> >> >> >> The "Militarists" running Japan were not from among the same class
> >> >> >> of men as Yamamoto and Kuribayashi. The men ordered to prosecute > >> >> >> the War against the US knew their actions could only end in defeat
> >> >> >> for Japan's new rulers and their purported allies.
> >> >> > Japan was run by chicken-hawks?
> >> >> Yep.
> >> > So was the US. When did FDR serve?
> >> FDR was a GIMP, not a chickenhawk:
> >> it's not that he WOULDN'T and wanted other to GO, he COULDN'T
> > Sure he could, until he was almost 40 years old. Most people serve when > > they're in their 20s. Chickenhawk Franklin chose not to.
> In 1942 my Grandfather Millard tried to join up when some friends > of his showed him hard evidence of thanatological experiments in
> the German camps. He was 50. Joining up requires there to be
> a war
Nonsense.
Leftard rule #1: lie, lie again, then lie about lying.
"Leck mich am Arsch, polnische Wildsau." & here I thought Johannes von
Ebersdorf/Hans - Peter Skaliks liked the Swabian arsehole A Moose in
Love to kiss his smelly Hungarian arse .....
> In article
>> How amazing that FDR, a Liberal, Canada's Prime Minister (a Liberal)
>> took on a so-called "fellow Liberal" Hitler, while all the American
>> right wanted to do was suck up to the Nazis.
> Nope, they wanted to let Stalin deal with them. Result - thousands of
> American lives and dollars saved. Why do you object to that?
Curiously, the Germans had a mutual non aggression pact at the time that German violated the Treaty of Versailles and the Munich Agreement by invading Poland. Germany had invaded most of northwest Europe and then had some half assed plans to invade Britain. In the summer of 1940 the Battle of Britain started and the plan was for the Luftwaffe to destroy the RAF and gain air superiority so that they could start the invasion. The US would not get involved, and at that point there was nothing going on between Nazi German and the Soviet Union.
You have somehow managed to overlook those facts in order to come up with your suggestion that the US wanted Germany to deal with the Soviets.
> snicker
It's amazing how who always add that stupid little titter after posting something stupid. No surprise that it is always there.
>> >> >> >> The "Militarists" running Japan were not from among the same class
>> >> >> >> of men as Yamamoto and Kuribayashi. The men ordered to prosecute >> >> >> >> the War against the US knew their actions could only end in defeat
>> >> >> >> for Japan's new rulers and their purported allies.
>> >> >> > Japan was run by chicken-hawks?
>> >> >> Yep.
>> >> > So was the US. When did FDR serve?
>> >> FDR was a GIMP, not a chickenhawk:
>> >> it's not that he WOULDN'T and wanted other to GO, he COULDN'T
>> > Sure he could, until he was almost 40 years old. Most people serve when >> > they're in their 20s. Chickenhawk Franklin chose not to.
>> In 1942 my Grandfather Millard tried to join up when some friends >> of his showed him hard evidence of thanatological experiments in
>> the German camps. He was 50. Joining up requires there to be
>> a war
> Nonsense.
> Leftard rule #1: lie, lie again, then lie about lying.
>>> In 1942 my Grandfather Millard tried to join up when some friends
>>> of his showed him hard evidence of thanatological experiments in
>>> the German camps. He was 50. Joining up requires there to be
>>> a war
>> Nonsense.
>> Leftard rule #1: lie, lie again, then lie about lying.
>> snicker
> WTF do you know, asshat?
> Dhu
BY his own definition, he must be a "leftard" because he has a tendency to lie, lie and lie, or maybe he is just really stupid.
> In article
> <ad312fed-0dda-4c42-b6af-1a40fa8e6...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Kim MItchell <agamemnon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 8:45 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article <hSIks.4933$%z6.3...@newsfe04.iad>,
>>> Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 21:32:59 -0400, Harold Burton wrote:
>>>>> In article <wSmks.1543$Ns4....@newsfe09.iad>,
>>>>> Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:25:51 -0400, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>> The "Militarists" running Japan were not from among the same class
>>>>>>>> of men as Yamamoto and Kuribayashi. The men ordered to prosecute
>>>>>>>> the War against the US knew their actions could only end in defeat
>>>>>>>> for Japan's new rulers and their purported allies.
>>>>>>> Japan was run by chicken-hawks?
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>> So was the US. When did FDR serve?
>>>> FDR was a GIMP, not a chickenhawk:
>>>> it's not that he WOULDN'T and wanted other to GO, he COULDN'T
>>> Sure he could, until he was almost 40 years old. Most people serve when
>>> they're in their 20s. Chickenhawk Franklin chose not to.
>> How amazing that FDR, a Liberal, Canada's Prime Minister (a Liberal)
>> took on a so-called "fellow Liberal" Hitler, while all the American
>> right wanted to do was suck up to the Nazis.
> Nope, they wanted to let Stalin deal with them. Result - thousands of
> American lives and dollars saved. Why do you object to that?
The result of the alternative would have been a Europe entirely under the control of Hitler or Stalin. Why are you in favour of that?
> On 11/3/2012 7:58 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> > In article
> > <ad312fed-0dda-4c42-b6af-1a40fa8e6...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Kim MItchell <agamemnon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 2, 8:45 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <hSIks.4933$%z6.3...@newsfe04.iad>,
> >>> Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 21:32:59 -0400, Harold Burton wrote:
> >>>>> In article <wSmks.1543$Ns4....@newsfe09.iad>,
> >>>>> Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:25:51 -0400, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The "Militarists" running Japan were not from among the same class
> >>>>>>>> of men as Yamamoto and Kuribayashi. The men ordered to prosecute
> >>>>>>>> the War against the US knew their actions could only end in defeat
> >>>>>>>> for Japan's new rulers and their purported allies.
> >>>>>>> Japan was run by chicken-hawks?
> >>>>>> Yep.
> >>>>> So was the US. When did FDR serve?
> >>>> FDR was a GIMP, not a chickenhawk:
> >>>> it's not that he WOULDN'T and wanted other to GO, he COULDN'T
> >>> Sure he could, until he was almost 40 years old. Most people serve when
> >>> they're in their 20s. Chickenhawk Franklin chose not to.
> >> How amazing that FDR, a Liberal, Canada's Prime Minister (a Liberal)
> >> took on a so-called "fellow Liberal" Hitler, while all the American
> >> right wanted to do was suck up to the Nazis.
> > Nope, they wanted to let Stalin deal with them. Result - thousands of
> > American lives and dollars saved. Why do you object to that?
> The result of the alternative would have been a Europe entirely under > the control of Hitler or Stalin.
Why? After Hitler and Stalin had beaten each other into a bloody pulp, even France and England, had they stayed out of the war and quietly rearmed, could have kicked their asses. Much like after WWI the US of A could have run rough shod over France, England, and Germany, thanks to staying (mostly) out of the war.
In article <vavls.120355$3u3.40...@fed04.iad>,
Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 9:58 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> > In article
> >> How amazing that FDR, a Liberal, Canada's Prime Minister (a Liberal)
> >> took on a so-called "fellow Liberal" Hitler, while all the American
> >> right wanted to do was suck up to the Nazis.
> > Nope, they wanted to let Stalin deal with them. Result - thousands of
> > American lives and dollars saved. Why do you object to that?
> Curiously, the Germans had a mutual non aggression pact at the time that > German violated the Treaty of Versailles and the Munich Agreement by > invading Poland. Germany had invaded most of northwest Europe . . .
Because a part of northwest Europe declared war on Germany. Funny thing about declaring war on someone, that someone just might decide to kick your ass, as France and England learned. Had they stayed out of it Germany would have continued east and would have been Stalin's problem
> In article <k76cbb$gq...@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>> On 11/3/2012 7:58 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <ad312fed-0dda-4c42-b6af-1a40fa8e6...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Kim MItchell <agamemnon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 2, 8:45 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <hSIks.4933$%z6.3...@newsfe04.iad>,
>>>>> Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 21:32:59 -0400, Harold Burton wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <wSmks.1543$Ns4....@newsfe09.iad>,
>>>>>>> Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:25:51 -0400, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The "Militarists" running Japan were not from among the same class
>>>>>>>>>> of men as Yamamoto and Kuribayashi. The men ordered to prosecute
>>>>>>>>>> the War against the US knew their actions could only end in defeat
>>>>>>>>>> for Japan's new rulers and their purported allies.
>>>>>>>>> Japan was run by chicken-hawks?
>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>> So was the US. When did FDR serve?
>>>>>> FDR was a GIMP, not a chickenhawk:
>>>>>> it's not that he WOULDN'T and wanted other to GO, he COULDN'T
>>>>> Sure he could, until he was almost 40 years old. Most people serve when
>>>>> they're in their 20s. Chickenhawk Franklin chose not to.
>>>> How amazing that FDR, a Liberal, Canada's Prime Minister (a Liberal)
>>>> took on a so-called "fellow Liberal" Hitler, while all the American
>>>> right wanted to do was suck up to the Nazis.
>>> Nope, they wanted to let Stalin deal with them. Result - thousands of
>>> American lives and dollars saved. Why do you object to that?
>> The result of the alternative would have been a Europe entirely under
>> the control of Hitler or Stalin.
> Why? After Hitler and Stalin had beaten each other into a bloody pulp,
Whats your basis for that claim? And what would keep Hitler from insuring himself against the possibility of a two front war by taking out the smaller opponent first?
>>> Nope, they wanted to let Stalin deal with them. Result - thousands of
>>> American lives and dollars saved. Why do you object to that?
>> Curiously, the Germans had a mutual non aggression pact at the time that
>> German violated the Treaty of Versailles and the Munich Agreement by
>> invading Poland. Germany had invaded most of northwest Europe . . .
> Because a part of northwest Europe declared war on Germany. Funny thing
> about declaring war on someone, that someone just might decide to kick
> your ass, as France and England learned. Had they stayed out of it
> Germany would have continued east and would have been Stalin's problem
France and the UK declared war on Germany after it ignored warnings that they would do so if it violated the Versailles Treaty and Munich Agreement and invaded Poland. Germany invaded Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium, which we all neutral.
> >>> Nope, they wanted to let Stalin deal with them. Result - thousands of
> >>> American lives and dollars saved. Why do you object to that?
> >> Curiously, the Germans had a mutual non aggression pact at the time that
> >> German violated the Treaty of Versailles and the Munich Agreement by
> >> invading Poland. Germany had invaded most of northwest Europe . . .
> > Because a part of northwest Europe declared war on Germany. Funny thing
> > about declaring war on someone, that someone just might decide to kick
> > your ass, as France and England learned. Had they stayed out of it
> > Germany would have continued east and would have been Stalin's problem
> France and the UK declared war on Germany after it ignored warnings that > they would do so if it violated the Versailles Treaty and Munich > Agreement and invaded Poland.
Yeah, and? Fact is England and France declared war on Germany, and paid dearly for that mistake.
> Germany invaded Denmark, Netherlands and > Belgium, which we all neutral.
> On 11/4/2012 8:33 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> > In article <k76cbb$gq...@dont-email.me>,
> > David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/3/2012 7:58 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <ad312fed-0dda-4c42-b6af-1a40fa8e6...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Kim MItchell <agamemnon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 2, 8:45 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> In article <hSIks.4933$%z6.3...@newsfe04.iad>,
> >>>>> Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 21:32:59 -0400, Harold Burton wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <wSmks.1543$Ns4....@newsfe09.iad>,
> >>>>>>> Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:25:51 -0400, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> The "Militarists" running Japan were not from among the same class
> >>>>>>>>>> of men as Yamamoto and Kuribayashi. The men ordered to prosecute
> >>>>>>>>>> the War against the US knew their actions could only end in defeat
> >>>>>>>>>> for Japan's new rulers and their purported allies.
> >>>>>>>>> Japan was run by chicken-hawks?
> >>>>>>>> Yep.
> >>>>>>> So was the US. When did FDR serve?
> >>>>>> FDR was a GIMP, not a chickenhawk:
> >>>>>> it's not that he WOULDN'T and wanted other to GO, he COULDN'T
> >>>>> Sure he could, until he was almost 40 years old. Most people serve when
> >>>>> they're in their 20s. Chickenhawk Franklin chose not to.
> >>>> How amazing that FDR, a Liberal, Canada's Prime Minister (a Liberal)
> >>>> took on a so-called "fellow Liberal" Hitler, while all the American
> >>>> right wanted to do was suck up to the Nazis.
> >>> Nope, they wanted to let Stalin deal with them. Result - thousands of
> >>> American lives and dollars saved. Why do you object to that?
> >> The result of the alternative would have been a Europe entirely under
> >> the control of Hitler or Stalin.
> > Why? After Hitler and Stalin had beaten each other into a bloody pulp,
> Whats your basis for that claim? And what would keep Hitler from > insuring himself against the possibility of a two front war by taking > out the smaller opponent first?
What smaller opponent was that? And what evidence you you have that he planned to take out that smaller opponent first? German aggression was always directed east. Provide any evidence that Germany was threatening France or England before they stupidly declared war on Germany.
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:21:41 -0500, Harold Burton wrote:
> In article <k77hve$s...@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 8:33 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
>> > In article <k76cbb$gq...@dont-email.me>,
>> > David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>> >> On 11/3/2012 7:58 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
>> >>> In article
>> >>> <ad312fed-0dda-4c42-b6af-1a40fa8e6...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>> Kim MItchell <agamemnon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Nov 2, 8:45 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> In article <hSIks.4933$%z6.3...@newsfe04.iad>,
>> >>>>> Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 21:32:59 -0400, Harold Burton wrote:
>> >>>>>>> In article <wSmks.1543$Ns4....@newsfe09.iad>,
>> >>>>>>> Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:25:51 -0400, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> The "Militarists" running Japan were not from among the same class
>> >>>>>>>>>> of men as Yamamoto and Kuribayashi. The men ordered to prosecute
>> >>>>>>>>>> the War against the US knew their actions could only end in defeat
>> >>>>>>>>>> for Japan's new rulers and their purported allies.
>> >>>>>>>>> Japan was run by chicken-hawks?
>> >>>>>>>> Yep.
>> >>>>>>> So was the US. When did FDR serve?
>> >>>>>> FDR was a GIMP, not a chickenhawk:
>> >>>>>> it's not that he WOULDN'T and wanted other to GO, he COULDN'T
>> >>>>> Sure he could, until he was almost 40 years old. Most people serve when
>> >>>>> they're in their 20s. Chickenhawk Franklin chose not to.
>> >>>> How amazing that FDR, a Liberal, Canada's Prime Minister (a Liberal)
>> >>>> took on a so-called "fellow Liberal" Hitler, while all the American
>> >>>> right wanted to do was suck up to the Nazis.
>> >>> Nope, they wanted to let Stalin deal with them. Result - thousands of
>> >>> American lives and dollars saved. Why do you object to that?
>> >> The result of the alternative would have been a Europe entirely under
>> >> the control of Hitler or Stalin.
>> > Why? After Hitler and Stalin had beaten each other into a bloody pulp,
>> Whats your basis for that claim? And what would keep Hitler from >> insuring himself against the possibility of a two front war by taking >> out the smaller opponent first?
> What smaller opponent was that? And what evidence you you have that he
France.
> planned to take out that smaller opponent first? German aggression was > always directed east. Provide any evidence that Germany was threatening
In what Universe is that? Time to pull off the tinfoil hat and realize that
the poles have not switched (yet).
From the times of Trajan the Germans have invaded the West every time they are politically united. What was the Franco-Prussian war about, then?
> France or England before they stupidly declared war on Germany.
> What smaller opponent was that? And what evidence you you have that he
> planned to take out that smaller opponent first? German aggression was
> always directed east. Provide any evidence that Germany was threatening
> France or England before they stupidly declared war on Germany.
Not really up on your history are you.
Was Germany a threat to France and Britain ?
Yes !
Quoted:
Definitely the remilitarisation of the Rhine Land. Why? Because it was expressly forbidden under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles of 1919. France was especially alarmed as the Rhineland was at the border between the 2 countries At the same time, Other European powers knew full well what a powerful German army could do as evidenced from the 1st world war. As a result of Nazi aggression, the entire continent from the USSR in the East to England in the Northwest started re-arming as well, knowing that though they did not want to fight another world war, they simply had to stop Hitler's threat of a global hegemony. The rearming of the Rhineland was a signal of intent to make war.
Despite the fact that Neville Chamberlain and other leaders tried to appease Hitler and prevent the war from coming, it simply fed his ambition and his confidence to invade other nations and break the terms of the Versailles Treaty. Britain and other powers though willing to appease were also galvanized into a state of semi-war readiness and would declare war if Germany violated Poland. As a side note i might also add that, many of the allies were not only alarmed at German rearmament but also became soft n thought the terms of Versailles were a little too harsh, so they in turn thought, lets cut the Germans a little slack n by doing so if we can prevent a war, then hey that'll do just fine.
> In article <k77hve$s...@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 8:33 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
>>> In article <k76cbb$gq...@dont-email.me>,
>>> David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/3/2012 7:58 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <ad312fed-0dda-4c42-b6af-1a40fa8e6...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Kim MItchell <agamemnon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 2, 8:45 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <hSIks.4933$%z6.3...@newsfe04.iad>,
>>>>>>> Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 21:32:59 -0400, Harold Burton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <wSmks.1543$Ns4....@newsfe09.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:25:51 -0400, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The "Militarists" running Japan were not from among the same class
>>>>>>>>>>>> of men as Yamamoto and Kuribayashi. The men ordered to prosecute
>>>>>>>>>>>> the War against the US knew their actions could only end in defeat
>>>>>>>>>>>> for Japan's new rulers and their purported allies.
>>>>>>>>>>> Japan was run by chicken-hawks?
>>>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>> So was the US. When did FDR serve?
>>>>>>>> FDR was a GIMP, not a chickenhawk:
>>>>>>>> it's not that he WOULDN'T and wanted other to GO, he COULDN'T
>>>>>>> Sure he could, until he was almost 40 years old. Most people serve when
>>>>>>> they're in their 20s. Chickenhawk Franklin chose not to.
>>>>>> How amazing that FDR, a Liberal, Canada's Prime Minister (a Liberal)
>>>>>> took on a so-called "fellow Liberal" Hitler, while all the American
>>>>>> right wanted to do was suck up to the Nazis.
>>>>> Nope, they wanted to let Stalin deal with them. Result - thousands of
>>>>> American lives and dollars saved. Why do you object to that?
>>>> The result of the alternative would have been a Europe entirely under
>>>> the control of Hitler or Stalin.
>>> Why? After Hitler and Stalin had beaten each other into a bloody pulp,
>> Whats your basis for that claim? And what would keep Hitler from
>> insuring himself against the possibility of a two front war by taking
>> out the smaller opponent first?
> What smaller opponent was that?
You didn't answer my question. What's your basis for the claim that Hitler and Stalin would beat each other into a bloody pulp? Perhaps more to the point, how could Britain and France be _sure_ that would happen, rather than a dramatic victory that would leave Hitler even harder to deal with?
And what evidence you you have that he
> planned to take out that smaller opponent first?
I have the fact that Hitler allowed Stalin to take over half of Poland, a move that makes no sense if his next move was to attack Russia but makes a lot of sense if his next move was to attack France and he wanted the Russians off his back while he did it.
German aggression was
> always directed east.
That is and always will be an utterly simple-minded argument. Particularly since in reality Hitler expanded south, north and west against nations that were trying as hard as they possibly could to stay neutral or even friendly to the Germans. The Germans attacked any nation that was vulnerable starting first with nations that held former German and Austrian territory. France was vulnerable, and it held former German territory. Therefore it was going to be attacked.
Provide any evidence that Germany was threatening
> France or England before they stupidly declared war on Germany.
Hitler made a treaty with them at Munich only to immediately break it. This indicates that he didn't care whether or not they declared war on Germany. The only reason not to care whether or not they were going to war with Germany is because even if they didn't, Germany would be going to war with them as soon as they stopped conceding everything Germany demanded anyway.
On 05/11/2012 9:18 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
many would have continued east and would have been Stalin's problem
>> France and the UK declared war on Germany after it ignored warnings that
>> they would do so if it violated the Versailles Treaty and Munich
>> Agreement and invaded Poland.
> Yeah, and? Fact is England and France declared war on Germany, and paid
> dearly for that mistake.
>> Germany invaded Denmark, Netherlands and
>> Belgium, which we all neutral.
> No they weren't.
Are you intentional lying like a Nazi propagandist, or are you really that stupid?
>>>> The result of the alternative would have been a Europe entirely under
>>>> the control of Hitler or Stalin.
>>> Why? After Hitler and Stalin had beaten each other into a bloody pulp,
>> Whats your basis for that claim? And what would keep Hitler from
>> insuring himself against the possibility of a two front war by taking
>> out the smaller opponent first?
> What smaller opponent was that? And what evidence you you have that he
> planned to take out that smaller opponent first? German aggression was
> always directed east.
Perhaps you never heard of the Schelieffen Plan that was the (failed) German strategy for fighting on two fronts. Take out France and then turn on Russia, which would be slower to mobilize.
> Provide any evidence that Germany was threatening
> France or England before they stupidly declared war on Germany.
We keep telling you that Germany attacked France in WWI, along with neutral Belgium, and the treaty that ended that war barred Germany from expanding and from militarizing the Rhineland. Gemany started to violate the terms of the treaty by militarizing the Rhineland, annexing Austria, annexing the Sudetenland, then the rest of Czechoslovakia. The Allies appeased them, a word that you apparently do not understand, and negotiated the Munich Agreement whereby Germany promised to make no more territorial demands. They were wanted that any moves on Poland would mean war. So, after four major violations of terms intended to stop Germany from threatening its neighbours, the Allies were forced to back up their words with action.
If Britain and France were stupid to declare war, then Germany was even more stupid to push them to it. The fact that Germany then violated its non-aggression pact with Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union would make them that much more stupid. Then the is the little issue of Germany being reduced to rubble and facing Soviet occupation of a significant portion of the country, including its capital. It may be that the Allied commanders of WW I were right when they suggested that they should have marched right into Germany in 1918 and had a total victory. Then the Germans would have realized that they were lucky to escape with the lives and stop whining about how harsh the Treaty of Versailles was.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 03:27:46PM -0500, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 05/11/2012 9:21 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> >>>>The result of the alternative would have been a Europe entirely under
> >>>>the control of Hitler or Stalin.
> >>>Why? After Hitler and Stalin had beaten each other into a bloody pulp,
> >>Whats your basis for that claim? And what would keep Hitler from
> >>insuring himself against the possibility of a two front war by taking
> >>out the smaller opponent first?
> >What smaller opponent was that? And what evidence you you have that he
> >planned to take out that smaller opponent first? German aggression was
> >always directed east.
> Perhaps you never heard of the Schelieffen Plan that was the (failed) > German strategy for fighting on two fronts. Take out France and then > turn on Russia, which would be slower to mobilize.
> > Provide any evidence that Germany was threatening
> >France or England before they stupidly declared war on Germany.
> We keep telling you that Germany attacked France in WWI, along with > neutral Belgium, and the treaty that ended that war barred Germany from > expanding and from militarizing the Rhineland. Gemany started to violate > the terms of the treaty by militarizing the Rhineland, annexing Austria, > annexing the Sudetenland, then the rest of Czechoslovakia. The Allies > appeased them, a word that you apparently do not understand, and > negotiated the Munich Agreement whereby Germany promised to make no more > territorial demands. They were wanted that any moves on Poland would > mean war. So, after four major violations of terms intended to stop > Germany from threatening its neighbours, the Allies were forced to back > up their words with action.
> If Britain and France were stupid to declare war, then Germany was even > more stupid to push them to it. The fact that Germany then violated its > non-aggression pact with Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union would make > them that much more stupid. Then the is the little issue of Germany > being reduced to rubble and facing Soviet occupation of a significant > portion of the country, including its capital. It may be that the Allied > commanders of WW I were right when they suggested that they should have > marched right into Germany in 1918 and had a total victory. Then the > Germans would have realized that they were lucky to escape with the > lives and stop whining about how harsh the Treaty of Versailles was.
> Most Nazis are too stupid to realize that.
The other half of the story is that they bring their own children to
the same lost point and in so doing perpetuate their idiocy. By the
time some of them figure it out, they're already so filthy their self-
loathing becomes the dominant personality trait.
Rather sad, but stupidity is it's own reward.
Regards,
Uncle Steve
--
Sad news, my lo-al fr-ends. My doctor has diagnosed can-er of the
funny-bone. Chemother-py has failed, and so it was removed last night
in a difficult op-ration. I am now on an organ-donor waiting list,
which now is my last hope to regain a sense of h-mor. I urge you,
especially if you are com-dian, to sign your organ-donor card. If you
are hit by a bus tomorrow, the h-mor you save may be your own.
"Dave Smith" wrote in message news:bdems.114421$zn2.18539@fed03.iad...
> On 05/11/2012 9:18 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> many would have continued east and would have been Stalin's problem
> >> France and the UK declared war on Germany after it ignored warnings > >> that
> >> they would do so if it violated the Versailles Treaty and Munich
> >> Agreement and invaded Poland.
> > Yeah, and? Fact is England and France declared war on Germany, and paid
> > dearly for that mistake.
> >> Germany invaded Denmark, Netherlands and
> >> Belgium, which we all neutral.
> > No they weren't.
> Are you intentional lying like a Nazi propagandist, or are you really that > stupid?
False dichotomy: he's proven more than capable of being both.
All three were neutral in WW 1 as well ... Belgium right up until Germany invaded.
The Netherlands hadn't been involved in a European war since Napoleon, and Denmark for 75 years, before the nazi invasion.
Thanks for reminding us that you and the other Canadian Socialist
Asshats are completely stupid idiots...
The population of Wisconsin is utterly, totally, and completely
irrelevant and if you weren't a completely stupid Canadian Socialist
Asshat idiot you would have known that...
However, since you are a completely stupid Canadian Socialist Asshat
idiot this is what you were trying to figure out:
Another Canadian Asshat. Canadian Socialists ignore how shitty their
country is [flushing 200,000,000,000 liters of raw sewage directly
into natural waterways and the Pacific Ocean every year -
http://environment.about.com/od/waterpollution/a/canadasewage.htm ]
and try to spread their Euro-socialist failed ideas by constantly
commenting on America and American politics. Please note that when you
reply to a Canadian Asshat you encourage them to continue criticizing
America while ignoring their own failed country.
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:07:11 -0500, Patriot Games
><Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:37:31 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>>wrote:
>>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:21:36 -0500, Patriot Games
>>><Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:04:09 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:10:17 -0500, Patriot Games
>>>>><Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:44:15 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:19:29 -0500, Patriot Games
>>>>>>><Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/15/afghanistan.violence/inde... >>>>>>>>November 15, 2008 >>>>>>>>U.S.: Afghan insurgent leader captured
>>>>>>>So it's over then. The insurgency has been defeated and there will be
>>>>>>>no more fighting in Afghanistan. Happy days.
>>>>>>Thanks for proving why Canadian faggots should mind their own
>>>>>>business...
>>>>>Afghanistan is our business, wuss.
>>>>When America is done with the real work >>>What's that? A joke? Most of the fighting in Afghanistan has been
>>>done by the Aghanis themselves
>>No cite. Rejected.
>I see you've found a new hypocritical way to avoid discussion but here
>you go:
>http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/northern_alliance.htm
Your cite does NOT address the claim that "most of the fighting in
Afghanistan has been done by the Aghanis themselves."
This is why Canadians should stick to topics they know something about
including taking Muslim cock up their ass daily.
YOU said: "most of the fighting in Afghanistan has been done by the
Aghanis themselves."
YOU said Brits and Canadians "have been doing the "real work...""
YOU lied.
This is why Canadians should stick to topics they know something about
including washing French cock and balls for tips.
-----------------------------
Afghanistan Casualities:
Country Total Australia 6 Canada 97 Czech 3 Denmark 16 Estonia 3 Finland 1 France 22 Germany 28 Hungary 2 Italy 13 Latvia 1 Lithuania 1 Netherlands 17 Norway 3 Poland 8 Portugal 2 Romania 8 South Korea 1 Spain 25 Sweden 2 UK 125 US 627 Total 1011 http://icasualties.org/oef/
YOU said Brits and Canadians "have been doing the "real work...""
YOU lied.
This is why Canadians should stick to topics they know something about
including washing Muslim cock and balls daily for tips.
> On 05/11/2012 9:18 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> many would have continued east and would have been Stalin's problem
> >> France and the UK declared war on Germany after it ignored warnings that
> >> they would do so if it violated the Versailles Treaty and Munich
> >> Agreement and invaded Poland.
> > Yeah, and? Fact is England and France declared war on Germany, and paid
> > dearly for that mistake.
> >> Germany invaded Denmark, Netherlands and
> >> Belgium, which we all neutral.
> > No they weren't.
> Are you intentional lying like a Nazi propagandist, or are you really > that stupid?
