It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Churchill be seen as a warmonger and partial escalator of WW2?

page: 17
11
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I need to remind folks by the way, of Springers post here...

**ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS:** We don't like Hitler at ATS, not even a little bit.

Its worth paying attention to.




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 


Yeah, didn't they enter the war under a "false flag" too. Not too sure about this but didn't they sell tickets for a cruise boat filled with Americans in occupied German waters. I think they had them sign a waver saying if if they did go on the trip that whatever happens they were not disposable. Then of course the boat was sunk which gave the American people a reason to join the war? Before that the people didn't want anything to do with it. After that incident they were lining up to enroll.

Edit to add.

Actually American involvement in WWI and WWII were due to "false flags".
One of many sources.
edit on 15-1-2013 by XLR8R because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


My coleague is a history buff, he reckons that WW1 never really ended...



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Really?

What was Operation Sealion then? a friendly overture?



that was during the war...I thought you were referring to the grabs prior to the outbreak of war



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
I need to remind folks by the way, of Springers post here...

**ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS:** We don't like Hitler at ATS, not even a little bit.

Its worth paying attention to.


absolutely, I do not want to make the impression of apologizing for Hitler lol. But I guess that's what you get when you talk about alternative views within ww2...



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


It seems like it has just shifted, from place and emphasis but is essentially still there, as are the repercussions of, in various guises.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
The question here is this.

Was Hitler planning on stopping with Poland?

The answer is no. That much is clear from the plans drawn up for the invasion of Europe and the Soviet Union.

Churchill's stance, therefore, did not escalate the conflict. It was a response to the conflict, and it was a response to a war that everyone at the time saw coming.

Trying to change history by reframing it a different way doesn't take away from the clear intentions of the Nazi's.

And if you don't believe me, try arguing with the Russians who he signed the non-aggression pact with.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
This report cites guess who.....the Rothschilds, as instigators of WW2, and adds Churchill to the list.
There sure are a lot of conspiracies about the Rothschilds and the funding of various revolutions and their involvement in various wars. Who knows how true these allegations are.

thedaysofnoah.wordpress.com...


The Rothschild 1920 – 1944 The secret instigators of World War 2
By Peculiar Voice
Previously 1901 – 1919

1920: Winston Churchill (whose mother, Jenny (Jacobson) Jerome, was Jewish ­ meaning he is Jewish under Ashkenazi law as he was born of a Jewish mother) writes in an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, dated February 8th, “From the days of Illuminati leader Weishaupt, to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, this worldwide conspiracy has been steadily growing. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America, have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”


rense.com...


After the first Nazi air raid on London Sept. 7, 1940, which killed 306 people, Winston Churchill remarked, "They cheered me as if I'd given them victory, instead of getting their houses bombed to bits." (416)

Churchill was telling the truth.

Unknown to Londoners, he had rejected Hitler's proposal to spare civilian targets. Quite the opposite, he goaded Hitler into bombing London by hitting Berlin and other civilian targets first.

Churchill told his Air Marshall: "Never mistreat an enemy by halves" and instructed his cabinet, "bombing of military objectives, increasingly widely interpreted, seems our best road home at present." He blocked the Red Cross from monitoring civilian casualties. (440)

Before the end of Sept. 1940, 7,000 Londoners including 700 children lay dead. By the end of the war, more than 60,000 British civilians and 650,000 German civilians died from "strategic" bombing.

In 1940, Churchill had to divert attacks from RAF airfields but he also wanted to start the bloodletting. A year had passed with little action. It was being called the "phony war." Hitler was making generous peace offers that many Englishmen wanted to accept.

If Britain had made peace, there would not have been a Jewish holocaust.

Churchill described the Second World War as the "most unnecessary war in history." But he served bankers in the City who had made good his stock market losses and saved his beloved Chartwell from foreclosure. A manic-depressive, he thrived on the rush of war and cared little for ordinary people.

I realize this is not the saccharine history we are spoon-fed. What we term "history" is mostly propaganda, i.e. a cover-up.

My source for the above is David Irving's "Churchill's War"(Avon Books, 1987), which cuts through the sycophancy that characterizes most accounts of World War Two.

What light does it shed on the recent bombings in London? The Second World War was a big step in a long-term program to enslave humanity in a world dictatorship run by the Illuminati (London-based monopoly capital.)

The Illuminati start wars to increase their wealth and power and to control, reshape and brutalize society. The "War on Terror" is intended to make us forfeit civil rights and engage in yet another unnecessary war, this time against Islam.

Most politicians (Churchill, Obama, Clinton, McCain etc.,) are flunkies, con men, traitors and criminals, packaged and sold by (banker-owned) mass media and universities.

edit on 15-1-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


No one knew about the holocaust until WELL into the war. It had NOTHING to do with the beginning of the war.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HenryNorris

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
alright, thanks everybody, was nice debating with you about this, signing off


Awesome thread.

I think Churchil was one of the most evil men in history. No honour. He was a dispicable toad like psychopath.

In WW1 Churchil was in charge of the navy and he was the one that decided to arm passenger ships and break the rules of war. Churchil had no honour. He was a toad. He was always a toad.

What I cant understand is how everyone seems fine with Dresden. Churchil was such an evil monster.


Your "facts" are at variance from the truth.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 

In Churchill's memoirs, he notes how when US President, Franklin D. Roosevelt called him and asked "What shall we call this war" he immediately retorted "The unnecessary war!"

When we look at the causes and the support and financing of Hitler's build up in preparation for war, we see all kinds of strange things, including American-based financing and support from the Vatican.

No I wouldn't lay it at Churchill's feet, nor even entirely at Hitler's. There were other forces at work and in play which helped to set the stage.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Germany de facto existed since 1871. Before that Germany existed in various ways since Charlemagne and Otto the Great. The Germans as an ethnic group existed on the Prussian (now Polish) lands longer than the Poles did. The land that was cut off from Germany after ww1 was historic German land. No one is denying the atrocities in the east, but Hitler's war was different in that he did not do genocide through the air. He did that in other ways, the allies however with they genocidal campaign of fire bombing civilians is another thing.


No. Please, please do some basic research. Prussia was named after the old native Prus - who were Slavs. The Old Prussians were conquered in the 13th Century by the Teutonic Knights. And by the way the Poles had been around for centuries before the Teutonic Knights turned up in the area.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


This is some information on David Irving (notorious holocaust denier) who is the stated source for your Rense quote :-

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by neformore
Hmm.

So Hitler invades Poland, after a phony "peace" where the Reich made various land grabs under nefarious purposes.

And you think Churchill escalated the war... how exactly?


are you referring to the land grabs of Hitler prior to September 1st? All of those were former German land, stolen from them after Versaille 1919. And Germany wasn't the only country to grab land, Hungary and Poland took bits of Czechoslovakia, just like Germany did.


That is totally incorrect. Austria was never a part of Germany, other than a part of the Holy Roman Empire (which the Hapsburgs ran for a large chunk of time). The Sudetenland was never a part of Germany. Bohemia-Moravia was never a part of Germany. You have failed at basic research. Again.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Germany de facto existed since 1871. Before that Germany existed in various ways since Charlemagne and Otto the Great. The Germans as an ethnic group existed on the Prussian (now Polish) lands longer than the Poles did. The land that was cut off from Germany after ww1 was historic German land. No one is denying the atrocities in the east, but Hitler's war was different in that he did not do genocide through the air. He did that in other ways, the allies however with they genocidal campaign of fire bombing civilians is another thing.


No. Please, please do some basic research. Prussia was named after the old native Prus - who were Slavs. The Old Prussians were conquered in the 13th Century by the Teutonic Knights. And by the way the Poles had been around for centuries before the Teutonic Knights turned up in the area.


that doesn't revise anything I said to you. The Germans lived longer on the areas which were stolen from them after Versaille, the Poles occupied land that was 99,9% German



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by neformore
Hmm.

So Hitler invades Poland, after a phony "peace" where the Reich made various land grabs under nefarious purposes.

And you think Churchill escalated the war... how exactly?


are you referring to the land grabs of Hitler prior to September 1st? All of those were former German land, stolen from them after Versaille 1919. And Germany wasn't the only country to grab land, Hungary and Poland took bits of Czechoslovakia, just like Germany did.


That is totally incorrect. Austria was never a part of Germany, other than a part of the Holy Roman Empire (which the Hapsburgs ran for a large chunk of time). The Sudetenland was never a part of Germany. Bohemia-Moravia was never a part of Germany. You have failed at basic research. Again.


dont put words in my mouth, I never said Austria was a part of Germany, although historically very near to it. The Austrians willingly accepted Hitler, the majority in Austria favored the unification. Hitler didn't even plan on unifying with Austria initially...



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


This is some information on David Irving (notorious holocaust denier) who is the stated source for your Rense quote :-

news.bbc.co.uk...



as much as i dislike David Irving as a person, he is not a holocaust denier, although fervent Jewish academics might call him that, Irving has said that he believes that more than 1,5 million Jews died in the Reinhardt camps, so Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdenek and Belzek, and he says another huge number was killed by the einsatzgruppen, he is a revisionist, yes, but not a holocaust denier.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Germany de facto existed since 1871. Before that Germany existed in various ways since Charlemagne and Otto the Great. The Germans as an ethnic group existed on the Prussian (now Polish) lands longer than the Poles did. The land that was cut off from Germany after ww1 was historic German land. No one is denying the atrocities in the east, but Hitler's war was different in that he did not do genocide through the air. He did that in other ways, the allies however with they genocidal campaign of fire bombing civilians is another thing.


No. Please, please do some basic research. Prussia was named after the old native Prus - who were Slavs. The Old Prussians were conquered in the 13th Century by the Teutonic Knights. And by the way the Poles had been around for centuries before the Teutonic Knights turned up in the area.


that doesn't revise anything I said to you. The Germans lived longer on the areas which were stolen from them after Versaille, the Poles occupied land that was 99,9% German


Then you are are still totally wrong. Please, this is embarrassing!
Do some basic research! The Poles occupied land that was stolen from them by the Prussians, the Austrians and the Russians. The Partitions of Poland, remember them? And before that there were NO German kingdoms in that area. Just Slavs and Poles.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


This is some information on David Irving (notorious holocaust denier) who is the stated source for your Rense quote :-

news.bbc.co.uk...



as much as i dislike David Irving as a person, he is not a holocaust denier, although fervent Jewish academics might call him that, Irving has said that he believes that more than 1,5 million Jews died in the Reinhardt camps, so Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdenek and Belzek, and he says another huge number was killed by the einsatzgruppen, he is a revisionist, yes, but not a holocaust denier.


You seem to enjoy being wrong a great deal. Irving is a Holocaust denier - a court of law said so.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by neformore
Hmm.

So Hitler invades Poland, after a phony "peace" where the Reich made various land grabs under nefarious purposes.

And you think Churchill escalated the war... how exactly?


are you referring to the land grabs of Hitler prior to September 1st? All of those were former German land, stolen from them after Versaille 1919. And Germany wasn't the only country to grab land, Hungary and Poland took bits of Czechoslovakia, just like Germany did.


That is totally incorrect. Austria was never a part of Germany, other than a part of the Holy Roman Empire (which the Hapsburgs ran for a large chunk of time). The Sudetenland was never a part of Germany. Bohemia-Moravia was never a part of Germany. You have failed at basic research. Again.


dont put words in my mouth, I never said Austria was a part of Germany, although historically very near to it. The Austrians willingly accepted Hitler, the majority in Austria favored the unification. Hitler didn't even plan on unifying with Austria initially...


Please see your own quote. Your words, not mine.
edit on 15-1-2013 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join