Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Was WW2 the Good war?
240 views
Skip to first unread message
A Moose in Love
Oct 29, 2012, 9:33:21 AM10/29/12
to
http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/was-ww2-good-war.html
{
I have commented previously that I believe (at least given my current
understanding) the main purpose for U.S. entry into the war was two-
fold: 1) to take the place of an increasingly ailing Britain as the
primary tool for the elite to expand global control, and 2) to ensure
a new, long term enemy can be made out of the Soviet Union and
communism. I will add a third to this list – actually it is a subset
of the first: to bring the productive populations of Germany and Japan
under the control of the elite.
Before I expand on this further, I would like to revisit some of the
factors regarding the war and why it is not just improper, but
inconceivable to refer to this was as a good war.
1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
the war.
2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after
failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow.
3) Roosevelt ignored and otherwise did not take advantage of the many
proposals by Japan that, if acted upon, could have avoided the
upcoming armed conflict.
4) Roosevelt entered the war well before any declaration by Congress.
5) Roosevelt encouraged Britain and France to provide a guarantee to
Poland, a guarantee known to the Western powers to have no teeth.
6) Roosevelt chose to side with Stalin, who at the beginning of the
war had more blood on his hands than all the other leaders of
belligerent countries combined.
7) Roosevelt did not extend U.S. support for Jews attempting to
emigrate from Central Europe and immigrate into the United States
until 1944.
8) Roosevelt knew of the impending attack by Japan somewhere in the
Pacific, and very likely specifically that it would come at Pearl
Harbor.
9) Roosevelt avoided taking action to properly alert and otherwise
protect the troops.
10) Roosevelt made unconditional surrender a requirement of the axis
combatants, prolonging the war in both Europe and the Pacific.
11) Roosevelt cut Poland loose to the communists after the war.
12) Truman had many opportunities to end the war in the Pacific in
the Spring of 1945, instead choosing to delay the end in order to give
time for development of the bomb.
13) Truman continued Roosevelt’s policy of demanding unconditional
surrender, despite protests from many military and other advisors.
14) Truman chose to drop two bombs on Japan after months of Japan
signaling its willingness to meeting all terms of the allies with the
exception of removal of the Emperor (an exception also desired by
allied commanders, and an exception granted immediately after the
surrender in any case).
15) Truman afforded many diplomatic victories to Russia in Asia,
despite the lack of contribution or need of the Russian forces in this
victory.
16) Truman backed away from the Chinese Nationalists in favor of the
Communists – this despite one purported reason for U.S. animosity
toward Japan being U.S. support for the Nationalists.
17) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of up
to 14 million Germans to Germany from various locations in Central
Europe.
18) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of
perhaps several million captured Russian soldiers and other refugees
fleeing the communists to Russia against their will, resulting in
their imprisonment or execution upon return.
Lies, deception, treachery, genocide, and potentially treason. Can
anything associated with such actions be called “good”? Can a
government be called representative if it acts with deception towards
its citizens? Can a democracy (or a republic) be considered acting
based on the will of the people when such actions are taken via lies?
Except for the fact of winning the war, can these actions be
distinguished from many of the crimes on the side of the axis – for
which countless were tried, imprisoned, or executed?
There is nothing “good” about this track record.
Now, as to the purpose and reasons for the U.S. entry into the war,
let me first summarize again the outcomes of the war: first, the
United States replaced Britain as the global presence and power of the
West. Second, the Soviet Union specifically, and communism generally,
gained significant footing as a world power. Finally, the populations
of Germany and Japan both came under the domination of western elite
power.
Now, just because these were outcomes does not necessarily mean that
these were objectives from the beginning, or that these were reasons
for U.S. entry. However, I can find no other reasonable explanation
for many of the actions taken by the U.S. in the period before,
during, and after the war – many of which are identified in my list at
the beginning of this post.
I do not accept that these were just blunders or mistakes of
Roosevelt (and later, Truman) and his advisors – they were far too
experienced to make this many disastrous and “wrong” decisions. I do
not accept that Hitler was prepared to take over the world and had to
be stopped. He had neither the military for it nor the economy.
Mostly, he did not have the intent. Conversely, supporters of
communism were quite transparent in describing their goals for world
conquest – why not fight against the communists, as Germany and Japan
both seemed intent on doing?
When I try to find a rational explanation for these decisions and
actions – and I follow the thread backwards from the outcome – the
decisions make perfect sense only if these outcomes were the
objectives all along.
First, I suggest that the U.S. entered the war in order to replace
the ailing British Empire as the primary tool of the elite looking to
expand global domination. For those who believe politicians serve
their people and the national interest, and are not serving
individuals and entities with even higher power, you may feel free to
skip this section. For the rest of you….
Historically, Britain proved to be a good tool for extending global
control. However, a far better tool was on the western horizon, that
of the United States. The United States had almost unlimited potential
in terms of geography, resources, and people – certainly as compared
to Britain. The United States still had much to exploit; as was
becoming more and more obvious in the first years of the 20th century,
Britain had likely reached its limits.
Britain was losing on all fronts – it could not fight a war in Europe
without U.S. support. It lost much of the Middle East shortly after
the end of the Second War, as it also lost India. These weaknesses,
especially when compared to the obvious superiority of the U.S. as the
primary tool for control, were certainly obvious to the elite well
before the actual events.
I should clarify – this transition did not occur only in the immediate
build-up and aftermath of World War Two. The establishment of central
banking in 1913 was the key to ensuring the United States would be in
position to take over this role – without this, there is little
possibility that enough resources could have been taken from the
private sector to the degree necessary for establishment of a global
military power.
While imperialism was present in the U.S. from the beginning,
overseas expansion began at the end of the 19th century. Even with
this, much of the population had to be dragged into fighting in a
European War in the second decade of the 20th century – the people had
no appetite for fighting overseas, yet Wilson found a way to maneuver
the country into the battle.
This desire to keep out of European troubles was still in the
population in the 1930s. The people wanted to stay out – all the time
their president was secretly working to get in. If the objective was
to avoid war, Roosevelt had countless opportunities to do so. If the
objective was to get into the war despite a people and Congress that
desired to stay out, Roosevelt’s actions make perfect sense.
Roosevelt served with purpose toward this end – clearly against the
will of the people he purportedly served. Why would he do this? I
suggest it was because he was serving a different master – a master
who knew that riding the British horse was now turning into a loser’s
proposition. That horse had been ridden hard, and had nothing left to
give. A new horse needed to be found, and no other horse fit the bill
better than the United States.
The elite needed the United States to take center stage, and they
found political leaders willing to lead the nation toward that end.
The second reason for U.S. entry into the war was to set the stage
for the Cold War. War is the health of the state, and perpetual war
offers perpetual health. Today, the United States continues this
perpetual war by conjuring an enemy out of a tactic – terrorism. One
purpose of U.S. entry into World War Two was to make an enemy out of
an idea – communism. In order for the enemy to seem real, it had to be
(or at least seem to be) powerful.
Had the U.S. stayed out of the war, Hitler and Stalin likely would
have crippled each other significantly, such that neither would be a
menace to anyone outside of the forsaken ground between them (the poor
residents of Central Europe were doomed once trapped between these two
tyrants, almost regardless of any decisions taken in the West). Japan
hated the communists in China as much as Germany hated the communists
in Russia. Japan and Germany would have at least kept in check any
ideas of communist expansion, minimizing the possibility of healthy,
perpetual war for the west.
Had the U.S. stayed out of the war, communism would never have grown
into the “threat” needed for perpetual war. There would be no long-
term, believable enemy – it certainly would not have been National
Socialism, a very un-exportable ideology. While wealth extraction can
occur absent war, nothing moves the needle toward government and the
elite and away from freedom like war does. What better than a Cold
War, one that that offers long term fighting without intense
casualties?
Now to the third reason: for wealth extraction, which populations
would offer a better harvest, Germany / Japan, or Russia / China? The
former offered two of the most productive economies on earth. The
latter were still quite agrarian and relatively undeveloped. The
former occupied a limited, manageable territory, the latter – large,
and in many cases relatively unreachable regions.
The U.S. did not have to choose Russia over Germany – at the
beginning of the war Stalin was known to have far more blood on his
hands than did Hitler. Certainly from the perspective of the United
States, if the desire was simply to get into the fight (to distract
from depression, to enhance the state, whatever), fighting the
Russians through German territory would have been much easier than
fighting the Germans directly. Stalin could have been made the devil
just as easily as Hitler was.
Once these two productive peoples were subdued, wealth extraction
became much easier. And these were the two non-Anglo populations that
offered the most capacity for wealth to extract. What was likely not
possible through peace, trade, and negotiation was certainly possible
once these lands were conquered.
The U.S. replaced Britain as the tool for the elite to work through
for continued global domination; the communists were strengthened,
creating a credible enemy for perpetual war; the wealth of two
productive nations was made accessible to the elite. These three
outcomes were realized. If these were the objectives, the actions
taken by Roosevelt and Truman seem quite rational towards these ends.
I conclude these were the objectives from the beginning.
}
{
I have commented previously that I believe (at least given my current
understanding) the main purpose for U.S. entry into the war was two-
fold: 1) to take the place of an increasingly ailing Britain as the
primary tool for the elite to expand global control, and 2) to ensure
a new, long term enemy can be made out of the Soviet Union and
communism. I will add a third to this list – actually it is a subset
of the first: to bring the productive populations of Germany and Japan
under the control of the elite.
Before I expand on this further, I would like to revisit some of the
factors regarding the war and why it is not just improper, but
inconceivable to refer to this was as a good war.
1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
the war.
2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after
failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow.
3) Roosevelt ignored and otherwise did not take advantage of the many
proposals by Japan that, if acted upon, could have avoided the
upcoming armed conflict.
4) Roosevelt entered the war well before any declaration by Congress.
5) Roosevelt encouraged Britain and France to provide a guarantee to
Poland, a guarantee known to the Western powers to have no teeth.
6) Roosevelt chose to side with Stalin, who at the beginning of the
war had more blood on his hands than all the other leaders of
belligerent countries combined.
7) Roosevelt did not extend U.S. support for Jews attempting to
emigrate from Central Europe and immigrate into the United States
until 1944.
8) Roosevelt knew of the impending attack by Japan somewhere in the
Pacific, and very likely specifically that it would come at Pearl
Harbor.
9) Roosevelt avoided taking action to properly alert and otherwise
protect the troops.
10) Roosevelt made unconditional surrender a requirement of the axis
combatants, prolonging the war in both Europe and the Pacific.
11) Roosevelt cut Poland loose to the communists after the war.
12) Truman had many opportunities to end the war in the Pacific in
the Spring of 1945, instead choosing to delay the end in order to give
time for development of the bomb.
13) Truman continued Roosevelt’s policy of demanding unconditional
surrender, despite protests from many military and other advisors.
14) Truman chose to drop two bombs on Japan after months of Japan
signaling its willingness to meeting all terms of the allies with the
exception of removal of the Emperor (an exception also desired by
allied commanders, and an exception granted immediately after the
surrender in any case).
15) Truman afforded many diplomatic victories to Russia in Asia,
despite the lack of contribution or need of the Russian forces in this
victory.
16) Truman backed away from the Chinese Nationalists in favor of the
Communists – this despite one purported reason for U.S. animosity
toward Japan being U.S. support for the Nationalists.
17) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of up
to 14 million Germans to Germany from various locations in Central
Europe.
18) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of
perhaps several million captured Russian soldiers and other refugees
fleeing the communists to Russia against their will, resulting in
their imprisonment or execution upon return.
Lies, deception, treachery, genocide, and potentially treason. Can
anything associated with such actions be called “good”? Can a
government be called representative if it acts with deception towards
its citizens? Can a democracy (or a republic) be considered acting
based on the will of the people when such actions are taken via lies?
Except for the fact of winning the war, can these actions be
distinguished from many of the crimes on the side of the axis – for
which countless were tried, imprisoned, or executed?
There is nothing “good” about this track record.
Now, as to the purpose and reasons for the U.S. entry into the war,
let me first summarize again the outcomes of the war: first, the
United States replaced Britain as the global presence and power of the
West. Second, the Soviet Union specifically, and communism generally,
gained significant footing as a world power. Finally, the populations
of Germany and Japan both came under the domination of western elite
power.
Now, just because these were outcomes does not necessarily mean that
these were objectives from the beginning, or that these were reasons
for U.S. entry. However, I can find no other reasonable explanation
for many of the actions taken by the U.S. in the period before,
during, and after the war – many of which are identified in my list at
the beginning of this post.
I do not accept that these were just blunders or mistakes of
Roosevelt (and later, Truman) and his advisors – they were far too
experienced to make this many disastrous and “wrong” decisions. I do
not accept that Hitler was prepared to take over the world and had to
be stopped. He had neither the military for it nor the economy.
Mostly, he did not have the intent. Conversely, supporters of
communism were quite transparent in describing their goals for world
conquest – why not fight against the communists, as Germany and Japan
both seemed intent on doing?
When I try to find a rational explanation for these decisions and
actions – and I follow the thread backwards from the outcome – the
decisions make perfect sense only if these outcomes were the
objectives all along.
First, I suggest that the U.S. entered the war in order to replace
the ailing British Empire as the primary tool of the elite looking to
expand global domination. For those who believe politicians serve
their people and the national interest, and are not serving
individuals and entities with even higher power, you may feel free to
skip this section. For the rest of you….
Historically, Britain proved to be a good tool for extending global
control. However, a far better tool was on the western horizon, that
of the United States. The United States had almost unlimited potential
in terms of geography, resources, and people – certainly as compared
to Britain. The United States still had much to exploit; as was
becoming more and more obvious in the first years of the 20th century,
Britain had likely reached its limits.
Britain was losing on all fronts – it could not fight a war in Europe
without U.S. support. It lost much of the Middle East shortly after
the end of the Second War, as it also lost India. These weaknesses,
especially when compared to the obvious superiority of the U.S. as the
primary tool for control, were certainly obvious to the elite well
before the actual events.
I should clarify – this transition did not occur only in the immediate
build-up and aftermath of World War Two. The establishment of central
banking in 1913 was the key to ensuring the United States would be in
position to take over this role – without this, there is little
possibility that enough resources could have been taken from the
private sector to the degree necessary for establishment of a global
military power.
While imperialism was present in the U.S. from the beginning,
overseas expansion began at the end of the 19th century. Even with
this, much of the population had to be dragged into fighting in a
European War in the second decade of the 20th century – the people had
no appetite for fighting overseas, yet Wilson found a way to maneuver
the country into the battle.
This desire to keep out of European troubles was still in the
population in the 1930s. The people wanted to stay out – all the time
their president was secretly working to get in. If the objective was
to avoid war, Roosevelt had countless opportunities to do so. If the
objective was to get into the war despite a people and Congress that
desired to stay out, Roosevelt’s actions make perfect sense.
Roosevelt served with purpose toward this end – clearly against the
will of the people he purportedly served. Why would he do this? I
suggest it was because he was serving a different master – a master
who knew that riding the British horse was now turning into a loser’s
proposition. That horse had been ridden hard, and had nothing left to
give. A new horse needed to be found, and no other horse fit the bill
better than the United States.
The elite needed the United States to take center stage, and they
found political leaders willing to lead the nation toward that end.
The second reason for U.S. entry into the war was to set the stage
for the Cold War. War is the health of the state, and perpetual war
offers perpetual health. Today, the United States continues this
perpetual war by conjuring an enemy out of a tactic – terrorism. One
purpose of U.S. entry into World War Two was to make an enemy out of
an idea – communism. In order for the enemy to seem real, it had to be
(or at least seem to be) powerful.
Had the U.S. stayed out of the war, Hitler and Stalin likely would
have crippled each other significantly, such that neither would be a
menace to anyone outside of the forsaken ground between them (the poor
residents of Central Europe were doomed once trapped between these two
tyrants, almost regardless of any decisions taken in the West). Japan
hated the communists in China as much as Germany hated the communists
in Russia. Japan and Germany would have at least kept in check any
ideas of communist expansion, minimizing the possibility of healthy,
perpetual war for the west.
Had the U.S. stayed out of the war, communism would never have grown
into the “threat” needed for perpetual war. There would be no long-
term, believable enemy – it certainly would not have been National
Socialism, a very un-exportable ideology. While wealth extraction can
occur absent war, nothing moves the needle toward government and the
elite and away from freedom like war does. What better than a Cold
War, one that that offers long term fighting without intense
casualties?
Now to the third reason: for wealth extraction, which populations
would offer a better harvest, Germany / Japan, or Russia / China? The
former offered two of the most productive economies on earth. The
latter were still quite agrarian and relatively undeveloped. The
former occupied a limited, manageable territory, the latter – large,
and in many cases relatively unreachable regions.
The U.S. did not have to choose Russia over Germany – at the
beginning of the war Stalin was known to have far more blood on his
hands than did Hitler. Certainly from the perspective of the United
States, if the desire was simply to get into the fight (to distract
from depression, to enhance the state, whatever), fighting the
Russians through German territory would have been much easier than
fighting the Germans directly. Stalin could have been made the devil
just as easily as Hitler was.
Once these two productive peoples were subdued, wealth extraction
became much easier. And these were the two non-Anglo populations that
offered the most capacity for wealth to extract. What was likely not
possible through peace, trade, and negotiation was certainly possible
once these lands were conquered.
The U.S. replaced Britain as the tool for the elite to work through
for continued global domination; the communists were strengthened,
creating a credible enemy for perpetual war; the wealth of two
productive nations was made accessible to the elite. These three
outcomes were realized. If these were the objectives, the actions
taken by Roosevelt and Truman seem quite rational towards these ends.
I conclude these were the objectives from the beginning.
}
M.I.Wakefield
Oct 29, 2012, 9:51:23 AM10/29/12
to
"A Moose in Love" wrote in message
news:a20646b3-7b13-4dd5...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
news:a20646b3-7b13-4dd5...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
brian lamb
Oct 29, 2012, 11:29:33 AM10/29/12
to
A Moose in Love is the son of a Nazi ....
What else needs to be said!
What else needs to be said!
brian lamb
Oct 29, 2012, 12:06:24 PM10/29/12
to
This too is pretty clear and unambiguous.
Search Results
Original Nazi Concentration Camp Video Uncensored - part 2 ...
► 14:10► 14:10
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz65pzbi2r43 Mar 2011 - 14 min - Uploaded by
craksandwitches
Original Nazi Concentration Camp Video Uncensored.
Original, Nazi, Concentration, Camp, Video, Uncensored, 1 - YouTube
► 9:45► 9:45
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNJlLBD-EO027 Oct 2009 - 10 min - Uploaded by
MultiMccain
Original Concetration camp video filmed by the near end of the war.
Some of the Sceens may be shocking.
Nazi Concentration Camps Video
►►
video.about.com/.../Nazi-Concentration-Camps.htm9 Apr 2012
Nazi concentration and death camps were the infrastructure that
allowed the widespread killing of Jews and ...
Nazi Concentration Camps (Nuremberg Trial Film ... - Google Video
► 59:16► 59:16
video.google.com/videoplay?docid...16 Aug 2006 - 59 min
The file entitled "Nazi Concentration Camps" was entered as evidence
at the 1945 Nuremberg Trials of ...
Nazi Concentration Camps Part 6: Dachau and Bergen-Belsen ...
► 10:11► 10:11
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evnx4oWle2024 May 2008 - 10 min - Uploaded by
damoosebelly
Nazi Concentration Camps Part 6: Dachau and Bergen-Belsen.
damoosebelly ... Alert icon. You need Adobe ...
Alfred Hitchcock Documentary Nazi Death Camp Liberation Part I ...
► 10:50► 10:50
www.youtube.com/watch?v=joWT9RGKYo417 Nov 2010 - 11 min - Uploaded by
realholocausthistory
Alfred Hitchcock narrates this gripping video of the liberation of a
Nazi Death Camp. The citizens of the ...
GRAPHIC: Nazi Death Camps | Military.com
►►
www.military.com/video/.../nazi-death-camps/940685...11 May 2011
WARNING GRAPHIC: Built during WWII to systematically kill millions of
primarily Jewish victims. Aproximately ...
Nazi Concentration Camps - Original Footage jashaswi1985 on Vimeo
► 59:16► 59:16
vimeo.com/59428914 Aug 2009 - 59 min
Description: This is the original footage of the Nazi Death Camps
which were taken by the Allies when ...
Search Results
Original Nazi Concentration Camp Video Uncensored - part 2 ...
► 14:10► 14:10
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz65pzbi2r43 Mar 2011 - 14 min - Uploaded by
craksandwitches
Original Nazi Concentration Camp Video Uncensored.
Original, Nazi, Concentration, Camp, Video, Uncensored, 1 - YouTube
► 9:45► 9:45
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNJlLBD-EO027 Oct 2009 - 10 min - Uploaded by
MultiMccain
Original Concetration camp video filmed by the near end of the war.
Some of the Sceens may be shocking.
Nazi Concentration Camps Video
►►
video.about.com/.../Nazi-Concentration-Camps.htm9 Apr 2012
Nazi concentration and death camps were the infrastructure that
allowed the widespread killing of Jews and ...
Nazi Concentration Camps (Nuremberg Trial Film ... - Google Video
► 59:16► 59:16
video.google.com/videoplay?docid...16 Aug 2006 - 59 min
The file entitled "Nazi Concentration Camps" was entered as evidence
at the 1945 Nuremberg Trials of ...
Nazi Concentration Camps Part 6: Dachau and Bergen-Belsen ...
► 10:11► 10:11
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evnx4oWle2024 May 2008 - 10 min - Uploaded by
damoosebelly
Nazi Concentration Camps Part 6: Dachau and Bergen-Belsen.
damoosebelly ... Alert icon. You need Adobe ...
Alfred Hitchcock Documentary Nazi Death Camp Liberation Part I ...
► 10:50► 10:50
www.youtube.com/watch?v=joWT9RGKYo417 Nov 2010 - 11 min - Uploaded by
realholocausthistory
Alfred Hitchcock narrates this gripping video of the liberation of a
Nazi Death Camp. The citizens of the ...
GRAPHIC: Nazi Death Camps | Military.com
►►
www.military.com/video/.../nazi-death-camps/940685...11 May 2011
WARNING GRAPHIC: Built during WWII to systematically kill millions of
primarily Jewish victims. Aproximately ...
Nazi Concentration Camps - Original Footage jashaswi1985 on Vimeo
► 59:16► 59:16
vimeo.com/59428914 Aug 2009 - 59 min
Description: This is the original footage of the Nazi Death Camps
which were taken by the Allies when ...
M.I.Wakefield
Oct 29, 2012, 12:19:14 PM10/29/12
to
"brian lamb" wrote in message
news:a447f4d7-50eb-4451...@g4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> This too is pretty clear and unambiguous.
Good in theory, but for the neo-nazis, you've effectively just posted links
to porn.
news:a447f4d7-50eb-4451...@g4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> This too is pretty clear and unambiguous.
to porn.
Barry Bruyea
Oct 29, 2012, 2:26:39 PM10/29/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:51:23 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:
>"A Moose in Love" wrote in message
>news:a20646b3-7b13-4dd5...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
That was a great outcome, but unfortunately our choice of allies left
half of Europe in the throes of the Kremlin for half a century. Bit
of a pyrrhic victory, I'd say.
wrote:
>"A Moose in Love" wrote in message
>news:a20646b3-7b13-4dd5...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
half of Europe in the throes of the Kremlin for half a century. Bit
of a pyrrhic victory, I'd say.
Greg Carr
Oct 29, 2012, 2:36:23 PM10/29/12
to
On Oct 29, 6:33 am, A Moose in Love
Some Nazi who hasn't followed his heroes Goring and Hitler and Himmler
Roosevelt entered the war.
start aggressive belligerence.
and 4 congressmen voted against it incredibly.
instead of just one the same problem they had in WW1
other atrocities being well documented Germany had the concentration
camps and the SS and the Gestapo. Stalin was an evil dictator too but
that doesn't excuse Tojo or Mussolini or Hitler.
Jew controlled eh.
peace not war.
the Pacific the enemy had plenty of fighting spirit as displayed by
kamikaze pilots and banzai charges. Germany was to be split into two
and not be capable of causing war unlike the past.
against the USA and kamikaze pilots.
wanted peace they did not.
area.
will Google it. Sure enough http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.ca/2012/08/world-war-two-good-war.html
you copied it from an another source without citing it naughty naught
unoriginal Nazi. That was a mistake but the Nazis would have done
worse to them.
The only good Nazi is a dead one.
Some Nazi who hasn't followed his heroes Goring and Hitler and Himmler
into suicide <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/was-ww2-good-war.html
> {
> I have commented previously that I believe (at least given my current
> understanding) the main purpose for U.S. entry into the war was two-
> fold: 1) to take the place of an increasingly ailing Britain as the
> primary tool for the elite to expand global control, and 2) to ensure
> a new, long term enemy can be made out of the Soviet Union and
> communism. I will add a third to this list – actually it is a subset
> of the first: to bring the productive populations of Germany and Japan
> under the control of the elite.
>
> Before I expand on this further, I would like to revisit some of the
> factors regarding the war and why it is not just improper, but
> inconceivable to refer to this was as a good war.
>
> 1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
> the war.
Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war on the US that is why
> http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/was-ww2-good-war.html
> {
> I have commented previously that I believe (at least given my current
> understanding) the main purpose for U.S. entry into the war was two-
> fold: 1) to take the place of an increasingly ailing Britain as the
> primary tool for the elite to expand global control, and 2) to ensure
> a new, long term enemy can be made out of the Soviet Union and
> communism. I will add a third to this list – actually it is a subset
> of the first: to bring the productive populations of Germany and Japan
> under the control of the elite.
>
> Before I expand on this further, I would like to revisit some of the
> factors regarding the war and why it is not just improper, but
> inconceivable to refer to this was as a good war.
>
> 1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
> the war.
Roosevelt entered the war.
>
> 2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after
> failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow.
Japan and Germany were warmongers and didn't need any enouragement to
> 2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after
> failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow.
start aggressive belligerence.
>
> 3) Roosevelt ignored and otherwise did not take advantage of the many
> proposals by Japan that, if acted upon, could have avoided the
> upcoming armed conflict.
Name one and give the cite.
> 3) Roosevelt ignored and otherwise did not take advantage of the many
> proposals by Japan that, if acted upon, could have avoided the
> upcoming armed conflict.
>
> 4) Roosevelt entered the war well before any declaration by Congress.
Congress declared war the next day http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/japwar.shtml
> 4) Roosevelt entered the war well before any declaration by Congress.
and 4 congressmen voted against it incredibly.
>
> 5) Roosevelt encouraged Britain and France to provide a guarantee to
> Poland, a guarantee known to the Western powers to have no teeth.
Plenty of teeth to it. Germany was forced to fight on two fronts
> 5) Roosevelt encouraged Britain and France to provide a guarantee to
> Poland, a guarantee known to the Western powers to have no teeth.
instead of just one the same problem they had in WW1
>
> 6) Roosevelt chose to side with Stalin, who at the beginning of the
> war had more blood on his hands than all the other leaders of
> belligerent countries combined.
Lie. Japan had plenty of blood on its hands the Rape Of Nanking and
> 6) Roosevelt chose to side with Stalin, who at the beginning of the
> war had more blood on his hands than all the other leaders of
> belligerent countries combined.
other atrocities being well documented Germany had the concentration
camps and the SS and the Gestapo. Stalin was an evil dictator too but
that doesn't excuse Tojo or Mussolini or Hitler.
>
> 7) Roosevelt did not extend U.S. support for Jews attempting to
> emigrate from Central Europe and immigrate into the United States
> until 1944.
He should have acted sooner that is true. So much for the USA being
> 7) Roosevelt did not extend U.S. support for Jews attempting to
> emigrate from Central Europe and immigrate into the United States
> until 1944.
Jew controlled eh.
>
> 8) Roosevelt knew of the impending attack by Japan somewhere in the
> Pacific, and very likely specifically that it would come at Pearl
> Harbor.
Lie. They knew that Japan was going to attack but not when and where.
> 8) Roosevelt knew of the impending attack by Japan somewhere in the
> Pacific, and very likely specifically that it would come at Pearl
> Harbor.
>
> 9) Roosevelt avoided taking action to properly alert and otherwise
> protect the troops.
Tactical errors were made that is true but the USA was a nation at
> 9) Roosevelt avoided taking action to properly alert and otherwise
> protect the troops.
peace not war.
>
> 10) Roosevelt made unconditional surrender a requirement of the axis
> combatants, prolonging the war in both Europe and the Pacific.
Why not. The war was prolonged until 1975 by one Japanese soldier in
> 10) Roosevelt made unconditional surrender a requirement of the axis
> combatants, prolonging the war in both Europe and the Pacific.
the Pacific the enemy had plenty of fighting spirit as displayed by
kamikaze pilots and banzai charges. Germany was to be split into two
and not be capable of causing war unlike the past.
>
> 11) Roosevelt cut Poland loose to the communists after the war.
Sure he didn't want a war with the Soviet Union who had nukes.
> 11) Roosevelt cut Poland loose to the communists after the war.
>
> 12) Truman had many opportunities to end the war in the Pacific in
> the Spring of 1945, instead choosing to delay the end in order to give
> time for development of the bomb.
Japan could have sued for peace instead they launched balloon attacks
> 12) Truman had many opportunities to end the war in the Pacific in
> the Spring of 1945, instead choosing to delay the end in order to give
> time for development of the bomb.
against the USA and kamikaze pilots.
>
> 13) Truman continued Roosevelt’s policy of demanding unconditional
> surrender, despite protests from many military and other advisors.
The military doesn't call the shots in the USA the President does.
> 13) Truman continued Roosevelt’s policy of demanding unconditional
> surrender, despite protests from many military and other advisors.
>
> 14) Truman chose to drop two bombs on Japan after months of Japan
> signaling its willingness to meeting all terms of the allies with the
> exception of removal of the Emperor (an exception also desired by
> allied commanders, and an exception granted immediately after the
> surrender in any case).
Japan could have pulled out of Burma and Korea and China if they
> 14) Truman chose to drop two bombs on Japan after months of Japan
> signaling its willingness to meeting all terms of the allies with the
> exception of removal of the Emperor (an exception also desired by
> allied commanders, and an exception granted immediately after the
> surrender in any case).
wanted peace they did not.
>
> 15) Truman afforded many diplomatic victories to Russia in Asia,
> despite the lack of contribution or need of the Russian forces in this
> victory.
Russia took advantage of a weakened Japan and the power vaccum in the
> 15) Truman afforded many diplomatic victories to Russia in Asia,
> despite the lack of contribution or need of the Russian forces in this
> victory.
area.
>
> 16) Truman backed away from the Chinese Nationalists in favor of the
> Communists – this despite one purported reason for U.S. animosity
> toward Japan being U.S. support for the Nationalists.
>
> 17) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of up
> to 14 million Germans to Germany from various locations in Central
> Europe.
Boo hoo they welcomed the German Army as liberators.
> 16) Truman backed away from the Chinese Nationalists in favor of the
> Communists – this despite one purported reason for U.S. animosity
> toward Japan being U.S. support for the Nationalists.
>
> 17) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of up
> to 14 million Germans to Germany from various locations in Central
> Europe.
>
> 18) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of
> perhaps several million captured Russian soldiers and other refugees
> fleeing the communists to Russia against their will, resulting in
> their imprisonment or execution upon return.
This is too intelligent for a Nazi like you to have thought up. So I
> 18) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of
> perhaps several million captured Russian soldiers and other refugees
> fleeing the communists to Russia against their will, resulting in
> their imprisonment or execution upon return.
will Google it. Sure enough http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.ca/2012/08/world-war-two-good-war.html
you copied it from an another source without citing it naughty naught
unoriginal Nazi. That was a mistake but the Nazis would have done
worse to them.
A Moose in Love
Oct 29, 2012, 4:47:14 PM10/29/12
to
On Oct 29, 9:51 am, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:a20646b3-7b13-4dd5...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
hundreds of thousands of able bodied young men a victory.
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:a20646b3-7b13-4dd5...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
that's right, and the british militarists won, if you call losing
> Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
hundreds of thousands of able bodied young men a victory.
A Moose in Love
Oct 29, 2012, 4:49:48 PM10/29/12
to
On Oct 29, 2:36 pm, Greg Carr <gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 6:33 am, A Moose in Love
>
> Some Nazi who hasn't followed his heroes Goring and Hitler and Himmler
?
> On Oct 29, 6:33 am, A Moose in Love
>
> Some Nazi who hasn't followed his heroes Goring and Hitler and Himmler
Mr. Carr. I am an honourary member of the elite chapter of the HA
known as the 'Gay Brigade'. Govern yourself accordingly.
Dave Smith
Oct 29, 2012, 4:50:02 PM10/29/12
to
On 29/10/2012 2:36 PM, Greg Carr wrote:
>> 1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
>> the war.
>
> Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war on the US that is why
> Roosevelt entered the war.
He was doing a pretty good job of keeping the US out of the war, letting
>> 1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
>> the war.
>
> Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war on the US that is why
> Roosevelt entered the war.
the old world powers duke it out so that the US could come in and pick
up the pieces and enhance it's own position in the world. He had the
Lend Lease program that allowed the US to supply the Allies to act in US
strategic interests without having to send in its armed forces.
>> 2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after
>> failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow
>
> Japan and Germany were warmongers and didn't need any enouragement to
> start aggressive belligerence.
That is a twist on his old line about how the UK started the war by
> start aggressive belligerence.
declaring war on Germany.
>
>> 3) Roosevelt ignored and otherwise did not take advantage of the many
>> proposals by Japan that, if acted upon, could have avoided the
>> upcoming armed conflict.
>
> Name one and give the cite.
seems to have several conflicts with that little thing called reality.
>>
>> 4) Roosevelt entered the war well before any declaration by Congress.
>
> Congress declared war the next day http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/japwar.shtml
> and 4 congressmen voted against it incredibly.
>>
>> 5) Roosevelt encouraged Britain and France to provide a guarantee to
>> Poland, a guarantee known to the Western powers to have no teeth.
>
> Plenty of teeth to it. Germany was forced to fight on two fronts
> instead of just one the same problem they had in WW1
that they were going to stick to their policy of Isolationism. The US
had been reluctant to enter WWI and was really only involved in it for
about 6 months. They certainly didn't win that one single-handed. They
didn't even fight very well, but they did tip help to tip the balance
with all those fresh troops and equipment. However.... despite having
input into the Treaty of Versailles that was disproportionate to its
limited contribution to the fighting, the US never did ratify the
treaty. Obviously, the Allies were not going to be able to count on the
US to help to enforce it.
>>
>> 6) Roosevelt chose to side with Stalin, who at the beginning of the
>> war had more blood on his hands than all the other leaders of
>> belligerent countries combined.
>
> Lie. Japan had plenty of blood on its hands the Rape Of Nanking and
> other atrocities being well documented Germany had the concentration
> camps and the SS and the Gestapo. Stalin was an evil dictator too but
> that doesn't excuse Tojo or Mussolini or Hitler.
like the many Americans who seem to think that the war started when
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had attacked China and
Manchuria a few years before the war in Europe started. The Japanese
systematically raped and slaughtered more than twice as many Chinese and
the number of Japanese killed in the two nuclear bombs combined, and
that was just one city.
>> 7) Roosevelt did not extend U.S. support for Jews attempting to
>> emigrate from Central Europe and immigrate into the United States
>> until 1944.
>
> He should have acted sooner that is true. So much for the USA being
> Jew controlled eh.
such large lumbers of political refugees?
>> 8) Roosevelt knew of the impending attack by Japan somewhere in the
>> Pacific, and very likely specifically that it would come at Pearl
>> Harbor.
>
> Lie. They knew that Japan was going to attack but not when and where.
dreaming up the conspiracy that involved the US allowing Pearly Harbor
to be attack so that they would have an excuse to enter the war. I
confess to harbouring skepticism about the efficiency of the US military
and the competence of its military and political leadership, but I find
it had to believe that they US would set up a situation that would see
it sacrificing its Pacific Fleet, the ships, the crews and the
logistical facilities in order to have an excuse to go to war when they
are going to lose the assets they need to conduct a way across the Pacific.
>> 9) Roosevelt avoided taking action to properly alert and otherwise
>> protect the troops.
>
> Tactical errors were made that is true but the USA was a nation at
> peace not war.
>>
>> 10) Roosevelt made unconditional surrender a requirement of the axis
>> combatants, prolonging the war in both Europe and the Pacific.
>
> Why not. The war was prolonged until 1975 by one Japanese soldier in
> the Pacific the enemy had plenty of fighting spirit as displayed by
> kamikaze pilots and banzai charges. Germany was to be split into two
> and not be capable of causing war unlike the past.
was to deliver a decisive blow to the belligerent countries so that they
realized that they had lost and that there was a price to pay for
starting a war.
>>
>> 11) Roosevelt cut Poland loose to the communists after the war.
> Sure he didn't want a war with the Soviet Union who had nukes.
>>
>> 12) Truman had many opportunities to end the war in the Pacific in
>> the Spring of 1945, instead choosing to delay the end in order to give
>> time for development of the bomb.
>
> Japan could have sued for peace instead they launched balloon attacks
> against the USA and kamikaze pilots.
of a coup in the military if they were to shame the country by
surrendering to the US.
>>
>> 13) Truman continued Roosevelt�s policy of demanding unconditional
>> surrender, despite protests from many military and other advisors.
>
> The military doesn't call the shots in the USA the President does.
Look what happened to Patton when he suggested that they make use of
>
> The military doesn't call the shots in the USA the President does.
their troops and equipment already there to carry on into Russia.
>>
>> 14) Truman chose to drop two bombs on Japan after months of Japan
>> signaling its willingness to meeting all terms of the allies with the
>> exception of removal of the Emperor (an exception also desired by
>> allied commanders, and an exception granted immediately after the
>> surrender in any case).
>
> Japan could have pulled out of Burma and Korea and China if they
> wanted peace they did not.
It had already lost the war and the people were starving, but the
leadership would not surrender unconditionally. It wasn't like they had
to worry about the Allies slaughtering or enslaving everyone like the
Japanese had done throughout Asia.
>
>>
>> 16) Truman backed away from the Chinese Nationalists in favor of the
>> toward Japan being U.S. support for the Nationalists.
Not entirely true.The US was reluctant to provide too much support to
Chang Kai Shek and his cronies because they were so corrupt. They were
concerned that the aid would end up in the pockets of the corrupt
warlords and that Chang Kai Shek was going to hoard arms and munitions
for a civil war with the communists.
>>
>> 17) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of up
>> to 14 million Germans to Germany from various locations in Central
>> Europe.
>
> Boo hoo they welcomed the German Army as liberators.
countries to do their dirt work for them/
>>
>> I conclude these were the objectives from the beginning.}
>
> The only good Nazi is a dead one.
The Peeler
Oct 29, 2012, 5:16:47 PM10/29/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:47:14 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum
wrote:
Of course, they won, disgusting Nazi-cock sucker! You got a problem with it?
<BG>
wrote:
<BG>
Greg Carr
Oct 29, 2012, 5:22:06 PM10/29/12
to
On Oct 29, 1:49 pm, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Nonsense. Homosexuals in HAMC like Danny Kane and Yves Apache Trudeau
have turned out to be police informants or incapable of taking care of
business like the North Chapter. I occ. take the side of HAMC
especially when non-members seek to claim membership or when the
police go overboard in their quest to bring the 1%ers to justice. Your
post is either an implied threat or humour. You are the son of a Nazi
who posts anonymously lest his Nazi drivel be seen to have passed on
to the younger generation. The only good Nazi is a dead one.
wrote:
have turned out to be police informants or incapable of taking care of
business like the North Chapter. I occ. take the side of HAMC
especially when non-members seek to claim membership or when the
police go overboard in their quest to bring the 1%ers to justice. Your
post is either an implied threat or humour. You are the son of a Nazi
who posts anonymously lest his Nazi drivel be seen to have passed on
to the younger generation. The only good Nazi is a dead one.
M.I.Wakefield
Oct 29, 2012, 5:24:17 PM10/29/12
to
"A Moose in Love" wrote in message
news:e2bc7c19-0ea9-481e...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> Mr. Carr. I am an honourary member of the elite chapter of the HA
> known as the 'Gay Brigade'. Govern yourself accordingly.
Greg Carr
Oct 29, 2012, 5:25:46 PM10/29/12
to
On Oct 29, 1:50 pm, Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On 29/10/2012 2:36 PM, Greg Carr wrote:
>
> >> 1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
> >> the war.
>
> > Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war on the US that is why
> > Roosevelt entered the war.
>
> He was doing a pretty good job of keeping the US out of the war, letting
> the old world powers duke it out so that the US could come in and pick
> up the pieces and enhance it's own position in the world. He had the
> Lend Lease program that allowed the US to supply the Allies to act in US
> strategic interests without having to send in its armed forces.
>
> >> 2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after
> >> failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow
>
> > Japan and Germany were warmongers and didn't need any enouragement to
> > start aggressive belligerence.
>
> That is a twist on his old line about how the UK started the war by
> declaring war on Germany.
>
>
>
> >> 3) Roosevelt ignored and otherwise did not take advantage of the many
> >> proposals by Japan that, if acted upon, could have avoided the
> >> upcoming armed conflict.
>
> > Name one and give the cite.
>
> Good luck with that one. It is a crock and he may or may not know it. He
> seems to have several conflicts with that little thing called reality.
>
>
>
> >> 4) Roosevelt entered the war well before any declaration by Congress.
>
> > Congress declared war the next dayhttp://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/japwar.shtml
> On 29/10/2012 2:36 PM, Greg Carr wrote:
>
> >> 1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
> >> the war.
>
> > Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war on the US that is why
> > Roosevelt entered the war.
>
> He was doing a pretty good job of keeping the US out of the war, letting
> the old world powers duke it out so that the US could come in and pick
> up the pieces and enhance it's own position in the world. He had the
> Lend Lease program that allowed the US to supply the Allies to act in US
> strategic interests without having to send in its armed forces.
>
> >> 2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after
> >> failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow
>
> > Japan and Germany were warmongers and didn't need any enouragement to
> > start aggressive belligerence.
>
> That is a twist on his old line about how the UK started the war by
> declaring war on Germany.
>
>
>
> >> 3) Roosevelt ignored and otherwise did not take advantage of the many
> >> proposals by Japan that, if acted upon, could have avoided the
> >> upcoming armed conflict.
>
> > Name one and give the cite.
>
> Good luck with that one. It is a crock and he may or may not know it. He
> seems to have several conflicts with that little thing called reality.
>
>
>
> >> 4) Roosevelt entered the war well before any declaration by Congress.
>
The Peeler
Oct 29, 2012, 5:31:25 PM10/29/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:49:48 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum
wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 6:33 am, A Moose in Love
>>
>> Some Nazi who hasn't followed his heroes Goring and Hitler and Himmler
>
> ?
>
> Mr. Carr. I am an honourary member of the elite chapter of the HA
> known as the 'Gay Brigade'. Govern yourself accordingly.
You're a LAUGH ...like EVERY Nazi!
>> On Oct 29, 6:33 am, A Moose in Love
>>
>> Some Nazi who hasn't followed his heroes Goring and Hitler and Himmler
>
> ?
>
> Mr. Carr. I am an honourary member of the elite chapter of the HA
> known as the 'Gay Brigade'. Govern yourself accordingly.
M.I.Wakefield
Oct 29, 2012, 5:41:12 PM10/29/12
to
"A Moose in Love" wrote in message
news:f19fd670-1630-4288...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
2) Britain lost 450,000 (including civilians) in a war they didn't want and
didn't start. Germany lost over 5.5 million military dead in a war they did
want and did start ... and that number pales against the total number of
people killed by the nazis.
A Moose in Love
Oct 29, 2012, 5:44:33 PM10/29/12
to
you keep vilifying people that you say are nazis, but you do believe
in some of their philosophy. And please show me where I have posted
Nazi drivel.
And you are quite welcome to come and try and kill me. I will meet
you anytime at speakers corners here in Kitchener, complete with me
wearing a pink carnation.
No? didn't think so.
btw, you know Tee Tee when it comes to the Waffen SS. I suggest you
educate yourself instead of swallowing the propaganda of the victors
hook, line and sinker.
And since I post facts which are in direct conflict with the PC crap
people out there, I post anonymously in order to avoid stalking. I do
not need my family harassed by the likes of you. Me, I don't worry so
much about, as I can take care of myself.
A Moose in Love
Oct 29, 2012, 5:45:18 PM10/29/12
to
On Oct 29, 5:24 pm, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:e2bc7c19-0ea9-481e...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
sarcasm? fuck.
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:e2bc7c19-0ea9-481e...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Mr. Carr. I am an honourary member of the elite chapter of the HA
> > known as the 'Gay Brigade'. Govern yourself accordingly.
>
> No news there ... you outed yourself as a nazi cock-sucker years ago.
oh really? that's what you have? bs? you don't understand a little
> > Mr. Carr. I am an honourary member of the elite chapter of the HA
> > known as the 'Gay Brigade'. Govern yourself accordingly.
>
> No news there ... you outed yourself as a nazi cock-sucker years ago.
sarcasm? fuck.
A Moose in Love
Oct 29, 2012, 6:03:41 PM10/29/12
to
On Oct 29, 2:32 pm, Barry Bruyea <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:51:23 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com>
brave men who were propagandized into giving their lives for empire.
Germany is now the strongest country in Europe. Britain is weak
economically. She has been since the end of WW2. The US is in
decline. It's time to keep an eye out on the Krauts.
Not really. Germany will never again unfurl it's bloody flag. She is
now a PC country with a taste for the bizarre. I recently joined the
Chinese military as I like to side with winners. I was given an
honourary Colonelship, along with my own regiment of Mao's own
rifles.
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:51:23 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"A Moose in Love" wrote in message
> >news:a20646b3-7b13-4dd5...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
>
> That was a great outcome, but unfortunately our choice of allies left
> half of Europe in the throes of the Kremlin for half a century. Bit
> of a pyrrhic victory, I'd say.
it wasn't a great outcome. you lost hundreds of thousands of good
>
> >"A Moose in Love" wrote in message
> >news:a20646b3-7b13-4dd5...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
>
> That was a great outcome, but unfortunately our choice of allies left
> half of Europe in the throes of the Kremlin for half a century. Bit
> of a pyrrhic victory, I'd say.
brave men who were propagandized into giving their lives for empire.
Germany is now the strongest country in Europe. Britain is weak
economically. She has been since the end of WW2. The US is in
decline. It's time to keep an eye out on the Krauts.
Not really. Germany will never again unfurl it's bloody flag. She is
now a PC country with a taste for the bizarre. I recently joined the
Chinese military as I like to side with winners. I was given an
honourary Colonelship, along with my own regiment of Mao's own
rifles.
M.I.Wakefield
Oct 29, 2012, 6:29:15 PM10/29/12
to
"A Moose in Love" wrote in message
news:e8d91b2c-07c0-4bd7...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> it wasn't a great outcome.
The Peeler
Oct 29, 2012, 7:00:32 PM10/29/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:44:33 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum
wrote:
<FLUSH most of the usual stinking moose droppings>
> I do not need my family harassed by the likes of you. Me, I don't worry
> so much about, as I can take care of myself.
ROTFLOL!!! You got a family, moron? You mean all the other druggies and
psychos that you have to share a state-subsidized flat with? LOL
wrote:
<FLUSH most of the usual stinking moose droppings>
> I do not need my family harassed by the likes of you. Me, I don't worry
> so much about, as I can take care of myself.
psychos that you have to share a state-subsidized flat with? LOL
The Peeler
Oct 29, 2012, 7:01:19 PM10/29/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:44:33 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum
wrote:
<FLUSH most of the usual stinking moose droppings>
wrote:
<FLUSH most of the usual stinking moose droppings>
> I do not need my family harassed by the likes of you. Me, I don't worry
> so much about, as I can take care of myself.
> so much about, as I can take care of myself.
The Peeler
Oct 29, 2012, 7:03:29 PM10/29/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:45:18 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum
wrote:
Yeah, really, Nazi-cock sucker!
wrote:
Spam
Oct 29, 2012, 7:21:28 PM10/29/12
to
On 29/10/2012 4:03 PM, The Peeler wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:45:18 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum
--
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:45:18 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum
SPAMMED TO NON-RELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT
Spam
Oct 29, 2012, 7:21:51 PM10/29/12
to
On 29/10/2012 2:45 PM, A Moose in Love wrote:
> On Oct 29, 5:24 pm, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
>> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:e2bc7c19-0ea9-481e...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 29, 5:24 pm, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
>> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:e2bc7c19-0ea9-481e...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Spam
Oct 29, 2012, 7:22:19 PM10/29/12
to
On 29/10/2012 2:24 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>
> No news there ... you outed yourself as a nazi cock-sucker years ago.
>
> No news there ... you outed yourself as a nazi cock-sucker years ago.
Spam
Oct 29, 2012, 7:23:02 PM10/29/12
to
On 29/10/2012 2:44 PM, A Moose in Love wrote:
>>
>> Nonsense. Homosexuals in HAMC like Danny Kane and Yves Apache Trudeau
>> have turned out to be police informants or incapable of taking care of
>> business like the North Chapter. I occ. take the side of HAMC
>> especially when non-members seek to claim membership or when the
>> police go overboard in their quest to bring the 1%ers to justice. Your
>> post is either an implied threat or humour. You are the son of a Nazi
>> who posts anonymously lest his Nazi drivel be seen to have passed on
>> to the younger generation. The only good Nazi is a dead one.
>>
>> Nonsense. Homosexuals in HAMC like Danny Kane and Yves Apache Trudeau
>> have turned out to be police informants or incapable of taking care of
>> business like the North Chapter. I occ. take the side of HAMC
>> especially when non-members seek to claim membership or when the
>> police go overboard in their quest to bring the 1%ers to justice. Your
>> post is either an implied threat or humour. You are the son of a Nazi
>> who posts anonymously lest his Nazi drivel be seen to have passed on
>> to the younger generation. The only good Nazi is a dead one.
brian lamb
Oct 29, 2012, 7:23:13 PM10/29/12
to
The arsehole Swabian A Moose in Love posts, "I post anonymously in
order to avoid stalking. I do not need my family harassed by the likes
of you." & neither does your family need you with your drug history &
you being an unemployed bum! Ayup, eh?
" Me, I don't worry so much about, as I can take care of myself."
clodhopper!
Spam
Oct 29, 2012, 7:23:28 PM10/29/12
to
On 29/10/2012 2:22 PM, Greg Carr wrote:
>
> Nonsense. Homosexuals in HAMC like Danny Kane and Yves Apache Trudeau
> have turned out to be police informants or incapable of taking care of
> business like the North Chapter. I occ. take the side of HAMC
> especially when non-members seek to claim membership or when the
> police go overboard in their quest to bring the 1%ers to justice. Your
> post is either an implied threat or humour. You are the son of a Nazi
> who posts anonymously lest his Nazi drivel be seen to have passed on
> to the younger generation. The only good Nazi is a dead one.
>
>
> Nonsense. Homosexuals in HAMC like Danny Kane and Yves Apache Trudeau
> have turned out to be police informants or incapable of taking care of
> business like the North Chapter. I occ. take the side of HAMC
> especially when non-members seek to claim membership or when the
> police go overboard in their quest to bring the 1%ers to justice. Your
> post is either an implied threat or humour. You are the son of a Nazi
> who posts anonymously lest his Nazi drivel be seen to have passed on
> to the younger generation. The only good Nazi is a dead one.
>
Spam
Oct 29, 2012, 7:24:02 PM10/29/12
to
On 29/10/2012 3:03 PM, A Moose in Love wrote:
>>> Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
>>
>> That was a great outcome, but unfortunately our choice of allies left
>> half of Europe in the throes of the Kremlin for half a century. Bit
>> of a pyrrhic victory, I'd say.
>
>>> Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
>>
>> That was a great outcome, but unfortunately our choice of allies left
>> half of Europe in the throes of the Kremlin for half a century. Bit
>> of a pyrrhic victory, I'd say.
>
Barry Bruyea
Oct 29, 2012, 7:38:59 PM10/29/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:50:02 -0400, Dave Smith
<adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On 29/10/2012 2:36 PM, Greg Carr wrote:
>
>>> 1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
>>> the war.
>>
>> Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war on the US that is why
>> Roosevelt entered the war.
>
>He was doing a pretty good job of keeping the US out of the war, letting
>the old world powers duke it out so that the US could come in and pick
>up the pieces and enhance it's own position in the world. He had the
>Lend Lease program that allowed the US to supply the Allies to act in US
>strategic interests without having to send in its armed forces.
As Antony Beevor so succinctly wrote in his book 'The Second World
<adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On 29/10/2012 2:36 PM, Greg Carr wrote:
>
>>> 1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
>>> the war.
>>
>> Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war on the US that is why
>> Roosevelt entered the war.
>
>He was doing a pretty good job of keeping the US out of the war, letting
>the old world powers duke it out so that the US could come in and pick
>up the pieces and enhance it's own position in the world. He had the
>Lend Lease program that allowed the US to supply the Allies to act in US
>strategic interests without having to send in its armed forces.
War', when Britain virtually emptied the piggy bank for the initial
payment of 4.5 Billion pounds for lend-lease it was a large dose of
vitamins that provided what the U.S. needed for the final push out of
the depression.
>>> surrender, despite protests from many military and other advisors.
>>
>> The military doesn't call the shots in the USA the President does.
>
>Look what happened to Patton when he suggested that they make use of
>their troops and equipment already there to carry on into Russia.
>
>
>>>
>>> 14) Truman chose to drop two bombs on Japan after months of Japan
>>> signaling its willingness to meeting all terms of the allies with the
>>> exception of removal of the Emperor (an exception also desired by
>>> allied commanders, and an exception granted immediately after the
>>> surrender in any case).
>>
>> Japan could have pulled out of Burma and Korea and China if they
>> wanted peace they did not.
>
>It is revisionist dreaming to suggest that Japan was ready to surrender.
>It had already lost the war and the people were starving, but the
>leadership would not surrender unconditionally. It wasn't like they had
>to worry about the Allies slaughtering or enslaving everyone like the
>Japanese had done throughout Asia.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 16) Truman backed away from the Chinese Nationalists in favor of the
>>> Communists – this despite one purported reason for U.S. animosity
>>
>> The military doesn't call the shots in the USA the President does.
>
>Look what happened to Patton when he suggested that they make use of
>their troops and equipment already there to carry on into Russia.
>
>
>>>
>>> 14) Truman chose to drop two bombs on Japan after months of Japan
>>> signaling its willingness to meeting all terms of the allies with the
>>> exception of removal of the Emperor (an exception also desired by
>>> allied commanders, and an exception granted immediately after the
>>> surrender in any case).
>>
>> Japan could have pulled out of Burma and Korea and China if they
>> wanted peace they did not.
>
>It is revisionist dreaming to suggest that Japan was ready to surrender.
>It had already lost the war and the people were starving, but the
>leadership would not surrender unconditionally. It wasn't like they had
>to worry about the Allies slaughtering or enslaving everyone like the
>Japanese had done throughout Asia.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 16) Truman backed away from the Chinese Nationalists in favor of the
Barry Bruyea
Oct 29, 2012, 7:42:30 PM10/29/12
to
for entertainment?
Greg Carr
Oct 29, 2012, 8:37:00 PM10/29/12
to
On Oct 29, 2:44 pm, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
> you keep vilifying people that you say are nazis, but you do believe
> in some of their philosophy.
The Nazis persecuted communists which is okay by me, they persecuted
homosexuals which is ok by me. They persecuted the mentally ill, their
political opponents, JWs and Jews which is not ok by me. Hitler built
the VW and the autobahn which was a great accomplishment. He also
built V1s and V2s and other destructive missles which he used for bad
intent. The autobans were the inspiration for the interstate highway
system in the US and are still used today in Germany.
And please show me where I have posted
> Nazi drivel.
Every time you seek to discredit the role of the Allies you are trying
to spread Nazi propoganda. The only good Nazi is a dead one.
> And you are quite welcome to come and try and kill me.
OK assisted suicide it is. You are not welcome to try and kill me that
would be murder 25 years to life. I will meet
are scum and should be ashamed of themselves and their service.
I suggest you
> educate yourself instead of swallowing the propaganda of the victors
> hook, line and sinker.
> And since I post facts which are in direct conflict with the PC crap
> people out there, I post anonymously in order to avoid stalking. I do
> not need my family harassed by the likes of you. Me, I don't worry so
> much about, as I can take care of myself.
I also post things that are not PC. All homosexuals should be executed
and homosexual acts should be a capital punishment crime. There should
be no homosexuals in the military or public life and there should be
no same sex marriage. I suffer no harassment and I use my real name. I
live in Burnaby BC. You have admitted to drug use. I suggest you quit
and give your brain a thorough cleansing.
Go 49ers.
wrote:
> On Oct 29, 5:22 pm, Greg Carr <gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 1:49 pm, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 29, 2:36 pm, Greg Carr <gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 29, 6:33 am, A Moose in Love
>
> > > > Some Nazi who hasn't followed his heroes Goring and Hitler and Himmler
>
> > > ?
>
> > > Mr. Carr. I am an honourary member of the elite chapter of the HA
> > > known as the 'Gay Brigade'. Govern yourself accordingly.
>
> > Nonsense. Homosexuals in HAMC like Danny Kane and Yves Apache Trudeau
> > have turned out to be police informants or incapable of taking care of
> > business like the North Chapter. I occ. take the side of HAMC
> > especially when non-members seek to claim membership or when the
> > police go overboard in their quest to bring the 1%ers to justice. Your
> > post is either an implied threat or humour. You are the son of a Nazi
> > who posts anonymously lest his Nazi drivel be seen to have passed on
> > to the younger generation. The only good Nazi is a dead one.
>
> you have said before that you think that gay people should be killed.
There are no gay ppl. You are either homosexual or heterosexual.
> On Oct 29, 5:22 pm, Greg Carr <gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 1:49 pm, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 29, 2:36 pm, Greg Carr <gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 29, 6:33 am, A Moose in Love
>
> > > > Some Nazi who hasn't followed his heroes Goring and Hitler and Himmler
>
> > > ?
>
> > > Mr. Carr. I am an honourary member of the elite chapter of the HA
> > > known as the 'Gay Brigade'. Govern yourself accordingly.
>
> > Nonsense. Homosexuals in HAMC like Danny Kane and Yves Apache Trudeau
> > have turned out to be police informants or incapable of taking care of
> > business like the North Chapter. I occ. take the side of HAMC
> > especially when non-members seek to claim membership or when the
> > police go overboard in their quest to bring the 1%ers to justice. Your
> > post is either an implied threat or humour. You are the son of a Nazi
> > who posts anonymously lest his Nazi drivel be seen to have passed on
> > to the younger generation. The only good Nazi is a dead one.
>
> you have said before that you think that gay people should be killed.
> you keep vilifying people that you say are nazis, but you do believe
> in some of their philosophy.
homosexuals which is ok by me. They persecuted the mentally ill, their
political opponents, JWs and Jews which is not ok by me. Hitler built
the VW and the autobahn which was a great accomplishment. He also
built V1s and V2s and other destructive missles which he used for bad
intent. The autobans were the inspiration for the interstate highway
system in the US and are still used today in Germany.
And please show me where I have posted
> Nazi drivel.
to spread Nazi propoganda. The only good Nazi is a dead one.
> And you are quite welcome to come and try and kill me.
would be murder 25 years to life. I will meet
> you anytime at speakers corners here in Kitchener, complete with me
> wearing a pink carnation.
Never been to Kitchener and have no plans to visit.
> wearing a pink carnation.
> No? didn't think so.
> btw, you know Tee Tee when it comes to the Waffen SS.
Did they swear a an oath of loyalty to Adolph Hitler. If they did they
> btw, you know Tee Tee when it comes to the Waffen SS.
are scum and should be ashamed of themselves and their service.
I suggest you
> educate yourself instead of swallowing the propaganda of the victors
> hook, line and sinker.
> And since I post facts which are in direct conflict with the PC crap
> people out there, I post anonymously in order to avoid stalking. I do
> not need my family harassed by the likes of you. Me, I don't worry so
> much about, as I can take care of myself.
and homosexual acts should be a capital punishment crime. There should
be no homosexuals in the military or public life and there should be
no same sex marriage. I suffer no harassment and I use my real name. I
live in Burnaby BC. You have admitted to drug use. I suggest you quit
and give your brain a thorough cleansing.
Go 49ers.
Greg Carr
Oct 29, 2012, 8:38:43 PM10/29/12
to
On Oct 29, 3:03 pm, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
A "Colon"elship really. You seem to be deluded.
wrote:
Dhu on Gate
Oct 29, 2012, 9:09:29 PM10/29/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:33:21 -0700, A Moose in Love wrote:
> 2) to ensure
> a new, long term enemy can be made out of the Soviet Union and
> communism.
You are ?mistaking? "BlackSpin" for planning. If you want to understand
BlackSpin, do some reading on J. Edgarina Hoover: re-engineering extant
evidence lets you "prove" anything.
Dhu
--
Ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostro voco.
> 2) to ensure
> a new, long term enemy can be made out of the Soviet Union and
> communism.
You are ?mistaking? "BlackSpin" for planning. If you want to understand
BlackSpin, do some reading on J. Edgarina Hoover: re-engineering extant
evidence lets you "prove" anything.
Dhu
--
Ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostro voco.
Dhu on Gate
Oct 29, 2012, 9:19:58 PM10/29/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:36:23 -0700, Greg Carr wrote:
>>
>> 2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after
>> failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow.
>>
>> 2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after
>
> Japan and Germany were warmongers and didn't need any enouragement to
> start aggressive belligerence.
The NAZIs were racial purists whose intent was to "cleanse" the Weirld
> Japan and Germany were warmongers and didn't need any enouragement to
> start aggressive belligerence.
of all those who did not meet their approval and enslave the rest of us.
Japan is more complex. The Militarists were a bunch of dumbshit wannabes
following the NAZI example, but the Meiji guys who had run the country
until the '30s were scare shitless of the NAZIs and saw them as a real
evil, which led them to support the Pearl Harbor venture because
they needed to "Wake the Giant".
brian lamb
Oct 30, 2012, 2:43:55 AM10/30/12
to
hitler chicken - YouTube
► 0:43► 0:43
www.youtube.com/watch?v=riZWFNIYYLw23 Jun 2010 - 43 sec - Uploaded by
Mishkaiii
Chicken marching to some Nazi stuff - mayby hindus are right, and
reincarnation exists? ... You need Adobe ...
► 0:43► 0:43
www.youtube.com/watch?v=riZWFNIYYLw23 Jun 2010 - 43 sec - Uploaded by
Mishkaiii
Chicken marching to some Nazi stuff - mayby hindus are right, and
reincarnation exists? ... You need Adobe ...
Barry Bruyea
Oct 30, 2012, 6:02:18 AM10/30/12
to
of specific groups is OK with you, that it doesn't make you one damn
bit better than the Nazis who committed these crimes? If you don't
get that, you have a very serious problem and should seek help.
Greg Carr
Oct 30, 2012, 8:18:26 AM10/30/12
to
schizophrenic and am well medicated. But my dislike for Communists
comes because they persecute religious ppl such as myself and they
abuse human rights and start wars and their economic system is a
failure. My dislike of homosexuality comes from Lev.20:13 and 18:22.
Leviticus 20:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of
them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;
their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 18:22
King James Version (KJV)
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination.
A Moose in Love
Oct 30, 2012, 9:11:49 AM10/30/12
to
On Oct 29, 5:41 pm, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:f19fd670-1630-4288...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
Germany was competition for Global dominance.
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:f19fd670-1630-4288...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Germany was competition for Global dominance.
Greg Carr
Oct 30, 2012, 9:15:18 AM10/30/12
to
A Moose in Love
Oct 30, 2012, 9:24:45 AM10/30/12
to
On Oct 30, 8:18 am, Greg Carr <gregpc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:02:18 -0400, Barry Bruyea
>
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:02:18 -0400, Barry Bruyea
>
> <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:37:00 -0700 (PDT), Greg Carr
> ><gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>There are no gay ppl. You are either homosexual or heterosexual.
what is that supposed to mean? do you object to homosexuals adopting
> >On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:37:00 -0700 (PDT), Greg Carr
> ><gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>There are no gay ppl. You are either homosexual or heterosexual.
the word 'gay' to describe themselves?
>
>
> >>The Nazis persecuted communists which is okay by me, they persecuted
> >>homosexuals which is ok by me. They persecuted the mentally ill, their
> >>political opponents, JWs and Jews which is not ok by me.
Personally, I could care less about homosexuals. But I do not believe
they should be persecuted.
Hitler built
> >>the VW and the autobahn which was a great accomplishment. He also
> >>built V1s and V2s and other destructive missles which he used for bad
> >>intent. The autobans were the inspiration for the interstate highway
> >>system in the US and are still used today in Germany.
>
> >>And please show me where I have posted
> >>> Nazi drivel.
>
> >>Every time you seek to discredit the role of the Allies you are trying
> >>to spread Nazi propoganda. The only good Nazi is a dead one.
>
hardly am in favour of the Nazi regime of Germany in the '30's and
'40's. Of course they did some good, but when dickheads perform
medical experiments, confiscate Jewish property, and torment those
people, torment homosexuals etc., then I could not support that
regime. And that's me talking now, in the 21st century.
Now having said that, I often wonder what I would have done during
'those' times. All of a sudden, I have full employment, can go out
for a beer, have roast chicken, take holidays...would I have supported
Hitler at the time, and looked the other way when other people were
being persecuted? Hard to say from where I sit.
> >>> And you are quite welcome to come and try and kill me.
>
> >>OK assisted suicide it is. You are not welcome to try and kill me that
> >>would be murder 25 years to life. I will meet
> >>> you anytime at speakers corners here in Kitchener, complete with me
> >>> wearing a pink carnation.
>
> >>Never been to Kitchener and have no plans to visit.
> >>> No? didn't think so.
> >>> btw, you know Tee Tee when it comes to the Waffen SS.
>
> >>Did they swear a an oath of loyalty to Adolph Hitler. If they did they
> >>are scum and should be ashamed of themselves and their service.
>
the oath, or some type of punishment would be given. And the vast
majority of the Waffen SS have/had nothing to be ashamed of. Most
combat units kicked ass which is why they were hated.
Barry Bruyea
Oct 30, 2012, 9:28:19 AM10/30/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:18:26 -0700, Greg Carr <greg...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Why is it that "religious" people have been throughout history some of
the greatest perpetrators of persecution including slaughter and
torture? Can you justify that, Greg?
wrote:
the greatest perpetrators of persecution including slaughter and
torture? Can you justify that, Greg?
Greg Carr
Oct 30, 2012, 9:34:12 AM10/30/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:24:45 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
<parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 30, 8:18 am, Greg Carr <gregpc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:02:18 -0400, Barry Bruyea
>>
>> <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:37:00 -0700 (PDT), Greg Carr
>> ><gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>There are no gay ppl. You are either homosexual or heterosexual.
>
>what is that supposed to mean? do you object to homosexuals adopting
>the word 'gay' to describe themselves?
Yes
<parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 30, 8:18 am, Greg Carr <gregpc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:02:18 -0400, Barry Bruyea
>>
>> <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:37:00 -0700 (PDT), Greg Carr
>> ><gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>There are no gay ppl. You are either homosexual or heterosexual.
>
>what is that supposed to mean? do you object to homosexuals adopting
>the word 'gay' to describe themselves?
>
>>
>
>>
>> >>The Nazis persecuted communists which is okay by me, they persecuted
>> >>homosexuals which is ok by me. They persecuted the mentally ill, their
>> >>political opponents, JWs and Jews which is not ok by me.
>
>You seem to OK persecution of people that are not like yourself.
>Personally, I could care less about homosexuals. But I do not believe
>they should be persecuted.
The Nazis persecuted Gypsies which was wrong of them and I am not a
>>
>
>>
>> >>The Nazis persecuted communists which is okay by me, they persecuted
>> >>homosexuals which is ok by me. They persecuted the mentally ill, their
>> >>political opponents, JWs and Jews which is not ok by me.
>
>You seem to OK persecution of people that are not like yourself.
>Personally, I could care less about homosexuals. But I do not believe
>they should be persecuted.
Gypsy.
They just had poor leadership.
Greg Carr
Oct 30, 2012, 9:35:58 AM10/30/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:28:19 -0400, Barry Bruyea
Torture is to be abhored and yes many religious ppl have been guilty
of it and are still guilty of it today. They will get the Lake Of Fire
when the Judgement Day comes.
of it and are still guilty of it today. They will get the Lake Of Fire
when the Judgement Day comes.
M.I.Wakefield
Oct 30, 2012, 10:33:03 AM10/30/12
to
"A Moose in Love" wrote in message
news:287d76b8-2387-4719...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Kixi
Oct 30, 2012, 11:06:15 AM10/30/12
to
On Oct 30, 6:11 am, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
organization declared economic war on Germany and showed their power
to organize with demonstrations in several American cities as well as
Warsaw, London and Paris.
It was jewish political power in these three European capitals that
schemed up the plot to get Britain to declare war on Germany.
That was still just a limited European war. It took further AIPAC-like
tactics to get to a world war. The jews - with some capitalists - were
the cause of it all. They should have just let Germany determine her
own destiny.
wrote:
>
> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
> Germany was competition for Global dominance.
No. WWII was started years earlier in March 1933 when the world jewish
> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
> Germany was competition for Global dominance.
organization declared economic war on Germany and showed their power
to organize with demonstrations in several American cities as well as
Warsaw, London and Paris.
It was jewish political power in these three European capitals that
schemed up the plot to get Britain to declare war on Germany.
That was still just a limited European war. It took further AIPAC-like
tactics to get to a world war. The jews - with some capitalists - were
the cause of it all. They should have just let Germany determine her
own destiny.
A Moose in Love
Oct 30, 2012, 11:32:46 AM10/30/12
to
On Oct 30, 10:33 am, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:287d76b8-2387-4719...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
i have always admitted that Germany invaded Poland. All Germany
wanted was access to the Danzig corridor. And if Britain was so
concerned about Poland, then why didn't she protest when the CCCP
invaded Poland. Why didn't she protest when Poland was given to CCCP
at wars end?
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:287d76b8-2387-4719...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
wanted was access to the Danzig corridor. And if Britain was so
concerned about Poland, then why didn't she protest when the CCCP
invaded Poland. Why didn't she protest when Poland was given to CCCP
at wars end?
man behind the curtain
Oct 30, 2012, 11:34:01 AM10/30/12
to
In article
<287d76b8-2387-4719...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Well nowadayz it's just the same. only OIL is the name of the game. If
Iraq's main export was broccoli , well. you do the math.
in Afghanistan it was the pipeline and it's protection.
you didn't have to capture the oil itself just eliminate it and your OIL
goes up in price. the "Goldfinger" finger.
--
Karma ; what a concept!
<287d76b8-2387-4719...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Iraq's main export was broccoli , well. you do the math.
in Afghanistan it was the pipeline and it's protection.
you didn't have to capture the oil itself just eliminate it and your OIL
goes up in price. the "Goldfinger" finger.
--
Karma ; what a concept!
M.I.Wakefield
Oct 30, 2012, 11:50:46 AM10/30/12
to
"A Moose in Love" wrote in message
news:e018d28e-46a8-40d0...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 30, 10:33 am, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
> Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, 1939. Why won't you admit that?
> i have always admitted that Germany invaded Poland.
> All Germany wanted was ...
... Austria ...
... Sudetenland ...
... Czechoslovakia ...
... Memel, Lithuania ...
> ... access to the Danzig corridor.
Starting to notice a pattern yet, Moosey??
Dhu on Gate
Oct 30, 2012, 11:55:37 AM10/30/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:50:02 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>
> He is not the only one out there who things himself brilliant for
> dreaming up the conspiracy that involved the US allowing Pearly Harbor
> to be attack so that they would have an excuse to enter the war. I
Tactically PH was brilliant. Strategically it was the single biggest
>
>
> He is not the only one out there who things himself brilliant for
> dreaming up the conspiracy that involved the US allowing Pearly Harbor
> to be attack so that they would have an excuse to enter the war. I
blunder of WW2 in the context of it's stated aims.
> confess to harbouring skepticism about the efficiency of the US military
> and the competence of its military and political leadership, but I find
> it had to believe that they US would set up a situation that would see
> it sacrificing its Pacific Fleet, the ships, the crews and the
> logistical facilities in order to have an excuse to go to war when they
> are going to lose the assets they need to conduct a way across the Pacific.
>
and their ideology, as well as Japan's Militarists, a fact that was not
lost on their opposition in the (effectively imprisoned) Imperial house
and Navy.
Barry Bruyea
Oct 30, 2012, 12:09:15 PM10/30/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Kixi <Kixi...@Hotmail.ca>
wrote:
It's delusional idiots like you who didn't react to Hitler's
leadership and the obvious goals of the Nazi party. The idiot
appeasers and apologists the hold the responsibility for the slaughter
of millions.
wrote:
leadership and the obvious goals of the Nazi party. The idiot
appeasers and apologists the hold the responsibility for the slaughter
of millions.
Dhu on Gate
Oct 30, 2012, 12:15:14 PM10/30/12
to
Dave Smith
Oct 30, 2012, 12:21:20 PM10/30/12
to
On 30/10/2012 11:55 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:50:02 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> He is not the only one out there who things himself brilliant for
>> dreaming up the conspiracy that involved the US allowing Pearly Harbor
>> to be attack so that they would have an excuse to enter the war. I
>
> Tactically PH was brilliant. Strategically it was the single biggest
> blunder of WW2 in the context of it's stated aims.
>
>> confess to harbouring skepticism about the efficiency of the US military
>> and the competence of its military and political leadership, but I find
>> it had to believe that they US would set up a situation that would see
>> it sacrificing its Pacific Fleet, the ships, the crews and the
>
> Oddly enough what got sunk at PH was a lotta old junk.
JunK? They were the Pacific Fleet. The battleships hit were 20-25
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:50:02 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> He is not the only one out there who things himself brilliant for
>> dreaming up the conspiracy that involved the US allowing Pearly Harbor
>> to be attack so that they would have an excuse to enter the war. I
>
> Tactically PH was brilliant. Strategically it was the single biggest
> blunder of WW2 in the context of it's stated aims.
>
>> confess to harbouring skepticism about the efficiency of the US military
>> and the competence of its military and political leadership, but I find
>> it had to believe that they US would set up a situation that would see
>> it sacrificing its Pacific Fleet, the ships, the crews and the
>
> Oddly enough what got sunk at PH was a lotta old junk.
years old, not obsolete. There were 8 of them in port that were sunk or
damaged. At least one of them was in service for another 18 years. There
were three cruisers, one of them built in the 1924, the other two in
1937 and 1938.The three destroyers that were damaged were all less than
6 years old. Two of the auxiliary ships were less than 20 years old and
one was launched only a year earlier.
>> logistical facilities in order to have an excuse to go to war when they
>> are going to lose the assets they need to conduct a way across the Pacific.
>>
>
> Japan's actions on that Day of Infamy *guaranteed* the defeat of the NAZIs
> and their ideology, as well as Japan's Militarists, a fact that was not
> lost on their opposition in the (effectively imprisoned) Imperial house
> and Navy.
the US into the war may be hard pressed to explain how it is that the
attack on Pearl Harbor was just one small part of a move across the
entire Pacific, from the Aleutians to south east Asia, attacking
British, French and Dutch colonies.
Dave Smith
Oct 30, 2012, 12:27:56 PM10/30/12
to
Czechoslovakia. Then all they wanted was the rest of Czechoslovakia.
While Hitler had a non aggression pact with the Soviet Union, anyone who
read is ramblings new that he wanted living space to the east, and he
ended up reneging on his treaty when he invaded Russia.
Apparently you need to be reminded that Hitler had signed the Munich
Agreement and promised that Germany would not make any more territorial
claims
Dhu on Gate
Oct 30, 2012, 12:57:01 PM10/30/12
to
isolationists in their DOD and senate saw any suggestion of preparation
as an assault on principle.
Kixi
Oct 30, 2012, 12:59:49 PM10/30/12
to
On Oct 30, 9:09 am, Barry Bruyea <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Kixi <Kixi_...@Hotmail.ca>
Nonsense. You people - still perpetuating 80 years of anti-Hitler
propaganda - weren't there in the 1930s. The German people were.
They liked what they experienced and gave Hitler and nazism increasing
support as they delivered success. It was because of this success that
it took the jewish organizations five years to get even a border
dispute to flare up.
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Kixi <Kixi_...@Hotmail.ca>
propaganda - weren't there in the 1930s. The German people were.
They liked what they experienced and gave Hitler and nazism increasing
support as they delivered success. It was because of this success that
it took the jewish organizations five years to get even a border
dispute to flare up.
A Moose in Love
Oct 30, 2012, 2:04:42 PM10/30/12
to
On Oct 30, 11:50 am, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:e018d28e-46a8-40d0...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
And Britain was not a colonial power? Starting to notice a pattern
yet wakey wakey??
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:e018d28e-46a8-40d0...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
yet wakey wakey??
Greg Carr
Oct 30, 2012, 2:43:06 PM10/30/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:59:49 -0700 (PDT), Kixi <Kixi...@Hotmail.ca>
wrote:
>On Oct 30, 9:09 am, Barry Bruyea <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Kixi <Kixi_...@Hotmail.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 30, 6:11 am, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
>> >> Germany was competition for Global dominance.
>>
>> >No. WWII was started years earlier in March 1933 when the world jewish
>> >organization declared economic war on Germany and showed their power
>> >to organize with demonstrations in several American cities as well as
>> >Warsaw, London and Paris.
>>
>> >It was jewish political power in these three European capitals that
>> >schemed up the plot to get Britain to declare war on Germany.
>>
>> >That was still just a limited European war. It took further AIPAC-like
>> >tactics to get to a world war. The jews - with some capitalists - were
>> >the cause of it all. They should have just let Germany determine her
>> >own destiny.
>>
>> It's delusional idiots like you who didn't react to Hitler's
>> leadership and the obvious goals of the Nazi party. The idiot
>> appeasers and apologists the hold the responsibility for the slaughter
>> of millions.
>
>Nonsense. You people - still perpetuating 80 years of anti-Hitler
>propaganda - weren't there in the 1930s. The German people were.
The Germans who survived the war on the western side of the Iron
Curtian had no desire to go back to National Socialism.
it became clear to him that he would not win a democratic election
again. The Nazis polled 44% at their height and that was before the
killing of the mentally retarded.
It was because of this success that
>it took the jewish organizations five years to get even a border
>dispute to flare up.
Border dispute? Why firebomb Warsaw if it was just a border dispute.
It was a full scale blitzkrieg of Poland and was repeated in Holland,
Belgium, Norway and Greece as well as other neutral countries. The
wrote:
>On Oct 30, 9:09 am, Barry Bruyea <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Kixi <Kixi_...@Hotmail.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 30, 6:11 am, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
>> >> Germany was competition for Global dominance.
>>
>> >No. WWII was started years earlier in March 1933 when the world jewish
>> >organization declared economic war on Germany and showed their power
>> >to organize with demonstrations in several American cities as well as
>> >Warsaw, London and Paris.
>>
>> >It was jewish political power in these three European capitals that
>> >schemed up the plot to get Britain to declare war on Germany.
>>
>> >That was still just a limited European war. It took further AIPAC-like
>> >tactics to get to a world war. The jews - with some capitalists - were
>> >the cause of it all. They should have just let Germany determine her
>> >own destiny.
>>
>> It's delusional idiots like you who didn't react to Hitler's
>> leadership and the obvious goals of the Nazi party. The idiot
>> appeasers and apologists the hold the responsibility for the slaughter
>> of millions.
>
>Nonsense. You people - still perpetuating 80 years of anti-Hitler
>propaganda - weren't there in the 1930s. The German people were.
Curtian had no desire to go back to National Socialism.
>
>They liked what they experienced and gave Hitler and nazism increasing
>support as they delivered success.
Lie. Hitler suspended the free press and stopped having elections once
>They liked what they experienced and gave Hitler and nazism increasing
>support as they delivered success.
it became clear to him that he would not win a democratic election
again. The Nazis polled 44% at their height and that was before the
killing of the mentally retarded.
It was because of this success that
>it took the jewish organizations five years to get even a border
>dispute to flare up.
It was a full scale blitzkrieg of Poland and was repeated in Holland,
Belgium, Norway and Greece as well as other neutral countries. The
The Peeler
Oct 30, 2012, 2:45:13 PM10/30/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:04:42 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum,
wrote:
>> ... Austria ...
>>
>> ... Sudetenland ...
>>
>> ... Czechoslovakia ...
>>
>> ... Memel, Lithuania ...
>>
>>> ... access to the Danzig corridor.
>>
>> Starting to notice a pattern yet, Moosey??
>
> And Britain was not a colonial power? Starting to notice a pattern
> yet wakey wakey??
So, which parts of Europe did Britan invade and annex like Hitler did, you
disgusting Nazi-cock sucker?
wrote:
>> ... Austria ...
>>
>> ... Sudetenland ...
>>
>> ... Czechoslovakia ...
>>
>> ... Memel, Lithuania ...
>>
>>> ... access to the Danzig corridor.
>>
>> Starting to notice a pattern yet, Moosey??
>
> And Britain was not a colonial power? Starting to notice a pattern
> yet wakey wakey??
disgusting Nazi-cock sucker?
Spam
Oct 30, 2012, 3:15:00 PM10/30/12
to
On 29/10/2012 5:38 PM, Greg Carr wrote:
> On Oct 29, 3:03 pm, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 2:32 pm, Barry Bruyea <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:51:23 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com>
--
SPAMMED TO NON-RELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT
> On Oct 29, 3:03 pm, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 2:32 pm, Barry Bruyea <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:51:23 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> "A Moose in Love" wrote in message
>>>> news:a20646b3-7b13-4dd5...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> "A Moose in Love" wrote in message
--
SPAMMED TO NON-RELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT
Spam
Oct 30, 2012, 3:15:32 PM10/30/12
to
Spam
Oct 30, 2012, 3:15:56 PM10/30/12
to
Spam
Oct 30, 2012, 3:16:16 PM10/30/12
to
On 30/10/2012 7:33 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in message
> news:287d76b8-2387-4719...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Oct 29, 5:41 pm, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
>
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in message
> news:287d76b8-2387-4719...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Oct 29, 5:41 pm, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
>
Spam
Oct 30, 2012, 3:16:34 PM10/30/12
to
On 30/10/2012 8:32 AM, A Moose in Love wrote:
> On Oct 30, 10:33 am, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
>> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:287d76b8-2387-4719...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Oct 29, 5:41 pm, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
>>>> 2) Britain lost 450,000 (including civilians) in a war they didn't want
>>>> and
>>>> didn't start. Germany lost over 5.5 million military dead in a war they
>>>> did
>>>> want and did start ... and that number pales against the total number of
>>>> people killed by the nazis.
>>> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
>>
>> Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, 1939. Why won't you admit that?
> On Oct 30, 10:33 am, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
>> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:287d76b8-2387-4719...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Oct 29, 5:41 pm, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
>>>> 2) Britain lost 450,000 (including civilians) in a war they didn't want
>>>> and
>>>> didn't start. Germany lost over 5.5 million military dead in a war they
>>>> did
>>>> want and did start ... and that number pales against the total number of
>>>> people killed by the nazis.
>>> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
>>
>> Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, 1939. Why won't you admit that?
Spam
Oct 30, 2012, 3:17:14 PM10/30/12
to
On 30/10/2012 8:50 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in message
> news:e018d28e-46a8-40d0...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in message
> news:e018d28e-46a8-40d0...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Finally. Moose admits that Germany started the war in Europe.
>
>> All Germany wanted was ...
>
> ... Austria ...
>
> ... Sudetenland ...
>
> ... Czechoslovakia ...
>
> ... Memel, Lithuania ...
>
>> ... access to the Danzig corridor.
>
>> All Germany wanted was ...
>
> ... Austria ...
>
> ... Sudetenland ...
>
> ... Czechoslovakia ...
>
> ... Memel, Lithuania ...
>
>> ... access to the Danzig corridor.
Spam
Oct 30, 2012, 3:17:34 PM10/30/12
to
On 30/10/2012 11:04 AM, A Moose in Love wrote:
> On Oct 30, 11:50 am, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
>> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:e018d28e-46a8-40d0...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Oct 30, 10:33 am, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, 1939. Why won't you admit that?
>>> i have always admitted that Germany invaded Poland.
> On Oct 30, 11:50 am, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
>> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:e018d28e-46a8-40d0...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Oct 30, 10:33 am, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, 1939. Why won't you admit that?
>>> i have always admitted that Germany invaded Poland.
Spam
Oct 30, 2012, 3:17:57 PM10/30/12
to
On 30/10/2012 11:45 AM, The Peeler wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:04:42 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum,
> wrote:
>
>>
>> And Britain was not a colonial power? Starting to notice a pattern
>> yet wakey wakey??
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:04:42 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love with Nazi Scum,
> wrote:
>
>>
>> And Britain was not a colonial power? Starting to notice a pattern
>> yet wakey wakey??
Spam
Oct 30, 2012, 3:18:22 PM10/30/12
to
On 30/10/2012 9:27 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, 1939. Why won't you admit
>>> that?
>>> Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, 1939. Why won't you admit
>>> that?
Spam
Oct 30, 2012, 3:18:45 PM10/30/12
to
On 30/10/2012 8:06 AM, Kixi wrote:
>> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
>> Germany was competition for Global dominance.
>> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
>> Germany was competition for Global dominance.
Spam
Oct 30, 2012, 3:19:13 PM10/30/12
to
On 30/10/2012 9:09 AM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
>>> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
>>> Germany was competition for Global dominance.
>>> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
>>> Germany was competition for Global dominance.
Spam
Oct 30, 2012, 3:19:34 PM10/30/12
to
On 30/10/2012 9:15 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:09:15 -0400, Barry Bruyea wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Kixi <Kixi...@Hotmail.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 30, 6:11 am, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
>>>> Germany was competition for Global dominance.
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:09:15 -0400, Barry Bruyea wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Kixi <Kixi...@Hotmail.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 30, 6:11 am, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
>>>> Germany was competition for Global dominance.
Spam
Oct 30, 2012, 3:19:52 PM10/30/12
to
On 30/10/2012 9:59 AM, Kixi wrote:
> On Oct 30, 9:09 am, Barry Bruyea <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Kixi <Kixi_...@Hotmail.ca>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Oct 30, 6:11 am, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
>>>> Germany was competition for Global dominance.
> On Oct 30, 9:09 am, Barry Bruyea <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), Kixi <Kixi_...@Hotmail.ca>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Oct 30, 6:11 am, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Britain and France started WW2. They declared war on Germany.
>>>> Germany was competition for Global dominance.
Dave Smith
Oct 30, 2012, 3:41:34 PM10/30/12
to
Brits rounded them up and gassed them, eh.
Dave Smith
Oct 30, 2012, 3:55:59 PM10/30/12
to
First you claimed that what got sunk at Pearl Harbor was junk. When I
replied that the Battleships were only 20-25 years and still viable and
that the cruisers and destroyers were much newer, you come back with
this. I read it over several times and it makes no sense.
The US had been on Japan's case for some time and there had been
sanctions imposed. It was hoped that the problems with Japanese
aggression in China and Manchuria could be settled diplomatically. To
suggest that PH was allowed to happen because Roosevelt wanted the US in
the war overlooks a couple of key issues. As I pointed out, there is no
way that even the US would have sacrificed its Pacific fleet in order to
get into a war when it needed that same fleet to fight a war on the
other side of the Pacific. It overlooks the fact that at the same time
that Japan attacked the US fleet at PH it had launched attacks right
across the Pacific, from the Aleutians to south east Asia. I thought it
was pretty clear that the planned to knock the US out of the war
pre-emptively. They wanted to destroy the American fleet and play on
American isolation to stop them from interferring in their plans to
dominate their side of the Pacific. They wanted to replace the
Europeans as colonial masters.
It also makes the mistake of merging to completely different wars. The
US had been bolstering its own strategic interests through Lend Lease.
They apparently didn't want Hitler to conquer Europe, so the equipped
them and let them do the fighting. That was a European war. On the
other side of the world, Japan was starting to menace their strategic
interests and they were combating them with economic sanctions.
M.I.Wakefield
Oct 30, 2012, 4:58:42 PM10/30/12
to
"A Moose in Love" wrote in message
news:f4b03b03-4583-452d...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 30, 11:50 am, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
> > "A Moose in Love" wrote in
> > messagenews:e018d28e-46a8-40d0...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > Finally. Moose admits that Germany started the war in Europe.
> >
> > > All Germany wanted was ...
> > ... Austria ...
> > ... Sudetenland ...
> > ... Czechoslovakia ...
> > ... Memel, Lithuania ...
> >
> > > ... access to the Danzig corridor.
> >
> > Starting to notice a pattern yet, Moosey??
> And Britain was not a colonial power?
And that justified invading Poland because???
> >
> > > All Germany wanted was ...
> > ... Austria ...
> > ... Sudetenland ...
> > ... Czechoslovakia ...
> > ... Memel, Lithuania ...
> >
> > > ... access to the Danzig corridor.
> >
> > Starting to notice a pattern yet, Moosey??
> And Britain was not a colonial power?
Cons
Oct 30, 2012, 5:50:14 PM10/30/12
to
On 29/10/2012 6:51 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in message
> news:a20646b3-7b13-4dd5...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in message
>
Harold Burton
Oct 30, 2012, 9:24:41 PM10/30/12
to
In article <k6m1kr$9db$1...@dont-email.me>,
costing us thousands of unnecessary lives and dollars.
snicker
"M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in message
> news:a20646b3-7b13-4dd5...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in message
> news:a20646b3-7b13-4dd5...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
Which they would have done without our help. Thank Democrat FDR for
costing us thousands of unnecessary lives and dollars.
snicker
Dhu on Gate
Oct 30, 2012, 9:42:56 PM10/30/12
to
WW2, even if the Japs and Germs kept building them.
There WERE NO CARRIERS at PH and little else of import in the war to come.
>
> The US had been on Japan's case for some time and there had been
> sanctions imposed. It was hoped that the problems with Japanese
> aggression in China and Manchuria could be settled diplomatically. To
> suggest that PH was allowed to happen because Roosevelt wanted the US in
> the war overlooks a couple of key issues. As I pointed out, there is no
> way that even the US would have sacrificed its Pacific fleet in order to
> get into a war when it needed that same fleet to fight a war on the
> other side of the Pacific. It overlooks the fact that at the same time
> that Japan attacked the US fleet at PH it had launched attacks right
> across the Pacific, from the Aleutians to south east Asia. I thought it
> was pretty clear that the planned to knock the US out of the war
> pre-emptively. They wanted to destroy the American fleet and play on
> American isolation to stop them from interferring in their plans to
> dominate their side of the Pacific. They wanted to replace the
> Europeans as colonial masters.
guaranteed the axis loss.
Dhu
>
> It also makes the mistake of merging to completely different wars. The
> US had been bolstering its own strategic interests through Lend Lease.
> They apparently didn't want Hitler to conquer Europe, so the equipped
> them and let them do the fighting. That was a European war. On the
> other side of the world, Japan was starting to menace their strategic
> interests and they were combating them with economic sanctions.
Dave Smith
Oct 30, 2012, 11:11:25 PM10/30/12
to
class battleships from 1939 to 1942.They built four Iowa class
battleships from 1939. Some of those were used in Vietnam in the last
1960s and were brought back into service in the 1980s to counter the
Soviet Kirov battlecruisers.
From 1937 to 1942 the British built 5 King Geroge class battleships.
They started beuilding the HMS Vanguard in 1942.
Yet, you claim that battleships were old technology and suggest that the
Japanese and the Germans were the ones building them.
>
> There WERE NO CARRIERS at PH and little else of import in the war to come.
that they are such complex assets that they require a fleet or ships for
logistical support and for protection
>
>>
>> The US had been on Japan's case for some time and there had been
>> sanctions imposed. It was hoped that the problems with Japanese
>> aggression in China and Manchuria could be settled diplomatically. To
>> suggest that PH was allowed to happen because Roosevelt wanted the US in
>> the war overlooks a couple of key issues. As I pointed out, there is no
>> way that even the US would have sacrificed its Pacific fleet in order to
>
> It needed CARRIERS AND AIRCRAFT, no a bunch of 25 year old iron.
It was not until the war in the Pacific that aircraft carriers proved
>>
>> The US had been on Japan's case for some time and there had been
>> sanctions imposed. It was hoped that the problems with Japanese
>> aggression in China and Manchuria could be settled diplomatically. To
>> suggest that PH was allowed to happen because Roosevelt wanted the US in
>> the war overlooks a couple of key issues. As I pointed out, there is no
>> way that even the US would have sacrificed its Pacific fleet in order to
>
> It needed CARRIERS AND AIRCRAFT, no a bunch of 25 year old iron.
themselves, and the US had only 8 of three of which were as old as some
of those battleships.
>
>> get into a war when it needed that same fleet to fight a war on the
>> other side of the Pacific. It overlooks the fact that at the same time
>> that Japan attacked the US fleet at PH it had launched attacks right
>> across the Pacific, from the Aleutians to south east Asia. I thought it
>> was pretty clear that the planned to knock the US out of the war
>> pre-emptively. They wanted to destroy the American fleet and play on
>> American isolation to stop them from interferring in their plans to
>> dominate their side of the Pacific. They wanted to replace the
>> Europeans as colonial masters.
>
> PH was a strategic blunder that pegged a bunch of old boats and
> guaranteed the axis loss.
the US fleet and stopped it from interfering with their planned
invasions across the Pacific. It took the US 6 months before they could
face the Japanese fleet. The Battle of the Coral Sea was the first
conflict between carriers.
The Japanese underestimated the US resolve. They went into a war with a
lot of ships and planes and little capacity to replace losses. The US
was building ships faster than they were being sunk and building planes
and training pilots and crews faster than they were being shot down.
While the Japanese forces were shrinking from losses, the US forces were
expanding despite losses.
Dhu on Gate
Oct 31, 2012, 11:42:04 AM10/31/12
to
to Delhi and *never* faced the USN: the isolationists in the Senate would not
have it.
> face the Japanese fleet. The Battle of the Coral Sea was the first
> conflict between carriers.
>
> The Japanese underestimated the US resolve. They went into a war with a
> lot of ships and planes and little capacity to replace losses. The US
> was building ships faster than they were being sunk and building planes
> and training pilots and crews faster than they were being shot down.
> While the Japanese forces were shrinking from losses, the US forces were
> expanding despite losses.
Dhu
Dave Smith
Oct 31, 2012, 12:43:49 PM10/31/12
to
On 31/10/2012 11:42 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>> PH was a strategic blunder that pegged a bunch of old boats and
>>> guaranteed the axis loss.
>>
>> What was? For who? It looked like a win for the Japanese. It took out
>> the US fleet and stopped it from interfering with their planned
>> invasions across the Pacific. It took the US 6 months before they could
>
> Without PH the Japs would have cake-walked all the way from Port Moresby
> to Delhi and *never* faced the USN: the isolationists in the Senate would not
> have it.
Without PH what???? Without the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor?
>>> PH was a strategic blunder that pegged a bunch of old boats and
>>> guaranteed the axis loss.
>>
>> What was? For who? It looked like a win for the Japanese. It took out
>> the US fleet and stopped it from interfering with their planned
>> invasions across the Pacific. It took the US 6 months before they could
>
> Without PH the Japs would have cake-walked all the way from Port Moresby
> to Delhi and *never* faced the USN: the isolationists in the Senate would not
> have it.
Without and American base there? The US had other facilities in the
Pacific. There is no doubt that having a good harbour was a real bonus.
>
>> face the Japanese fleet. The Battle of the Coral Sea was the first
>> conflict between carriers.
>>
>> The Japanese underestimated the US resolve. They went into a war with a
>> lot of ships and planes and little capacity to replace losses. The US
>> was building ships faster than they were being sunk and building planes
>> and training pilots and crews faster than they were being shot down.
>> While the Japanese forces were shrinking from losses, the US forces were
>> expanding despite losses.
>
> Military Industrial Inertia builds better Boat Anchors than Warboats.
>
Well, isn't that a pithy jab at the military supply system. They were
>> face the Japanese fleet. The Battle of the Coral Sea was the first
>> conflict between carriers.
>>
>> The Japanese underestimated the US resolve. They went into a war with a
>> lot of ships and planes and little capacity to replace losses. The US
>> was building ships faster than they were being sunk and building planes
>> and training pilots and crews faster than they were being shot down.
>> While the Japanese forces were shrinking from losses, the US forces were
>> expanding despite losses.
>
> Military Industrial Inertia builds better Boat Anchors than Warboats.
>
turning out a lot of ships and planes at the time. The attack on Pearl
Harbour was meant to weaken American resolve and to destroy their
ability to confront the Japanese as they swept across the Pacific. It
certainly crippled them, but only for a few months. Over the next few
years the USN obliterated the IJN. American forces invaded the Japanese
occupied islands with overwhelming arms and equipment, and the best you
can say is that the make better boat anchors than warboats?? Curiously,
they were victorious. They had a few setbacks, but they did work they
way across thousands of miles of heavily islands and territories
occupied by the Japanese.
Barry Bruyea
Oct 31, 2012, 3:55:02 PM10/31/12
to
wasted trip on the part of the Japanese. Even Yamamoto knew that.
And to make it worse for the Japanese, the Battle Of Midway was a
disaster for the Japanese. The realists knew it was over form them
and that was only 6 months after Pearl Harbour.
>
NEMO
Oct 31, 2012, 4:32:49 PM10/31/12
to
. ''Even Yamamoto knew that.''
Yamamoto said to the effect, ''Japan will run riot the first year of
war, but then the Americans will crush us!''!
& that's the end of the story!
Ayup, eh!
Yamamoto said to the effect, ''Japan will run riot the first year of
war, but then the Americans will crush us!''!
& that's the end of the story!
Ayup, eh!
Padraigh ProAmerica
Oct 31, 2012, 4:30:51 PM10/31/12
to
Re: Was WW2 the Good war?
Group: alt.politics Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 12:21pm From:
adavid...@sympatico.ca (Dave Smith)
On 30/10/2012 11:55 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:50:02 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
He is not the only one out there who things himself brilliant for
dreaming up the conspiracy that involved the US allowing Pearly Harbor
to be attack so that they would have an excuse to enter the war. I
Tactically PH was brilliant. Strategically it was the single biggest
blunder of WW2 in the context of it's stated aims.
confess to harbouring skepticism about the efficiency of the US military
and the competence of its military and political leadership, but I find
it had to believe that they US would set up a situation that would see
it sacrificing its Pacific Fleet, the ships, the crews and the
Oddly enough what got sunk at PH was a lotta old junk.
JunK? They were the Pacific Fleet. The battleships hit were 20-25 years
old, not obsolete. There were 8 of them in port that were sunk or
damaged. At least one of them was in service for another 18 years.
=================================
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:50:02 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
He is not the only one out there who things himself brilliant for
dreaming up the conspiracy that involved the US allowing Pearly Harbor
to be attack so that they would have an excuse to enter the war. I
Tactically PH was brilliant. Strategically it was the single biggest
blunder of WW2 in the context of it's stated aims.
confess to harbouring skepticism about the efficiency of the US military
and the competence of its military and political leadership, but I find
it had to believe that they US would set up a situation that would see
it sacrificing its Pacific Fleet, the ships, the crews and the
Oddly enough what got sunk at PH was a lotta old junk.
JunK? They were the Pacific Fleet. The battleships hit were 20-25 years
old, not obsolete. There were 8 of them in port that were sunk or
damaged. At least one of them was in service for another 18 years.
Here are the BBs at Pearl:
USS NEVADA (BB 36) Used as a target in atomic boimb tests at Bikini;
sunk 1948.
USS OKLAHOMA: (BB 37)Sunk under tow en route to US for scrapping 1946.
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB 38) Target at Bikini; sunk off Kwajelain 1948
USS ARIZONA (BB 39) Blown apart; memorial at Pearl Harbor.
USS TENNESSEE (BB 43) decommissioned 1947, scrapped in 1959
USS CALIFORNIA (BB 44) Decommissioned1947; scrapped 1959
USS MARYLAND (BB 46) Decommissioned 1947; scrapped1959
USS WEST VIRGINIA (BB48) Decommisioned 1947; scrapped 1959
None were still in service 18 years later.
---------------------------------------------
There were three cruisers, one of them built in the 1924, the other two
in 1937 and 1938.The three destroyers that were damaged were all less
than 6 years old. Two of the auxiliary ships were less than 20 years old
and one was launched only a year earlier.
logistical facilities in order to have an excuse to go to war when they
are going to lose the assets they need to conduct a way across the
Pacific.
Japan's actions on that Day of Infamy *guaranteed* the defeat of the
NAZIs and their ideology, as well as Japan's Militarists, a fact that
was not lost on their opposition in the (effectively imprisoned)
Imperial house and Navy.
Those who think that Roosevelt allowed a sneak attack in order to get
the US into the war may be hard pressed to explain how it is that the
attack on Pearl Harbor was just one small part of a move across the
entire Pacific, from the Aleutians to south east Asia, attacking
British, French and Dutch colonies.
"Again and again we have owed peace to the fact we were prepared for
war."--
Theodore Roosevelt
brian lamb
Oct 31, 2012, 5:04:37 PM10/31/12
to
Amended:
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, "I fear all we have done is to
awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."[
''A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a
sleeping enemy';
The other common quotation attributed to Yamamoto predicting the
future outcome of a naval war against the United States is: "I can run
wild for six months … after that, I have no expectation of success".[
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, "I fear all we have done is to
awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."[
''A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a
sleeping enemy';
The other common quotation attributed to Yamamoto predicting the
future outcome of a naval war against the United States is: "I can run
wild for six months … after that, I have no expectation of success".[
Dave Smith
Oct 31, 2012, 7:37:56 PM10/31/12
to
On 31/10/2012 3:55 PM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
>>
>> Well, isn't that a pithy jab at the military supply system. They were
>> turning out a lot of ships and planes at the time. The attack on Pearl
>> Harbour was meant to weaken American resolve and to destroy their
>> ability to confront the Japanese as they swept across the Pacific. It
>> certainly crippled them, but only for a few months. Over the next few
>> years the USN obliterated the IJN. American forces invaded the Japanese
>> occupied islands with overwhelming arms and equipment, and the best you
>> can say is that the make better boat anchors than warboats?? Curiously,
>> they were victorious. They had a few setbacks, but they did work they
>> way across thousands of miles of heavily islands and territories
>> occupied by the Japanese.
>
>
> There were no carriers at Pearl Harbour.
No there weren't, and that does not feet into the mythology about how
>>
>> Well, isn't that a pithy jab at the military supply system. They were
>> turning out a lot of ships and planes at the time. The attack on Pearl
>> Harbour was meant to weaken American resolve and to destroy their
>> ability to confront the Japanese as they swept across the Pacific. It
>> certainly crippled them, but only for a few months. Over the next few
>> years the USN obliterated the IJN. American forces invaded the Japanese
>> occupied islands with overwhelming arms and equipment, and the best you
>> can say is that the make better boat anchors than warboats?? Curiously,
>> they were victorious. They had a few setbacks, but they did work they
>> way across thousands of miles of heavily islands and territories
>> occupied by the Japanese.
>
>
> There were no carriers at Pearl Harbour.
Roosevelt was sacrificing the fleet to get sucked into the war, because
carriers cannot operate on their own. They need oilers to keep them
fueled and other ships to carry the food and munitions they will need,
and a fleet of destroyers, cruisers and battleships to protect them,
plus the fact that some of them were either on training operations or
ferrying aircraft to Midway.
> Because of that, it was a
> wasted trip on the part of the Japanese. Even Yamamoto knew that.
> And to make it worse for the Japanese, the Battle Of Midway was a
> disaster for the Japanese. The realists knew it was over form them
> and that was only 6 months after Pearl Harbour.
but that was part of the miscalculations made by the Japanese about the
nature of the US public and their ability to produce enough equipment
and train enough people to bounce back.
Harold Burton
Oct 31, 2012, 8:29:30 PM10/31/12
to
In article <gFbks.141$Ns4...@newsfe09.iad>,
Nonsense.
snicker
snicker
Dhu on Gate
Oct 31, 2012, 10:21:54 PM10/31/12
to
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.
It was planned that way.
M.I.Wakefield
Oct 31, 2012, 10:25:51 PM10/31/12
to
"Dhu on Gate" wrote in message news:61lks.1542$Ns4....@newsfe09.iad...
> 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?
> 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.
CUNTICA
Oct 31, 2012, 11:08:29 PM10/31/12
to
On Oct 31, 10:21 pm, Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
Stupid parrot tries to sing one direction - YouTube
► 0:49► 0:49
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pelrNHD0XHo28 Apr 2012 - 49 sec - Uploaded by
ryliemv
This stupid parrot is trying to sing one directon ❤ but fails!!
Talking Pierre the ... Alert icon. You need Adobe ...
Stupid parrot - YouTube
► 0:09► 0:09
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWTWmAY05vs4 Nov 2006 - 9 sec - Uploaded by
Uebergoth
My stupid parrot :) ... You need Adobe Flash Player to watch this
video. ...PARROT SINGS XMAS AND CURSES ...
Stupid parrot tries to sing one direction - YouTube
► 0:49► 0:49
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pelrNHD0XHo28 Apr 2012 - 49 sec - Uploaded by
ryliemv
This stupid parrot is trying to sing one directon ❤ but fails!!
Talking Pierre the ... Alert icon. You need Adobe ...
Stupid parrot - YouTube
► 0:09► 0:09
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWTWmAY05vs4 Nov 2006 - 9 sec - Uploaded by
Uebergoth
My stupid parrot :) ... You need Adobe Flash Player to watch this
video. ...PARROT SINGS XMAS AND CURSES ...
Dhu on Gate
Nov 1, 2012, 12:27:08 AM11/1/12
to
Dhu on Gate
Nov 1, 2012, 1:24:36 PM11/1/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:24:45 -0700, A Moose in Love wrote:
>> >>Did they swear a an oath of loyalty to Adolph Hitler. If they did they
>> >>are scum and should be ashamed of themselves and their service.
>>
>
> The conscripts in the Waffen SS also swore an oath. They either swore
> the oath, or some type of punishment would be given. And the vast
> majority of the Waffen SS have/had nothing to be ashamed of. Most
> combat units kicked ass which is why they were hated.
>
Not what I heard about the grudge between the Nibelung and the 22nd.
That has to do with some missing family jewels.
>> >>Did they swear a an oath of loyalty to Adolph Hitler. If they did they
>> >>are scum and should be ashamed of themselves and their service.
>>
>
> The conscripts in the Waffen SS also swore an oath. They either swore
> the oath, or some type of punishment would be given. And the vast
> majority of the Waffen SS have/had nothing to be ashamed of. Most
> combat units kicked ass which is why they were hated.
>
Not what I heard about the grudge between the Nibelung and the 22nd.
That has to do with some missing family jewels.
Jay Herblock
Nov 1, 2012, 1:40:32 PM11/1/12
to
On Oct 30, 4:58 pm, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:f4b03b03-4583-452d...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
WW2 was the Stupid War.
The Allies picked a war against Germany - after strangling it with
outrageous Versailles Treaty 'reparation' terms.
They then sent BILLIONS in war aid to psychotic murderer Stalin
(recent partner of Germany) to assist in the invasion and takeover of
half of Europe.
Fucking morons.
> "A Moose in Love" wrote in messagenews:f4b03b03-4583-452d...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
The Allies picked a war against Germany - after strangling it with
outrageous Versailles Treaty 'reparation' terms.
They then sent BILLIONS in war aid to psychotic murderer Stalin
(recent partner of Germany) to assist in the invasion and takeover of
half of Europe.
Fucking morons.
Dave Smith
Nov 1, 2012, 2:32:53 PM11/1/12
to
On 01/11/2012 1:40 PM, Jay Herblock wrote:
>> And that justified invading Poland because???
>
> WW2 was the Stupid War.
>
Yes it was a stupid war, and stupid of the Germans to have started it.
>> And that justified invading Poland because???
>
> WW2 was the Stupid War.
>
> The Allies picked a war against Germany
It was Germany that annexed Austria. It was Germany who invaded first
part of Czechoslovakia, and then the rest of it. The Allies appeased
them, let them keep those, but insisted that there could be no more
expansion. Germany agreed, but then went ahead and did it, knowing that
Britain would declare war.
- after strangling it with
> outrageous Versailles Treaty 'reparation' terms.
after the Franco Prussian war? Germany had started the war. France's
big sin was to refuse to promise not to honour their mutual defence
pact with Russia.
> They then sent BILLIONS in war aid to psychotic murderer Stalin
> (recent partner of Germany) to assist in the invasion and takeover of
> half of Europe.
mutual non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. Hitler and Stalin
had an agreement that divided up spheres of influence in Europe, but
Hitler reneged on that and invaded Russia. It certainly served the
interests of the Allies to have the Soviets battling the Germans in the
eastern front, engaging the Germans on the two front war that they
started..... on both fronts.
Jay Herblock
Nov 1, 2012, 4:29:26 PM11/1/12
to
On Nov 1, 2:33 pm, Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 1:40 PM, Jay Herblock wrote:
>
> >> And that justified invading Poland because???
>
> > WW2 was the Stupid War.
>
> Yes it was a stupid war, and stupid of the Germans to have started it.
Germany didn't start it.
> On 01/11/2012 1:40 PM, Jay Herblock wrote:
>
> >> And that justified invading Poland because???
>
> > WW2 was the Stupid War.
>
> Yes it was a stupid war, and stupid of the Germans to have started it.
If you want guilty parties, BOTH Russia and Germany invaded Poland as
ALLIES.
You could say that the Allies ( Russia was an Ally country) invaded
Poland.
> > The Allies picked a war against Germany
> The Allies picked a war?????? WTF????
"The British declaration of war against Nazi Germany came at 11.15 on
September 3rd 1939. Neville Chamberlain spoke to the nation via radio.
Britain had given Hitler an ultimatum to withdraw from Poland after
the Germans invaded Poland on September 1st."
> It was Germany that annexed Austria.
Yep, with the Austrians throwing *flowers* on the German troops as
they arrived.
> It was Germany who invaded first
>part of Czechoslovakia, and then the rest of it.
and Czechs that was centuries old.
Because of the mixed population of the region.
But I do agree that the invasion of the entire country was a no-no.
> The Allies appeased
>them, let them keep those, but insisted that there could be no more
>expansion. Germany agreed, but then went ahead and did it, knowing that
>Britain would declare war.
declaration of was against Germany.
>>- after strangling it with
>> outrageous Versailles Treaty 'reparation' terms.
>And how were those reparations worse than the terms forced on France
>after the Franco Prussian war? Germany had started the war.
"In January 1921, the total sum due was decided by an Inter-Allied
Reparations Commission and was set at 269 billion gold marks (the
equivalent of around 100,000 tonnes of pure gold). THIS 100,000 TONNES
OF GOLD WAS EQUIVALENT TO MORE THAN 50% OF ALL THE GOLD EVER MINED IN
HISTORY (est. 165000 tonnes) which was clearly not within the means of
the Germans to pay. Consequently their only way of paying back the
debt was in foreign currency, but attempts to purchase foreign
currency with devalued paper Marks led to the hyperinflation.
> France's
>big sin was to refuse to promise not to honour their mutual defence
> pact with Russia.
to help the murdering madman Stalin to kill more than 50 million
people?
All hail our great hero, Stalin, eh comrade?
>> They then sent BILLIONS in war aid to psychotic murderer Stalin
>> (recent partner of Germany) to assist in the invasion and takeover of
>> half of Europe.
>That would never have happened had Nazi Germany not reneged on their
>mutual non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union.
Poland, Finland, Latvia,Lithuania, Estonia, and Romania?
You ARE an Allied warmonger.
>Hitler and Stalin
>had an agreement that divided up spheres of influence in Europe, but
>Hitler reneged on that and invaded Russia.
Dave Smith
Nov 1, 2012, 5:43:04 PM11/1/12
to
On 01/11/2012 4:29 PM, Jay Herblock wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2:33 pm, Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On 01/11/2012 1:40 PM, Jay Herblock wrote:
>>
>>>> And that justified invading Poland because???
>>
>>> WW2 was the Stupid War.
>>
>> Yes it was a stupid war, and stupid of the Germans to have started it.
>
> Germany didn't start it.
> If you want guilty parties, BOTH Russia and Germany invaded Poland as
> ALLIES.
First you say that Germany did not start, but they you say that Germany
> On Nov 1, 2:33 pm, Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On 01/11/2012 1:40 PM, Jay Herblock wrote:
>>
>>>> And that justified invading Poland because???
>>
>>> WW2 was the Stupid War.
>>
>> Yes it was a stupid war, and stupid of the Germans to have started it.
>
> Germany didn't start it.
> If you want guilty parties, BOTH Russia and Germany invaded Poland as
> ALLIES.
invaded Poland. Germany and USSR were not allies. They had signed a
mutual non aggression pact. They had a non military compact of
friendship and cooperation.
> You could say that the Allies ( Russia was an Ally country) invaded
> Poland.
allies in WWI, but after the revolution they made peace with Germany,
and Germany wanted 6 Billion marks and a lot of territory from the
Russians. The Soviet Union joined an alliance with the United Kingdom
after they were invaded by Germany.
>
>>> The Allies picked a war against Germany
>
>> The Allies picked a war?????? WTF????
>
> Some free education for you:
> "The British declaration of war against Nazi Germany came at 11.15 on
> September 3rd 1939. Neville Chamberlain spoke to the nation via radio.
> Britain had given Hitler an ultimatum to withdraw from Poland after
> the Germans invaded Poland on September 1st."
I am already well aware that Germany invaded Poland and that the British
had given them an ultimatum to get out of Poland or they would declare
war.
>
>> It was Germany that annexed Austria.
>
> With hugs and kisses,
> Yep, with the Austrians throwing *flowers* on the German troops as
> they arrived.
Yes yes we saw the propaganda movies. There was supposed to be a vote on
>> It was Germany that annexed Austria.
>
> With hugs and kisses,
> Yep, with the Austrians throwing *flowers* on the German troops as
> they arrived.
unification but when it looked like the Austrians were going to vote to
retain autonomy the Austrian nazis pulled a coup d'etat. The unification
was prohibited under the terms of Versailles, but the allies did not
resist it.
>
>> It was Germany who invaded first
>> part of Czechoslovakia, and then the rest of it.
>
> The Silesian conflict was a cross-border dispute between the Germans
> and Czechs that was centuries old.
> Because of the mixed population of the region.
> But I do agree that the invasion of the entire country was a no-no.
>
the borders of Europe in an attempt to accomodate ethnic issues,
restoring countries that had been overwhelmed by German expansion. It
was a violation of the treaty.
>> The Allies appeased
>> them, let them keep those, but insisted that there could be no more
>> expansion. Germany agreed, but then went ahead and did it, knowing that
>> Britain would declare war.
>
> Wrong. Britain never appeased anything. Britain never repealed its
> declaration of was against Germany.
Rhineland. They allowed them to annex Austria. They allowed them to keep
Czechoslovakia. They told them they could not have Poland.
>
>>> - after strangling it with
>>> outrageous Versailles Treaty 'reparation' terms.
>
>> And how were those reparations worse than the terms forced on France
>> after the Franco Prussian war? Germany had started the war.
>
> One word for The Versailles Treaty 'reparation' terms: INSANE
>
> "In January 1921, the total sum due was decided by an Inter-Allied
> Reparations Commission and was set at 269 billion gold marks
Part of that was to paid in terms of coal and personal property, like
the patent on aspirin. It was argued that Germany was responsible for
starting the war and that it had destroyed the coal mines in France.
>> France's
>> big sin was to refuse to promise not to honour their mutual defence
>> pact with Russia.
>
> Just great. So now your are saying that France should have gone to war
> to help the murdering madman Stalin to kill more than 50 million
> people?
> All hail our great hero, Stalin, eh comrade?
talking about the Treaty of Versailles.... WWI. France had a mutual
defense pact with tsarist Russia. Germany wanted to go to war with
Russia but France was treaty bound to help Russia. Germany issued an
ultimatum to France to stay out of it. When France refused, Germany
invaded.... through neutral Belgium.
>
>>> They then sent BILLIONS in war aid to psychotic murderer Stalin
>>> (recent partner of Germany) to assist in the invasion and takeover of
>>> half of Europe.
>
>> That would never have happened had Nazi Germany not reneged on their
>> mutual non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union.
>
> You mean the same pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop) under which Russia invaded
> Poland, Finland, Latvia,Lithuania, Estonia, and Romania?
> You ARE an Allied warmonger.
known that, but don't let facts interfere with a bad argument.
>> Hitler and Stalin
>> had an agreement that divided up spheres of influence in Europe, but
>> Hitler reneged on that and invaded Russia.
>
> Hitler served as the agent of justice in this instance.
>
reneged on it. Had the Soviets not agreed to that pact Hitler would
not have dared to invade Poland. But what the heck, just mark that one
up as another case of Germany reneging on a treaty. Since you are a
relatively new nazi apologist I will point out that the Allies we had
the force of the Treaty of Versailles as leverage against Germany and
were justified in going to war to enforce a treaty that had been the
basis of ending WWI. They did not have a similar treaty with the Russians.
Jay Herblock
Nov 1, 2012, 8:31:31 PM11/1/12
to
On Nov 1, 5:43 pm, Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 4:29 PM, Jay Herblock wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 2:33 pm, Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> On 01/11/2012 1:40 PM, Jay Herblock wrote:
>
> >>>> And that justified invading Poland because???
>
> >>> WW2 was the Stupid War.
>
> >> Yes it was a stupid war, and stupid of the Germans to have started it.
>
> > Germany didn't start it.
> > If you want guilty parties, BOTH Russia and Germany invaded Poland as
> > ALLIES.
>
> First you say that Germany did not start, but they you say that Germany
> invaded Poland. Germany and USSR were not allies. They had signed a
> mutual non aggression pact. They had a non military compact of
> friendship and cooperation.
Don't try to lie.You fail miserably in spite of your twisting and
> On 01/11/2012 4:29 PM, Jay Herblock wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 2:33 pm, Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> On 01/11/2012 1:40 PM, Jay Herblock wrote:
>
> >>>> And that justified invading Poland because???
>
> >>> WW2 was the Stupid War.
>
> >> Yes it was a stupid war, and stupid of the Germans to have started it.
>
> > Germany didn't start it.
> > If you want guilty parties, BOTH Russia and Germany invaded Poland as
> > ALLIES.
>
> First you say that Germany did not start, but they you say that Germany
> invaded Poland. Germany and USSR were not allies. They had signed a
> mutual non aggression pact. They had a non military compact of
> friendship and cooperation.
turning.
You said only Germany invaded Poland.
I said that BOTH Russia and Germany invaded Poland.
The difference: I said that Russia did also as Germany's partner.
> > You could say that the Allies ( Russia was an Ally country) invaded
> > Poland.
>
> The USSR was not one of the Allied countries at the time.
Later it was an Ally of 'The Allies; helpful ally for any sort of
murder
> >>> The Allies picked a war against Germany
>
> >> The Allies picked a war?????? WTF????
>
> > Some free education for you:
> > "The British declaration of war against Nazi Germany came at 11.15 on
> > September 3rd 1939. Neville Chamberlain spoke to the nation via radio.
> > Britain had given Hitler an ultimatum to withdraw from Poland after
> > the Germans invaded Poland on September 1st."
>
> Free, but worth everything that was paid for it... nothing.
> I am already well aware that Germany invaded Poland and that the British
> had given them an ultimatum to get out of Poland or they would declare
> war.
Britain Declared was against Germany - the Germans didn't declare war
against Britain.
> >> It was Germany that annexed Austria.
>
> > With hugs and kisses,
> > Yep, with the Austrians throwing *flowers* on the German troops as
> > they arrived.
>
> Yes yes we saw the propaganda movies. There was supposed to be a vote on
> unification but when it looked like the Austrians were going to vote to
> retain autonomy the Austrian nazis pulled a coup d'etat. The unification
> was prohibited under the terms of Versailles, but the allies did not
> resist it.
The Austrian (german speaking) populace welcomed the germans with
flowers)
> >> It was Germany who invaded first
> >> part of Czechoslovakia, and then the rest of it.
>
> > The Silesian conflict was a cross-border dispute between the Germans
> > and Czechs that was centuries old.
> > Because of the mixed population of the region.
> > But I do agree that the invasion of the entire country was a no-no.
>
> The first part was prohibited by Versailles. The treaty had realigned
> the borders of Europe in an attempt to accomodate ethnic issues,
> restoring countries that had been overwhelmed by German expansion. It
> was a violation of the treaty.
> >> The Allies appeased
> >> them, let them keep those, but insisted that there could be no more
> >> expansion. Germany agreed, but then went ahead and did it, knowing that
> >> Britain would declare war.
>
> > Wrong. Britain never appeased anything. Britain never repealed its
> > declaration of was against Germany.
>
> Yes they did appease.
against Germany?
> >>> - after strangling it with
> >>> outrageous Versailles Treaty 'reparation' terms.
>
> >> And how were those reparations worse than the terms forced on France
> >> after the Franco Prussian war? Germany had started the war.
>
> > One word for The Versailles Treaty 'reparation' terms: INSANE
>
> > "In January 1921, the total sum due was decided by an Inter-Allied
> > Reparations Commission and was set at 269 billion gold marks
>
> That was the original assessment. It was dropped to about half that.
> Part of that was to paid in terms of coal and personal property, like
> the patent on aspirin. It was argued that Germany was responsible for
> starting the war and that it had destroyed the coal mines in France.
mined on planet Earth was onerous to the point of INSANITY.
> >> France's
> >> big sin was to refuse to promise not to honour their mutual defence
> >> pact with Russia.
>
> > Just great. So now your are saying that France should have gone to war
> > to help the murdering madman Stalin to kill more than 50 million
> > people?
> > All hail our great hero, Stalin, eh comrade?
>
> No, France was not expected to go to war to protect Stalin. You were
You yourself brought this point up.
You said that France should have defended Russia.
And Russia - at that time - was being run by Stalin.
Buck up, comrade.
> >>> They then sent BILLIONS in war aid to psychotic murderer Stalin
> >>> (recent partner of Germany) to assist in the invasion and takeover of
> >>> half of Europe.
>
> >> That would never have happened had Nazi Germany not reneged on their
> >> mutual non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union.
>
> > You mean the same pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop) under which Russia invaded
> > Poland, Finland, Latvia,Lithuania, Estonia, and Romania?
> > You ARE an Allied warmonger.
>
> I am? The USSR was not an ally when that happened. You should have
> known that, but don't let facts interfere with a bad argument.
comrades say - comrade.
> >>Hitler and Stalin
> >> had an agreement that divided up spheres of influence in Europe, but
> >> Hitler reneged on that and invaded Russia.
>
> > Hitler served as the agent of justice in this instance.
>
> Justice?
Sent a few generations of Stalin youth to oblivion.
> He signed a pact with the devil to get what he wanted and then
> reneged on it. Had the Soviets not agreed to that pact Hitler would
> not have dared to invade Poland. But what the heck, just mark that one
> up as another case of Germany reneging on a treaty.
> Since you are a
> relatively new nazi apologist
routine?
I just like truth, and occasionally get fed up with the 'Our shit
don't stink' routine that you war-mongering people play.
> I will point out that the Allies we had
> the force of the Treaty of Versailles as leverage against Germany and
> were justified in going to war to enforce a treaty that had been the
> basis of ending WWI.
was not the reason for the war.
Germany had already obviated most of the terms in any case. The damage
had already been done,
The war officially was caused by imperial Britain declaring war on
Germany - a stupid move.
>They did not have a similar treaty with the Russians.
been treaty bound to help Stalin murder over 50 million people.
PS: Just curious. How do commies reconcile Stalin co-invading Poland
with Hitler?
M.I.Wakefield
Nov 1, 2012, 8:47:56 PM11/1/12
to
"Jay Herblock" wrote in message
news:dd8a6c6e-ed73-4d38...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Britain Declared was against Germany - the Germans didn't declare war
> against Britain.
Because Germany invaded Poland.
Why do all the neo-nazis have such a hard time with that fact?
news:dd8a6c6e-ed73-4d38...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Britain Declared was against Germany - the Germans didn't declare war
> against Britain.
Why do all the neo-nazis have such a hard time with that fact?
Harold Burton
Nov 1, 2012, 9:26:04 PM11/1/12
to
In article <vfzks.23525$Hd6....@fed12.iad>,
You might want to consider Napoleon's advice "Don't interrupt your enemy
when he's making a mistake" . . . and that's what the allies did.
snicker
Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 1:40 PM, Jay Herblock wrote:
>
> >> And that justified invading Poland because???
> >
> > WW2 was the Stupid War.
> >
>
> Yes it was a stupid war, and stupid of the Germans to have started it.
>
> > The Allies picked a war against Germany
>
>
> The Allies picked a war?????? WTF????
Yep, THEY declared war on Germany.
> On 01/11/2012 1:40 PM, Jay Herblock wrote:
>
> >> And that justified invading Poland because???
> >
> > WW2 was the Stupid War.
> >
>
> Yes it was a stupid war, and stupid of the Germans to have started it.
>
> > The Allies picked a war against Germany
>
>
> The Allies picked a war?????? WTF????
You might want to consider Napoleon's advice "Don't interrupt your enemy
when he's making a mistake" . . . and that's what the allies did.
snicker
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages