faced with a completely nonfuctioning society or a fascist society that seemed to work (unless you were a Jew a Roma, a homosexual, a trade unionist or a socialist, of course) the average German was willing to accept anyone who could get them off the bread lines.

The USA was_ not responsible_ for the antimosity of the German people toward the English and Frence, but the argument can and has been made that the antimosity of Japan was exacerbated by our trade policies toward Japan.

I personally think that argument is a tad overstated, but there is _some _legitimacy in it.

Of course, the fact that the Japanese were creating an empire in Korea and China is the countervailing argument which I think really does justify our policies at the time, too.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 28, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> I'm getting really tired of having to explain this shit to you like you are a two year old, just because you want to stay drunk on your bigoted jingoism of America being able to do no wrong.
> 
> The only reason Germany lost WW1 is because of our support, which first was clandestine and despicable. We were supporting britian and helping blockade goods from going into Germany. They were still winning. Then we entered the war ourselves, and then was just too much fire power to combat. We had no good reason to get into WW1, but we did. At first cowardly and clandestinely, and then totally. If Germany would have won WW1, WW2 would have never happened. There also would not have been deep resentment enough for the Jews that a group like the Nazis could ever bribe and kill to get themselves into power.
> 
> Pretty fucking simple, even for an apparent simpleton.




Listen up, shit for brains ... your fucking math is about as logical as 1+1=3.  It doesn't matter a damn WHY Germany lost WWI, and Germanw was NOT winning.  The war was a stalemate until we entered and broke it.

Try doing a little research like looking up fascism in the dictionary?  Surely you know what THAT is?  Fascism requires and extreme belief and a scapegoat.  The Jews were it.  The Nazis got into power by blaming all their ills on the Treaty of Versailles and the Jews and the ineffectualness of the Weimar Republic.  

That you continue to make disparaging statements regarding our supporting the Nations that stood against Germany prety much sums it up for you.  "If we had let Germany win WWI WWII would never have happened?"  What kind of stupid, moronic, warped thinking is THAT?  I guess you gave up your milk money to the bully in school without a fight every fucking day huh?  

The cowardly part here is coming from between your ears, and speaking of simpletons ... that's about what your argument implies of you.  There were FAR more factors that weighed into the causes of WWII than just the outcome of WWI.  The entire world's at war and you think we should either stuff our heads up our asses and pretend it's not, or side with the fucking bad guys.  Just brilliant.  

I believe you have studied history for years.  It would take that long to convolute the truth into what you are trying to sell.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 28, 2008)

I don't care what you think Gunny-boy. You are a typical ignorant american, drunk on jingoism and the notion this country can and has done no wrong.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 28, 2008)

editec said:


> I think nondeplume is absolutely right about this fact.
> 
> WWII was the second round of the same damned war that was pretty much inevitable because the treaty of Versaille made a viable Germany pretty much impossible.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone is denying that WWI was a factor in the causes of WWII.  However, the argument being made is it was "the" cause.  WWI escalated into a world war because of a bunch of ignorant mutual defense treaties.  WWII was not a result of that; rather, one of the factors that played into Hitler's rise to power was the dissatisfaction of the outcome of WWI.  

Some of our policies toward other countries were also factors, but the fact remains, we did not enter WWII until we were attacked on our own soil by another nation's military, and we did not declare war in Europe until after Htiler declared war on the US.  Two undeniable facts nomdeplume is trying to twist onto the US.  

If we refused to trade with Japan because of its naked aggression, tough for them.  If we chose to support UK against a megalomaniacal fascist dictator, tough for him.  The fact still remains we did not take an active military role in the war until the US was attacked.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 28, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I don't think anyone is denying that WWI was a factor in the causes of WWII.  However, the argument being made is it was "the" cause.  WWI escalated into a world war because of a bunch of ignorant mutual defense treaties.  WWII was not a result of that; rather, one of the factors that played into Hitler's rise to power was the dissatisfaction of the outcome of WWI.
> 
> Some of our policies toward other countries were also factors, but the fact remains, we did not enter WWII until we were attacked on our own soil by another nation's military, and we did not declare war in Europe until after Htiler declared war on the US.  Two undeniable facts nomdeplume is trying to twist onto the US.
> 
> If we refused to trade with Japan because of its naked aggression, tough for them.  If we chose to support UK against a megalomaniacal fascist dictator, tough for him.  The fact still remains we did not take an active military role in the war until the US was attacked.



Exactly, not to mention the failure of Democracy in the eyes of the Germans.  The German people experienced an intense depression after WWI that gave rise to a lack of confidence in Democracy.  Sure, the reprecussions of WWI had it's toll as well as the stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles, but to assume that the U.S. or WWI in general, is responsible for WWII is insane and illogical.  If any complaint could be made, it's that the French and British were afraid (which I can understand) to engage in another world war and refused to call Hitler on his defiance of the Treaty.  There were many reasons for the cause of World War II.  The extreme devaluation of German currency was also a factor that lead to the eventual leadership of Hitler.  Hitler gave the German people hope for a new Germany. And he damn near would have done so had he not had aspirations to take-over the world.  By the time they realized what he was doing, it was too late to object.  The other European powers sat on their fannies while Hitler amassed an army over the agreed numbers, and then took the Rhineland.


----------



## Doug (Jun 28, 2008)

Do not forget that in free elections, the Nazis never got more than 40% of the vote, and that in extremely bad economic conditions.

They were helped by the Communists, who had enough members in parliament to make the country ungovernable. Between them, the two totalitarian parties destroyed democracy in Germany. 

But the German democrats were defeated.  The nature of their ultra-democratic parliamentary system, which allowed any small group to be represented, was a major factor.

Then, the reluctance of the British and French to use military force to destabilize the Hitler government, which could have been done at several times in the 30s, guaranteed that eventually we would have a major war.

Although FDR deserves a lot of credit for dragging a reluctant America into war, by provoking the Japanese to attack us, the real hero is Harry Truman, for his Marshall Plan. Without that, we may have had the Red Army on the English Channel.


----------



## editec (Jun 28, 2008)

BrianH said:


> While I agree with your discontent of the subject, I do not beileve that this is "being hidden"...considering any joe blow (not meaning you) can google it on the internet. The reason you haven't found it in school history books is because unfortunately, history is the most informative subject there is. And also unfortunately, the people who write curriculum have to wade through years of potential information and eventually settle on the most logical to teach students. It is already difficult for history teachers to cramm 250 years of American history into 187 days. World History teachers have it the worst, by attempting to cram millions of years into 187 days. I believe that teacher should mention Italian and German internment camps while teaching about Japanese Internment camps, but to dedicate an entire week to it would be asking a little too much, given time limits. There is however, a recent push for teachers to not just give students information and expect them to learn it, but teach them to do what we all (on this message board) do. We use the internet and other sources to find out information. One of my goals as a teacher is to attempt to delve deeper into subject matter...


 
Spot on. 

There's a LOT of history and a limited amount of time to teach it.

Not that the history typically taught doesn't come with its own biases, but given the impossbile task that teaching history actually is, such biased history is inevitable.

Once again, I find this Jew baiting nonsense troubling. Such undifferentiated anti-Semitism provides the proIsraeli lobby with plenty of ammunition to make it easy to attack anyone who actually questions America's policies regarding Israel.

I have already been accused of being an antisemite here at least twice and I think this NAZI propaganda that is being foisted off as history is counterproductive to us ever having rational discussions about these issues.

So let me recap:

The NAZI propaganda _is gay._

The Zionist attacks on anyone asking serious questions about AMERICAN POLICIES _is also gay._

Perhaps you neo NAZIs and AMERICAN ZIONIST ought to get a room?

You're obviously cut off the same gay bolt of ignorance.

I'd really appreciate it, and I am pretty certain I can't be the only person who tires of your childish crap.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 29, 2008)

Haha. Speak of the devil. Tomorrow, PBS is doing a new and more critical documentary about the war, maybe some of the ignorant twats around here might take a look. The zionist-proxy station, FOX Jews, already has its backed raised about it. They are calling it "revisionist" history.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 29, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Haha. Speak of the devil. PBS is doing a new and more critical documentary tomorrow about the war, maybe some of the ignorant twats around here might take a look. The zionist-proxy station, FOX Jews, already has its backed raised about it. They are calling it "revisionist" history.



Yes, but it does not completely change historical events as you suggest.  The big issue about the PBS program is saying that Allied forces were as bad as Nazis.  The factual information that U.S. and allied forces were also merciless and committed crimes in the field is not hidden from anyone.  This history has not been revised, but merely put on a PBS show.  Any dimwit can google this information on the internet.  I agree with many things you post, but this is going a little extreme.  And let me tell you, even PBS is concerned with ratings...and if naming a show "revisionist history" will do it, then that's what they are going to do.  This concept is is covered in brief in many WWII films.  Band of Brothers shows this aspect in the first couple of episodes with U.S. troops executing German prisoners.  Saving Private Ryan also shows this type of behavior at the beginning when the Germans are surrendering and the a soldier shoots them with their hand raised.  IT also portrays this later in the film...there is no shortage of information that some---but not all---allied troops acted just as merciless.  But IMO, you must fight fire with fire.  THe Japanese would mutilate you, and the Germans would torture you mercilessly for information.  They were troubled times in the world.  I often look at those days and it makes me feel better about today...I don't gripes as much.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 29, 2008)

Fox is labeling it "revisionist", not PBS.

They have been trying to pervert the word for decades now after notable historians started question various aspects of the Holocaust.


----------



## editec (Jun 29, 2008)

The USA was NOT responsible for the conditions in Germany which lead to fascism and Hitler.

In fact of all the allied leaders, it was WILSON who did more to make the Treaty of Versaille just.

But WILSON was ill, and what more, since America did not join the League of Nations, France ran roughshod over Germany thus creating conditions which assured that the Germans would rise back up and stike again.

Let me repeat that...

AMERICAN IS THE _LEAST RESPONSIBLE OF ANY ALLIED GOVERMENT_ FOR THE SECOND WORLD WAR.

Historically speaking, we're often the good guys, you know.

Not recently, but once upon a time this nation stood for something more than unbridled capitalism and rampant materialism.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 29, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Fox is labeling it "revisionist", not PBS.
> 
> They have been trying to pervert the word for decades now after notable historians started question various aspects of the Holocaust.



It just amazes me that anyone is suprised or upset about this information.  It's all out there, and I only say this because I've known many of the things you talk about, and if I can find it, anyone can.  But like I said before, there is not enough time in 187 days to teach the reasons, ideals, problems, statistics, results of WWII to throw in much of this other information.  Now, I'd be totally against teaching kids that the U.S. was this shining knight in the world and that they won WWII by themselves and that everyone else is bad.  As long as teachers are not lying to their students, there's no harm done.  STudents need to learn to get out and research this stuff like they look up bum-fights on youtube....


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 29, 2008)

BrianH said:


> It just amazes me that anyone is suprised or upset about this information.  It's all out there, and I only say this because I've known many of the things you talk about, and if I can find it, anyone can.  But like I said before, there is not enough time in 187 days to teach the reasons, ideals, problems, statistics, results of WWII to throw in much of this other information.  Now, I'd be totally against teaching kids that the U.S. was this shining knight in the world and that they won WWII by themselves and that everyone else is bad.  As long as teachers are not lying to their students, there's no harm done.  STudents need to learn to get out and research this stuff like they look up bum-fights on youtube....



Why would someone search for something when they don't even know it exists/existed?

Did you know that there is an unexplained gravitational pull towards the center of this solar system? It's called the pioneer anomaly. I suspect maybe .0001% of people know of it. And why would they? You are basically asking that everyone should know everything. That would be nice, but it's more than a little naive. You also don't seem to realize many people do not even have 24-7 access to the internet, and that any reasonable person shouldn't believe most of what they read on the internet anyway. In short, I find your "but people can find it online" idea entirely bogus and largely a copout.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 29, 2008)

editec said:


> AMERICAN IS THE _LEAST RESPONSIBLE OF ANY ALLIED GOVERMENT_ FOR THE SECOND WORLD WAR.
> .



We had no reason to even get into that fucking colonial war of jingoistic bullshit idiotic treaties. That war being WW1. We should not have been helping Britain, not taken any sides,  and we never should have entered into the war. The French Russian and British all got their asses kicked fair and square by the Germans/Austrians. Then we had to get invovled, completely altering who were the victors in the wars end.

*That's the rub, if you missed it*. At least the British, French, and Russians all had legitimate reason to get into the war.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Why would someone search for something when they don't even know it exists/existed?
> 
> Did you know that there is an unexplained gravitational pull towards the center of this solar system? It's called the pioneer anomaly. I suspect maybe .0001% of people know of it. And why would they? You are basically asking that everyone should know everything. That would be nice, but it's more than a little naive. You also don't seem to realize many people do not even have 24-7 access to the internet, and that any reasonable person shouldn't believe most of what they read on the internet anyway. In short, I find your "but people can find it online" idea entirely bogus and largely a copout.



My idea is certainly more reasonable than your idea that you can cram all of this information into 187 days and expect people to remember or learn it.  It shows you don't have a clue about how "learning" occurs.  Sure, you can learn something yourself, but teaching someone (20 kids-50 min. per day) is a different story.   I find out stuff that I didn't know existed every day...and it's not just from the internet.  There's TV, books, Newspapers, magezines, etc...  The information is out there, if I googled pioneer anomaly, I'm sure I'd find something.  And it's pretty common knowledge that the sun has a gravitational pull on the rest of our solar system, which is why we rotate around it.  And keep in mind, it is an "anomaly" it could also be small failures in space-craft.   MOst if not all students are taught in the 3rd grade that the Sun has a (center of OUR solar system) has a gravitational pull on everything else.  Since you're a science fan, do you think it would be possible to teach students in 187 every single scientific fact, theory, experiment, conclusion, scientist in the world?  Cudos if you could, but I'm 100% certain that you couldn't.  World History goes back millions of years dude, and you expect to cover every single little detail in 6-7 months...

Pioneer anomaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> We had no reason to even get into that fucking colonial war of jingoistic bullshit idiotic treaties. That war being WW1. We should not have been helping Britain, not taken any sides,  and we never should have entered into the war. The French Russian and British all got their asses kicked fair and square by the Germans/Austrians. Then we had to get invovled, completely altering who were the victors in the wars end.
> 
> *That's the rub, if you missed it*. At least the British, French, and Russians all had legitimate reason to get into the war.



This is a retarded opinion.  If the U.S. had not entered the war, the war would have lasted ALOT longer than it did and would have had worse economic affects.  THe British, French and Russians did not get there asses kicked, there was a STALEMATE, which means that no one was getting anywhere, they were equally kicking ass.  Many countries went into depression after the 4 year war...could you imagine the effect of a longer one of that magnitude?  And don't forget, U.S. ships were being sunk by German subs, and did you forget the Zimmerman Telegram?  The nice little telegram to Mexico from Germany, encouraging them to join the Central POwers and invade the U.S.?  Germany was about to begin UNRESTRICTED submarine warfare in Atlantic Waters.  So they sent a telegram to the Germany ambassador in Mexico.  The telegram stated that if it looked like the U.S. was going to enter the war (due to the sinking of U.S. ships) then the ambassador should approach the Mexican gov. for alliance and in return Germany would make sure that Mexico would retain it's land that was taken in the Mexican-American War.  There's more to it than this, "Well the U.S. should have stayed neutral" bull crap.  Even if the U.S. had not gotten involved, there would have been a second World War eventually.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

You are just talking shit now. The French were completely defeated, the russians pushe completely back outside of any important areas, mostly retreating. The British war machine was quickly dieing with unrestricted submarine warfare taking its toll. Anything else you believe is due to post war propaganda.

The Germans had to use unrestricted submarine warfare, because this stupid fucking country kept supporting the British. And because the despicable British military kept hiding arms and other war supplies on passenger carriers, lke fucking terrorists would do.

Edit: and the Zimmermann telegram = red herring. We had absolutely nothing to be concerned about with mexicos 5 man and a mule army. You might actually read the document. It says that, IF USA ATTACKS GERMANY then blah blah. The country was already in the war long before that, they just did not declare it publically,  because you dumb lemmings can't handle the truth.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> You are just talking shit now. The French were completely defeated, the russians pushe completely back outside of any important areas, mostly retreating. The British war machine was quickly dieing with unrestricted submarine warfare taking its toll. Anything else you believe is due to post war propaganda.
> 
> The Germans had to use unrestricted submarine warfare, because this stupid fucking country kept supporting the British. And because the despicable British military kept hiding arms and other war supplies on passenger carriers, lke fucking terrorists would do.



You are  a laugh riot. You take some facts and then string them together completely wrong and spit out ignorant pap. But hey now you can get back to start 3 or 4 more threads on Obama with some other ignorant claim.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> You are just talking shit now. The French were completely defeated, the russians pushe completely back outside of any important areas, mostly retreating. The British war machine was quickly dieing with unrestricted submarine warfare taking its toll. Anything else you believe is due to post war propaganda.
> 
> The Germans had to use unrestricted submarine warfare, because this stupid fucking country kept supporting the British. And because the despicable British military kept hiding arms and other war supplies on passenger carriers, lke fucking terrorists would do.



Despite your isolationist crap, the logic you use is terrible.  Germany did the same thing the U.S. did.  World War I started because the Arch duke Franz Ferdinand was assasinated by a serbian member of the Black Hand.  The war started between Serbia and Austria-Hungary...had the Germans not gotten involved, we would not have had a World War......so your logic is shot to shit dude.  It still falls on the Ally system and Germany would be more at fault for joining Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary in the war against Serbia.....  I know you'd like to rewrite history, but you can't, and your attempts are a series of failures.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 30, 2008)

Ok, I thought we got into WWII because of Pearl Harbor.

??


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

First World War: Chronology


Take a good hard look at the time-line dude.

Germany declares war on Russia
Germany declares war on France
German troops enter Belgium (Sparking Britains Declaration of War on Germany)

Outbreak of War: 28th June to 14th August, 1914

8 days after the Archduke and his wife were killed, Germany offered support for Austria-Hungary if they choose to seek "reprisal" on Serbia.

It took 28 days for Russia---the first ally of Serbia-- to promise it's support.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Ok, I thought we got into WWII because of Pearl Harbor.
> 
> ??



We're talking about World War I, but you are correct.  We got "militarily" involved in WWII because of Pearl Harbor. We had already been sending aid, food, and munitions to the allies.   Had it not been for Pearl Harbor, we still would have eventually gotten involved due to German U-boat warfare and the eventual collapse of (all) Europe to the Nazis.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

numdenuts is a holocaust denier?


----------



## jillian (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> numdenuts is a holocaust denier?



Are you shocked?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

jillian said:


> Are you shocked?


A little. I know they exist but still it always surprises me.


----------



## jillian (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> A little. I know they exist but still it always surprises me.



It is pretty pathetic, isn't it? 

We all know they just gave 11 million people long vacations.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

BrianH said:


> First World War: Chronology
> 
> 
> Take a good hard look at the time-line dude.
> ...



*Serbia refuses to hand over leaders of the Black Hand group *

Serbia doesnt hand over its fucking terrorists. That's what started all the shit, not counting the assassination itself. And it doesnt matter, really, none of it was out business. Ther Germans were winning, and we decided to cheat the European game.

Also notice you are using a British site, but even it reveals "26th July: Russia promises that it will help Serbia if it is attacked by Austro-Hungary. 31st July: Russia mobilizes its armed forces in support of Serbia. This includes the sending of troops to its borders with Germany and Austro-Hungary." All before Germany declared war on them.

The Franco-German issues had been around for, like, ever, since France had repeatedly attacked Germany for centuries, and rarely the other way around. There was also an incredible amount of jealousy in Eruope at the time, as Germany had become the heart and soul of Europe, specifically in the sciences, and was fast becoming a super power.

Most people know this was a stupid war, that mostly could have been avoided had the Serbians just handed over the terrorists. What do you think the united states would do today if it happened to our president, for isntance? Just let it slide?


----------



## Angel Heart (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> He would have been a great president if he would have ripped the throat out of the soviet union. Instead, he is just an opportunistic Jew-tool.



He wasn't alive when that was all being decided... FDR died April 12, 1945. We won in Europe May 7th, 1945. He wasn't part of those choices. That would fall on Truman.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

Angel Heart said:


> He wasn't alive when that was all being decided... FDR died April 12, 1945. We won in Europe May 7th, 1945. He wasn't part of those choices. That would fall on Truman.



He ented into many dirty deals with Churchill, as big as a war monger as hitler, and Stalin, twice the monster as hitler was. As I said, he should have let the USSR be destroyed. The country was always ready to break at its seams with all the various ethnic groups wanting their own country. We could have nuetralized the USSR and Germany. But we didn't. This lead to the cold war. I'm tired of repeating myself on the topic. It was peraps the biggest mistake ever made by an american president. Truman is as much to blame as FDR, no doubt.But I didn't see anyone calling him one of our greatest presidents, which is how this whole debate evolved.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> *Serbia refuses to hand over leaders of the Black Hand group *
> 
> Serbia doesnt hand over its fucking terrorists. That's what started all the shit, not counting the assassination itself. And it doesnt matter, really, none of it was out business. Ther Germans were winning, and we decided to cheat the European game.
> 
> ...



It doesn't matter who agreed to what.  Look at the German Declarations of war.  And not to mention that the Germans agreed to fight with Austria-Hungary BEFORE Russia promised anything.   Had GERMANY kept it's ass out of it, then the war would have been between Serbia and Austria-Hungary.  Anyway you cut your symbolic cheese, the Germans pacted with the Austria-Hungarians before anyone else pledged it.  This is your typical bullshit...when faced with the truth, you bitch and moan about the source.  The fact remains, had Germany stayed out, the likelyhood of anyone else getting involved would have been lower.  But no, the Germans chose a side 8 days after the assassination while the Russians pledged their support for the Serbians 28 days after...You are wrong no matter how you cut it dude.

The fact is, Germany pledged support first, then Russia chose it's side, then Germany declared war...not the other way around.  What the hell was Germany declaring war on anyone????  They weren't even involved in the assassinations or the events leading up to it....  Germany had just as less of a reason to join the war as the U.S. did...oh wait....  That's right, the Germans were attacking U.S. ships and not to mention attempted to get Mexico to invade...Sounds like a pretty good provocation for war don't you think?  Germany just simply allied with Austria-Hungary cause they wanted a good war.  Go ahead and re-think your own crap so you can post more nonsense on this thread.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> He ented into many dirty deals with Churchill, as big as a war monger as hitler, and Stalin, twice the monster as hitler was. As I said, he should have let the USSR be destroyed. The country was always ready to break at its seams with all the various ethnic groups wanting their own country. We could have nuetralized the USSR and Germany. But we didn't. This lead to the cold war. I'm tired of repeating myself on the topic. It was peraps the biggest mistake ever made by an american president. Truman is as much to blame as FDR, no doubt.But I didn't see anyone calling him one of our greatest presidents, which is how this whole debate evolved.



This is also nonsense, the USSR is destroyed with no bloodshed in direct combat between the USSR and the U.S.  The Soviet Union eventually fell out of it's own stupidity.  Your opinion, again, is misguided.  The Russians had WAY more man-power than the U.S. ever thought of having, and with U.S. troops abroad, Russia would have had a clear line of fire to the U.S.  Sure, we had the atom bomb, but how many did we have by the time the European theater ended...not to mention, we were STILL at war in the Pacific.  There was less blood-shed between the two nations during the COLD War than if we had attacked....It would have been several million more lives--many American.   This is why Patton "died" in a jeep accident, because he wanted to do what you suggest.  I hail Patton for his genius with war tactics and military knowledge, but there was far less blood spilled, and the Cold War turned out to be nothing at all, and the Soviet Union still fell.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

You are the most ignorant mother fucker I have ever had the misfortune to assume they actually had a working brain cell in their fucked up head. No wonder our education system is so fucked up with shitty "teachers" (AKA jingoistic propagandist").


There are no pejoratives to properly convery how miserable of ignorant fuckwad you are, and I tire of repeating myself over and over, so I will contineu to repost the same stuff over and over, saving myself from wasting more time with your ignorant bigoted moronic version of history.

Germany already had a treaty with Austria-hungary before this shit happened, to protect one another. Russia had an agreement with France for the same. Serbia and Russia had no agreement. WTF was Russia trying to prove?
*
But again, this shit does not matter. It's the end of the war that matters. Germany was winning and we decided to enter the game for no reason whatsoever, completely altering the face of the war, changing the would-be victors to the losers. *

Quit trying to change the fucking subject because you got your ass owned and now have to keep lieing and throwing red herrings around.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

BrianH said:


> This is why Patton "died" in a jeep accident, because he wanted to do what you suggest.  I hail Patton for his genius with war tactics and military knowledge, but there was far less blood spilled, and the Cold War turned out to be nothing at all, and the Soviet Union still fell.



The soviet union mudered and genocidally cleansed 50 to 100 million people you ignorant fucking moron. And we and they spent 0192347203743209724097340247327423847239087402397234009743 dollars on enough nuclear weapons to blow the earth up 20-50 times over. Oh boy, what a great way to waste money. They helped intall despotic communist regimes across the globe, many of which that still stand today.

This is why we need to teach this shit, because so many of you fuckers are so god damn stupid, jingoistic and ignorant.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> You are the most ignorant mother fucker I have ever had the misfortune to assume they actually had a working brain cell in their fucked up head. No wonder our education system is so fucked up with shitty "teachers" (AKA jingoistic propagandist").
> 
> 
> There are no pejoratives to properly convery how miserable of ignorant fuckwad you are, and I tire of repeating myself over and over, so I will contineu to repost the same stuff over and over, saving myself from wasting more time with your ignorant bigoted moronic version of history.
> ...



*No, you continue to post the same stupid crap because it's all you have to go by.  Everybody on these boards know that if they don't agree with you, then they're automatically a "dummy" in your eyes, no matter how much they dismantle your POINTLESS argument.  Oh, and to shoot your argument to shit yet again....*
"Russia which was in a treaty with Serbia mobilized its vast army to defend Serbia (July 31 1914). "
World War 1

*You also forget to mention the first and second Balkan Wars in which Serbia was along with the Balkan Leage was supported by Russia.

And how about the Bosnian Crisis of 1908 and 1909?  Oh yeah, it's when Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina and pissed the Russians off.  Like I said dude, no matter which way you turn it, it was the ally system that led to this.  Germany offered It's support before the Russians got involved in the actual conflict.  No matter how idiotic your attempts to turn bullshit around on the U.S., I still manage to dismantle your argument into a obliteration.  And your only defense is to repeat your radical nonsense and make attacks about others' intelligence.*

Study Guide for World War I

*The fact is, Germany offered a "blank check" to Austria blindly.  When Serbia found out it was going up against Austria-Hungary and Germany, the Russians signed up for the war after the fact to fight Austria-Hungary, who annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina and pissed them off.  Go ahead and make up some more mystical bull shit to "support" your ignorant ranting.

And as far as the end of the war is concerned...you're half right, except the fact that World War I was a STALEMATE until the U.S. got involved and wrecked-shop...so if you have a problem with that, invent a time machine so you can go back and talk the Germans into NOT sending the Telegram and NOT sinking U.S. merchant vessels.  Until you do so, your argument is still baseless and pointless. * 

WebQuests | World War I: Weaponry, Tactics, and Propaganda: Introduction
First World War.com - Feature Articles - Life in the Trenches

*You act like your 100% certain Germany would have won World War I, when in fact there was a stalemate and neither side could gain any ground.  Not to mention the British broke the Hindenberg Line twice during the World War, once in 1917 and once in 1918.  The stalemate line was closer to Germany than it was to the South and Southwest coast of France or England...They never even made it to Paris.*

The Great War . Maps & Battles . Europe in 1914 | PBS

"Both sides then dug in along a meandering line of fortified trenches, stretching from the North Sea to the Swiss frontier with France. This line remained essentially unchanged for most of the war.

Between 1915 and 1917 there were several major offensives along this front. The attacks employed massive artillery bombardments and massed infantry advances. However, a combination of entrenchments, machine gun nests, barbed wire, and artillery repeatedly inflicted severe casualties on the attackers and counter attacking defenders. As a result, no significant advances were made"

Western Front (World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


Do read the links before posting your ignorant crap again.  If I didn't have this much fun tossing your argument up for target practice, I'd quit posting.  Go ahead and whip up another retarded manufactured fact while I keep whippin your ass all over this thread.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

Teach what shit? Twenty different possible outcomes and yours being the one that is correct? Everything would have been hunky dory if numdenuts had been alive at the time and everyone listened to him.

You're a moron.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> The soviet union mudered and genocidally cleansed 50 to 100 million people you ignorant fucking moron. And we and they spent 0192347203743209724097340247327423847239087402397234009743 dollars on enough nuclear weapons to blow the earth up 20-50 times over. Oh boy, what a great way to waste money. They helped intall despotic communist regimes across the globe, many of which that still stand today.
> 
> This is why we need to teach this shit, because so many of you fuckers are so god damn stupid, jingoistic and ignorant.



Answer these questions....
Did the U.S. and the Soviet Union ever wage a direct war with one another?
Did the U.S. loose 100 of millions of people in an all out World War 3 with Russia?
Did the Soviet Union eventually fall?
How did they fall?

That money and THOSE nukes also helped prevent a world war because no one wanted to fire them dumbass.  That's right, no bodies going to teach "this" <---your stuff because it's all biased and ignorant bull shit based on nothing.  The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, and millions of Americans and Russians are still alive because if it.  The fact that the Soviets waged genocide on others has nothing to do with what the casualties would have been had the U.S. and U.S.S.R gone to war.  That's like saying that we should be attacked by Iran because hundreds of thousand of Americans are killed in car accidents every year. <---makes no sense.  But we're all use to your senseless crap.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Teach what shit? Twenty different possible outcomes and yours being the one that is correct? Everything would have been hunky dory if numdenuts had been alive at the time and everyone listened to him.
> 
> You're a moron.



Exactly, he's dodging a barrage of historical FACT and still claiming that his OPINION is correct.  I wouldn't teach the bucket of turds this guys carrying if you paid me cause it's all biased crap based on his own wet dream of changing history.  I like the new nickname for him by the way....I'll start using it if you don't mind...


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

Russia had no treaty with Serbua. That's bullshit.

*
But again, this shit does not matter. It's the end of the war that matters. Germany was winning and we decided to enter the game for no reason whatsoever, completely altering the face of the war, changing the would-be victors to the losers. *


Russia had fucking already surrendered before the US got into the war! Hello? And Germany/Austria was not winning? The French had bunkered down and had little to no troops to do anything but defend the most esconced positions. The only thing the Entete had left was the British Navy, which the submarines were making short work off. The British leaders wrote several times that the UK may have to surrender too, as they were running out of war supplies.  

France essentially defeated.
Russia surrendered already.
Britain contemplating surrender every day due to knowing it cannot win.


VIOLA USA enters the war entirely, instead of clandestinely as it had for years previously, on the side of the British.

Facts you can't change. I can't tell anymore if you are just a jingoistic ignorant moron, a piece of shit Jew here spreading lies and propaganda to cover up out fuckups and the monstrosity we helped create called the USSR, ran almost exlusively by Jews.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Exactly, he's dodging a barrage of historical FACT and still claiming that his OPINION is correct.  I wouldn't teach the bucket of turds this guys carrying if you paid me cause it's all biased crap based on his own wet dream of changing history.  I like the new nickname for him by the way....I'll start using it if you don't mind...



I wouldn't mind a bit.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Russia had no treaty with Serbua. That's bullshit.
> 
> *
> But again, this shit does not matter. It's the end of the war that matters. Germany was winning and we decided to enter the game for no reason whatsoever, completely altering the face of the war, changing the would-be victors to the losers. *
> ...



Every bit of your rant is NOT FACT, including the Jew part...which affirms that your assumptions and opinions are completley based on bullshit.  Where in the hell would you even begin to assume that I have anything remotely to do with Jews?  Oh wait, you don't, which shows you assume too much, as you do with your ignorant crap you post here.

You expect to change every fact I've posted and provided links for.  This goes to show you did not even remotely look at the links I posted, consdering they all said the same damn thing.  Serbia was treatied with Russia (as was stated on the historical link) due to the Balkans Wars.  World War I was a stalemate regardless  if Russia surrendered or not.  If you read the links, you'd see that Germany or the Allied powers did not gain shit on the western front for most of the war.  Maybe you should find some TP to wipe all the bullshit off of your lips. 

Do you have a problem with the U.S. helping the allies win?  You act as though you were there.  You are taking partly-factual-opinionated information and applying an entirely FICTIONAL outcome.  You HAVE NO CLUE who would have won the war, but I guess it's fact because you say so...LOL....That's rich dude.  You can try selling your shit flavored watermelons anywhere you want dude, but I ain't buyin it, and as far as I can tell by this thread, neither does anyone else.  I guess that makes you the dumbest smart guy I know.  Keep trying though, eventually you'll get something right.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Every bit of your rant is NOT FACT, including the Jew part...which affirms that your assumptions and opinions are completley based on bullshit.  Where in the hell would you even begin to assume that I have anything remotely to do with Jews?  Oh wait, you don't, which shows you assume too much, as you do with your ignorant crap you post here.t.



You are totally a fucking fraud, You claimed that nothing happened because we did nothing to stop the USSR, despite the fact they had murdered and genocidally killed 50-100 million people. I guess you think that eastern europeans are not fucking worth being counted, huh you fucking piece of shit? I've only seen Jews pull that shit. "100 arab lives are not worth one Jewish fingernail" type shit.

Fuck them and fuck you.


----------



## editec (Jun 30, 2008)

Britian was bankrupt (expect for the American taxpayer); France was broken and the German people were starving.

If America hadn't entered the war all of Europe would have lost and onlyu America would have won.

To some extent America's entry into WWI was a mistake for America, unless you take into account that the |American elite have been sucking the ass of the British Crown since they dumped Andrew Jackson.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> You are totally fucking fraud, You claimed that nothing happened because we did nothing to stop the USSR, despite the fact they had murdered and genocidally killed 50-100 million people. I guess you think that eastern europeans are not fucking worth being counted, huh you fucking piece of shit?



Oh now you're back to your 50-100 million now?  You can't hang so you strawman?  The only fraud here is you.  I didnt' say that "nothing" happened, which is once again a dillusional assumption.  The U.S. and Russia did not engage in conventional and direct warfare, which would have raised your 50-100 million to about 200-300 million + conservatively.  That's right, the millions Jews being killed in Poland and Germany were not enough to get the U.S. involved in WWII, why should the Russians killing their own people be a reason?  ALso, the U.S. didn't give a shit about Austria-Hungary and Germany destroying the living crap out of Serbia.  What is your point here?  You're all over the place and none of it's even close to being factual or remotely presumptive.  It is FACT that an all out war with Russia would have increased your 50-100 million phenomonally, and the U.S. was not interested in doing so.  So they as well as the U.S.S.R built up huge ass arsenals in case.  And the fact was, those huge aresnals scared the living shit out of both countries and they ended up not fighting directly.  You live in a dream world holmes, and you can't stand the fact that somebody knows more than you about your own idiotic fantasy to rewrite history.  I'm still waiting for a reasonable argument if you're willing to lay down your thick under-armour of turtle crap...or if you'd like, you can crawl into your shell and find the next fictional fact you can find.

There is one fact that is for certain, I'm burying your argument


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

editec said:


> Britian was bankrupt (expect for the American taxpayer); France was broken and the German people were starving.
> 
> If America hadn't entered the war all of Europe would have lost and onlyu America would have won.
> 
> To some extent America's entry into WWI was a mistake for America, unless you take into account that the |American elite have been sucking the ass of the British Crown since they dumped Andrew Jackson.



Exactly, Numdenuts here thinks the Germans were super powerful and were defeating everyone.  The fact is, all of Europe was in shambles, experiencing depression, tired of fighting, and stalemated on the lines.  I'll agree with your post all day long, but what numdenuts suggests is retarded and fictional.  The entrance of American troops to the theater of war simply broke the stalemate and ended the conflict...All countries experienced severe hardships (with the exception of the U.S.) after the war.  Even though Britain and France were on the winning side, they had lost thousands, not to mention millions of dollars.  Germany suffered worse.  America was the only power left standing.  I refuse to take numnut's word for it on all the bull shit he's throwing around.  I've posted fact after fact after fact and sited sources.  Then numdenuts attacks the source as not being credible, then ignores key facts, then strawmans. It's a classic case of a dumbass who's lost his way...


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Exactly, Numdenuts here thinks the Germans were super powerful and were defeating everyone.  The fact is, all of Europe was in shambles, experiencing depression, tired of fighting, and stalemated on the lines.  I'll agree with your post all day long, but what numdenuts suggests is retarded and fictional.  The entrance of American troops to the theater of war simply broke the stalemate and ended the conflict...All countries experienced severe hardships (with the exception of the U.S.) after the war.  Even though Britain and France were on the winning side, they had lost thousands, not to mention millions of dollars.  Germany suffered worse.  America was the only power left standing.  I refuse to take numnut's word for it on all the bull shit he's throwing around.  I've posted fact after fact after fact and sited sources.  Then numdenuts attacks the source as not being credible, then ignores key facts, then strawmans. It's a classic case of a dumbass who's lost his way...




The fuck I am. The house of lords was full of calls to surrender and end the war.
Russia had surrendered completely.
 one-third to on-half the french army that was left had already mutinied.
All in the same year, and all just before the USA decided to butt its nose into things.

If Germany would have won, there would have been no WW2, and there definitely would not be any significant amount of hate for Jewish Germans. However, because of how it ended, and because it was obvious the USA had no real reason to get involved in the war, many suspedcted the American Jews had conspired in the hopes of getting Palastine so they could make Israel.

No USA entering into WW1 = no WW2, no Holocaust, no USSR. Could have saved probably 200-300 million lives and god knows how much money we could have spent furthering science to heal and help mankind instead of killing.

You know you have lost this debate and this discusion, and anyone of any intellect that follows it and checks the fact is well aware how much of a bulllshiter and fraud you are.

You did infact say "nothing came of the cold war". Tens of millions were murdered during the coold war. Your ignorance and your refusal to accept facts shows you a blind bigot, probably just as I suggested early.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> The fuck I am. The house of lords was full of calls to surrender and end the war.
> Russia had surrendered completely.
> one-third to on-half the french army that was left had already mutinied.
> All in the same year, and all just before the USA decided to butt its nose into things.
> ...



How many Americans were killed in direct combat with Russia?  How many Russians were killed in direct combat with the United States?   I'll let you ponder that.  

Let's establish one thing, your opinion that we would have had no World War II is a complete PREDICTION/ HYPOTHESIS/ GUESS (and not even educated) based on your own interpretation of biased half/fact.  You post the same ignorant bullshit over and over again while I drag your ass through pages of fact, and you have the balls to claim I've lost? 

What do you supposed Germany had done after it "won" World War I.   Cause I garaun-damn-tee you that had they not exterminated all of the French, British and Russians, there would have definately been a World War II, and it infact probably would have come sooner than later.  See, there's a historical fact that people don't like to be taken over, therefore they rebel...but I'm not going to sit here and speculate on a hypothetical/fictional scenario of your re-written historical wet dream.  The facts remain whether you agree or not, WWI was at a stale mate...Russia signed the Armistice with Germany, but lost a few small regions, NOT Their ability to amass another army and wage war.  As far as your millions dying, what significance is that to the U.S.?millions were being killed in the holocaust, and they did not enter the war.  And a while ago, you said 50-100 lives...what a deusch-bag.  Your numbers rise every time you post.  Claim all you want that you've won...you're really good at dreaming up fictional scenarios. I as well as others on this board see right through your biased ignorance.

And for the record, I never claimed that nothing came of the Cold War jackass.  I said neither country were willing to fight one-another directly. Because had they wanted to, it would have happened.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Exactly, Numdenuts here thinks the Germans were super powerful and were defeating everyone.  The fact is, all of Europe was in shambles, experiencing depression, tired of fighting, and stalemated on the lines...




The house of lords was full of calls for its country, Britain, to surrender and end the war. Completely bankrupt and out of supplies, its navy being decimated by submarines.

Russia had surrendered completely already.

One-third to one-half the french army that was left had already mutinied.

All that happened in the same year, and all just before the USA decided to butt its nose into things for no apparent reason.

If Germany would have won, there would have been no WW2, and there definitely would not be any significant amount of hate for Jewish Germans. However, because of how it ended, and because it was obvious the USA had no real reason to get involved in the war, many suspected the American Jews had conspired in the hopes of getting Palastine so they could make Israel. And they had a whole lot of evidence that is in fact what happened. Combined with the bullshit Treaty of Versailles, they pretty much gauranteed WW2 and the rise of the Nazi party.

No USA entering into WW1 =  no Nazi rise to power = no WW2 = no Holocaust, no USSR and its many varied holocausts. Could have saved probably 200-300 million lives and god knows how much money we could have spent furthering science to heal and help mankind instead of killing it.

You know you have lost this debate and this discussion, and anyone of any intellect that follows it and checks the fact is well aware how much of a bulllshitter and fraud you are.

You did infact say "nothing came of the cold war". Tens of millions were murdered during the coold war. Your ignorance and your refusal to accept facts shows you a blind bigot of the "1 million arab lives are not worth one Jewish fingernail" ilk.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> The house of lords was full of calls for its country, Britain, to surrender and end the war. Completely bankrupt and out of supplies, its navy being decimated by submarines.
> 
> Russia had surrendered completely already.
> 
> ...



Yeah, keep copy and pasting your previous posts because that's all you've got.  You mind as well quit posting, cause copy and pasting your old posts is damn-near embarrasing...lol.  Bravo...Oh, and you're still GUESSING AND PREDICTIng a fictional scenario that does not exist.  Hey, IF a frog had wings, he wouldn't hit his ass when he jumped...lol 

Keep up the .

The house of lords doesn't mean shit dude.  Frickin 80% of the U.S. citizens didn't want to get involved in the first place either, but that didn't stop crap.  It  doesn't matter what the house of lords were calling for, they didn't surrender and neither did France, they both didn't surrender because they knew that eventually the U.S. would get involved.  The British and French held out long enough for them to get involved.   

And you seem to conveniently ignore Germany's plan to get Mexico to invade the U.S. as well as unrestricted warfare on U.S. merchant ships.  Let's get one thing straight, the U.S. was trading with Britain and France before the war, so they're supposed to STOP because they don't want to offend the Germans?  Oh, and the U.S. traded with Germany during the beginning of World War I.  Both Britain and Germany threatened to end trade with the U.S.  Britain came close until Germany started blowing up merchant ships.  The U.S. had diplomatic ties with Germany until 1917...........

Any way you cut your pie, it still taste like dog turds.  Do keep tryin though...dumbass.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Exactly, Numdenuts here thinks the Germans were super powerful and were defeating everyone.  The fact is, all of Europe was in shambles, experiencing depression, tired of fighting, and stalemated on the lines...




You seemed to be confused and a pathological liar, so I will explain it again. maybe you didn't understand me?

The house of lords was full of calls for its country, Britain, to surrender and end the war. Completely bankrupt and out of supplies, its navy being decimated by submarines.

Russia had surrendered completely already.

One-third to one-half the french army that was left had already mutinied.

All that happened in the same year, and all just before the USA decided to butt its nose into things for no apparent reason.

If Germany would have won, there would have been no WW2, and there definitely would not be any significant amount of hate for Jewish Germans. However, because of how it ended, and because it was obvious the USA had no real reason to get involved in the war, many suspected the American Jews had conspired in the hopes of getting Palastine so they could make Israel. And they had a whole lot of evidence that is in fact what happened. Combined with the bullshit Treaty of Versailles, they pretty much gauranteed WW2 and the rise of the Nazi party.

No USA entering into WW1 =  no Nazi rise to power = no WW2 = no Holocaust, no USSR and its many varied holocausts. Could have saved probably 200-300 million lives and god knows how much money we could have spent furthering science to heal and help mankind instead of killing it.

You know you have lost this debate and this discussion, and anyone of any intellect that follows it and checks the fact is well aware how much of a bulllshitter and fraud you are.

You did infact say "nothing came of the cold war". Tens of millions were murdered during the coold war. Your ignorance and your refusal to accept facts shows you a blind bigot of the "1 million arab lives are not worth one Jewish fingernail" ilk.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2008)

The Soviet Union came about with out ANY help from the west. In fact we fought against it. One of the reasons Stalin was so paranoid about the west was because British and American troops had landed in Russia to aid the White Russians.

Germany bankrolled Lenin and allowed him free passage back to Russia to do just what he did, topple the interm Government. Our entry into the war had ZERO to do with Communism coming to power in Russia and creating the Soviet Union.

Learn some real history.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Soviet Union came about with out ANY help from the west. In fact we fought against it. One of the reasons Stalin was so paranoid about the west was because British and American troops had landed in Russia to aid the White Russians.
> 
> Germany bankrolled Lenin and allowed him free passage back to Russia to do just what he did, topple the interm Government. Our entry into the war had ZERO to do with Communism coming to power in Russia and creating the Soviet Union.
> 
> Learn some real history.



Bullshit. Jews bankrolled Lenin into power, mostly New York Jews. Fucking liar. Germany didn't do that. German Jews did.


----------



## Annie (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Bullshit. Jews bankrolled Lenin into power, mostly New York Jews. Fucking liar. Germany didn't do that. German Jews did.



No, he's right and you are wrong.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Bullshit. Jews bankrolled Lenin into power, mostly New York Jews. Fucking liar. Germany didn't do that. German Jews did.



Learn some REAL history you idiot.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> You seemed to be confused and a pathological liar, so I will explain it again. maybe you didn't understand me?
> 
> The house of lords was full of calls for its country, Britain, to surrender and end the war. Completely bankrupt and out of supplies, its navy being decimated by submarines.
> 
> ...



Like I said, Keep copying, pasting, and adding more useless fiction to your (go nowhere) argument.  IT IS A PREIDICTION based on your own false interpretation of historical events.    Learn some history dude, The Russians signed the Armistice with Germany because of this little thing called the RUSSIAN REVOLUTION (1917) and the Russian Civil War (1918-1921).  It had more to do with Russia's surrender than the looming defeat at the hands of the Germans.  And in fact, the same Russians pushed the Germans back from almost nothing during World War II, had it not been for the internal problems, Russia would have done the same then.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

No longer dealing with ignorant pathological liars, maybe I will explain it again. maybe you just didn't understand?

The house of lords was full of calls for its country, Britain, to surrender and end the war. Completely bankrupt and out of supplies, its navy being decimated by submarines.

Russia had surrendered completely already.

One-third to one-half the french army that was left had already mutinied.

All that happened in the same year, and all just before the USA decided to butt its nose into things for no apparent reason.

If Germany would have won, there would have been no WW2, and there definitely would not be any significant amount of hate for Jewish Germans. However, because of how it ended, and because it was obvious the USA had no real reason to get involved in the war, many suspected the American Jews had conspired in the hopes of getting Palastine so they could make Israel. And they had a whole lot of evidence that is in fact what happened. Combined with the bullshit Treaty of Versailles, they pretty much gauranteed WW2 and the rise of the Nazi party.

No USA entering into WW1 = no Nazi rise to power = no WW2 = no Holocaust, no USSR and its many varied holocausts. Could have saved probably 200-300 million lives and god knows how much money we could have spent furthering science to heal and help mankind instead of killing it.

You know you have lost this debate and this discussion, and anyone of any intellect that follows it and checks the fact is well aware how much of a bulllshitter and fraud you are.

You did infact say "nothing came of the cold war". Tens of millions were murdered during the coold war. Your ignorance and your refusal to accept facts shows you a blind bigot of the "1 million arab lives are not worth one Jewish fingernail" ilk.


----------



## jillian (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Bullshit. Jews bankrolled Lenin into power, mostly New York Jews. Fucking liar. Germany didn't do that. German Jews did.



Are you insane? Seriously.....


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> No longer dealing with ignorant pathological liars, maybe I will explain it again. maybe you just didn't understand?
> 
> The house of lords was full of calls for its country, Britain, to surrender and end the war. Completely bankrupt and out of supplies, its navy being decimated by submarines.
> 
> ...



I'll say this again...THe USSR did not arise because of the U.S. entry into World War I.  The Russian Civil war was fought between the Anti-Bolshevik White Army and the Bolshevik RED Army (which eventually won and created the Soviet Union.  Which in turn led to American-U.S.S.R tensions which possibly may have resulted in a longer Cold War, or a more bloody 2nd world war in which Russia would have been the enemy from the start.  

You are a disgrace to the historical field...and not because I assume you are apart of it, but for merely acting as if you know something.  Keep that copy and paste up....you're doing great.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

jillian said:


> Are you insane? Seriously.....



No. I'm not. Jewish bankers funded Lenin, from New York to Germany.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Antony-Sutton/dp/089968324X[/ame]

Read that, but I know books are scary to most of the ignorant twats in this forum.

It's like saying the USA funded the Bolshevik revolution just because pieces of zionists shit like Jacob Schiff lived here and were the major financial supports of Lenin.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> No. I'm not. Jewish bankers funded Lenin, from New York to Germany.
> 
> It's like Saying the USA funded the Bolshivek revolution just becfause pieces of zionists shit lik Jacob schif lived here and were the major financial supports of Lenin.



The U.S. as well as British and Canadians flew in soldiers and supplies to help the WHITE ARMY (TSARS-fighting against the Bolshivek Red Army. And this was in March of 1918.  

Take your anti-jewish propoganda somewhere else you lying sack of crap.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 30, 2008)

You guys can enjoy your heavenly ignorance. Must be nice to have been born with such low IQs your entire existence is like some dream state, free of logic or intellectual curiousity. Wont of lies and worship of TV "truths". I realize no argument, no book, nor gene therapy will ever cure you dullards. 

Just a bunch of hayseed bar flies pontificating on quantum physicis or some such. You dipshits would make a funny TV show.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> You guys can enjoy your heavenly ignorance. Must be nice to have been born with such low IQs your entire existence is like some dream state, free of logic or intellectual curiousity. Wont of lies and worship of TV "truths". I realize no argument, no book, nor gene therapy will ever cure you dullards.
> 
> Just a bunch of hayseed bar flies pontificating on quantum physicis or some such. You dipshits would make a funny TV show.



Sorry you moron but I will believe the College Course I took on the Soviet Union.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> You guys can enjoy your heavenly ignorance. Must be nice to have been born with such low IQs your entire existence is like some dream state, free of logic or intellectual curiousity. Wont of lies and worship of TV "truths". I realize no argument, no book, nor gene therapy will ever cure you dullards.
> 
> Just a bunch of hayseed bar flies pontificating on quantum physicis or some such. You dipshits would make a funny TV show.



Are you suggesting that the U.S., British, and Canadians didn't support the Russian White Army?  ANd not to mention sent troops and supplies to help them?  I'll be more than glad to post a link, since you've conveniently ignored fact yet again and chose to sleep with the strawman.  You're the one who was bitching about history books dude, it seems you're the only one who hasn't read anything else.   You've spent more time dreaming up fairy tales than even reading the NUMEROUS historical sources and links that have been posted for your intellectual benefit.  

We would make a funny TV show.  It would be called "Smear the Queer."    I'll let you guess which one you are....

Oh, and here's a link stating what you claim are lies...   

http://militaryhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_northern_white_army_19181920


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sorry you moron but I will believe the College Course I took on the Soviet Union.



Oh RGS, but according to numdenuts, this stuff isn't taught in school.  It's all being hidden from you!  Believe it or not, everything is America's fault!!   

I wish he'd sell his crap-flavored lolly-pops somewhere else, but as long as he does here, we can continue to flush them.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 30, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> You guys can enjoy your heavenly ignorance. Must be nice to have been born with such low IQs your entire existence is like some dream state, free of logic or intellectual curiousity. Wont of lies and worship of TV "truths". I realize no argument, no book, nor gene therapy will ever cure you dullards.
> 
> Just a bunch of hayseed bar flies pontificating on quantum physicis or some such. You dipshits would make a funny TV show.



You wouldn't.  Nothing funny about you.  Nor truthful.  You're not dumb so I can only conclude you have let your hatred willfully blind you.  That makes you pathetic instead.


----------



## watermark (Jul 1, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> He would have been a great president if he would have ripped the throat out of the soviet union. Instead, he is just an opportunistic Jew-tool.



Europe would be Germany right now if America and Britain hadn't allied with the Russians.  The Soviets, ironically enough, did a lot to save liberal democracy whenever they banded together with us.


----------



## watermark (Jul 1, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> No one needed to occupy the country, just get rid of all the communist leaders. There was a reason the commie cocksucks had orders, and routinely performed them,



Let me guess, the citizens would greet us as liberators?

TY for your time.


----------



## watermark (Jul 1, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Source or its bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This makes a whole lot of exaggerations and takes a lot of liberty with history.

FDR made the right decision.  We couldn't have won the war without the soviets.


----------



## editec (Jul 1, 2008)

Oddly enough I think you are BOTH RIGHT.

Yes, I think some Western money went to supporting the communists and yes, the Western Powers fought on behalf of the WHITE ARMY.

Confusing?

Not really.

Hedging your bets is something the elite have done since time began.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 1, 2008)

editec said:


> Oddly enough I think you are BOTH RIGHT.
> 
> Yes, I think some Western money went to supporting the communists and yes, the Western Powers fought on behalf of the WHITE ARMY.
> 
> ...



I agree, but what numdenuts suggests is a fictional scenario basd on his own hypothesis of something that didn't happen.  IMO---based on numerous historical facts, his hypothesis is completely wrong.  He has no possible inkling of knowing that World War II would not have happen had the U.S. not gotten involved in World War I.  His first mistake is thinking the Russians surrendered because they were being defeated by the Germans....sure, the Germans were a tough and determine enemy, but Russia had internal problems.  The Russians/Soviets didn't surrender in WWII when all hope was lost, they wouldn't have done it in WWI had they not had the problems they did with Civil War and Revolution.  Also, nondeplume seems to think that if Germany one, all the other countries would just simply lay down their arms, bend over and take it.  Historical fact shows that people don't like to be occupied by other nations, so they revolt, rebel....It's been happening for thousands and thousands of years, it wouldn't stop just because it was the Germans taking over. I've never seen a bigger perversion of historical fact in my life.


----------



## Article 15 (Jul 5, 2008)

Holy Jew hating, Batman!

Look, Stalin was a very BAD man.  And FDR certainly had his faults.  

But jeez ...

If not for the Red Army I'm not at all sure that the Allies win WWII.

And what was FDR (or more precisely Truman) to do at the time?  Invade Russia?  Napoleon and Hitler found out how STUPID an idea that is.  Or perhaps go all nuke crazy over Moscow and the rest of Russia's major cities (even though we didn't have any other working nukes at the time?  But really?  Nuke the hell out of a country and annihilate civilian populations that had been terrorized by their own leadership for YEARS?!  To what end?  Would they suddenly become compliant?  LOL  How do you think the US would have looked after such an act?   What nation would ever trust the US EVER AGAIN?!

Sheesh ...


----------



## editec (Jul 6, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I agree, but what numdenuts suggests is a fictional scenario basd on his own hypothesis of something that didn't happen. IMO---based on numerous historical facts, his hypothesis is completely wrong. He has no possible inkling of knowing that World War II would not have happen had the U.S. not gotten involved in World War I. His first mistake is thinking the Russians surrendered because they were being defeated by the Germans....sure, the Germans were a tough and determine enemy, but Russia had internal problems. The Russians/Soviets didn't surrender in WWII when all hope was lost, they wouldn't have done it in WWI had they not had the problems they did with Civil War and Revolution. Also, nondeplume seems to think that if Germany one, all the other countries would just simply lay down their arms, bend over and take it. Historical fact shows that people don't like to be occupied by other nations, so they revolt, rebel....It's been happening for thousands and thousands of years, it wouldn't stop just because it was the Germans taking over. I've never seen a bigger perversion of historical fact in my life.


 
I think that you're right that the Romanov regime withdrew from WWI because of the brewing revolution in the ranks of the military

Mostly they withdrew because the soldiers starting killing their officers and abandoning their posts, so there really wasn't all that much choice.

The military leadership was so bad that soldiers started electing their own leaders and they they elected not to fight anymore.  Heaven help the officer who tried to stop those guys from going home, too.

Russia really lost the WWI  before it began, in my opinion.

That monarchiacal regime was totally incompetent to deal with the problems it was facing domestically, and then to add a pointless war on top of it?

BTW, does the above sound vaguely familiar to any situation we're familiar with today?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 6, 2008)

editec said:


> I think that you're right that the Romanov regime withdrew from WWI because of the brewing revolution in the ranks of the military
> 
> Mostly they withdrew because the soldiers starting killing their officers and abandoning their posts, so there really wasn't all that much choice.
> 
> ...



No.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 12, 2008)

Wow, here's a thread I don't even remember starting? It must have been snipped from someplace? Another amazing man of that time was Winston Churchill, I recently picked up his "Memoirs of the Second World War," the abridged edition, even that is over a thousand pages. I will need to retire to read all I would like to but both he and FDR and even Stalin were powerful men, one turned truly evil. 

I was thinking how lucky this country was to be founded when it was and to have such great minds create it and then I think of 2000 and wonder! Should we blame the chads, the Supreme Court, or the actual doofus who ran our country during these tough times?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 12, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Wow, here's a thread I don't even remember starting? It must have been snipped from someplace? Another amazing man of that time was Winston Churchill, I recently picked up his "Memoirs of the Second World War," the abridged edition, even that is over a thousand pages. I will need to retire to read all I would like to but both he and FDR and even Stalin were powerful men, one turned truly evil.
> 
> I was thinking how lucky this country was to be founded when it was and to have such great minds create it and then I think of 2000 and wonder! Should we blame the chads, the Supreme Court, or the actual doofus who ran our country during these tough times?



Stalin was evil well before the war. The soviet army almost lost because of Stalins brutal purges of it. Millions of Soviets had already died under Stalin before the war ever started.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 19, 2019)

midcan5 said:


> The greatest would have to be FDR, crippled, a world wide depression, the great war, how many could have gone through all that, and yet he screwed up with the Japanese internment. Definitely tough times, and that work laid the foundations for our liberal democracy that raised the boats for so many. LBJ continued that tough leveling task. Reagan was the beginning of the end and while I think he realized he screwed up, his ideas appealed to the greedy and imperialists and today we see the fruits of Reagan in corporate greed and an illegal war.




fdr was the worst president in US history. A grave threat to our Republic, and to democratic principles. During an era of dictators, he was only kept somewhat in check thanks to the strength of the structure of our government, but had he not finally died, who knows what more damage he might have done?


----------



## regent (Apr 19, 2019)

Only a few American presidents might have achieved the dictator rule, Washington was one, and FDR the other, but  when FDR died the VP took over as per our rules, and all went on. Now historians rate FDR the greatest president.


----------

