Red Ken suspended
Discussion
Joey Ramone said:
RottenIcons said:
I have taken the liberty of breaking down your post into paragraphs to allow a fulsome reply.
1 Yes, it was. The historical facts back this up. Quoting his thoughts from 10 years earlier is foolish, do the same with Churchill and you get a similar flick-flack of stances and ideas in that time. Judge by what he actually attempted to do in office, not by what he wrote whilst in jail.
2 He held that belief and that is why he militarised Germany as he did, not for a World War but for rapid response to attacks from the jews and their supporters. Let me quote one of the greatest Historians that has ever lived, AJP Taylor: "Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership" That is from his finest and most praised work of his lifetime The Origins of the Second World War page 104. We make a big deal of him getting ready for a World War, he did not and any military man who knows his onions will tell you that he was preparing for an entirely different war.
3 That is the point, but even you in finally accepting Haavara happened and despite me pointing out the fact still want to call it as if the Germans ran it, they did not, it was run by Jews themselves, they had access to 3rd Reich money, they were given all the transport facilities and every German Embassey along the land route was a 'free' way station. It wasn't some half-hearted 'go away' it was a fulsome "You wanna go, we've spoken to the Grand Mufti and arranged for you to have land, your own money and we'll get you there safely and at zero cost" I know it doesn't fit with the narrative of the last 70yrs but victors tell the stories of victory. Until now.
4 No, it was the creation of a home in the Holy Lands, the Jews greatest yearning at the time. He facilitated that and put the 3rd Reich's power behind it.
5 The same goal was shared by both, they were allies, medals were struck that had both the Star of David on one side and a Swastika on the other, a commemoration of the outcome of 2 years secret talks between the Reich and Jewish leaders in reaching the Haavara Agreement.
Please read my reply above, read it carefully, none of it is wrong.
I never denied the agreement happened. Track back through my statements. My point that the Haavara agreement does not make Hitler a Zionist because his interpretation of the Jewish-Bolshevik menace as the defining aspect of Nazi Weltenshauung makes no room for accommodation in this respect.1 Yes, it was. The historical facts back this up. Quoting his thoughts from 10 years earlier is foolish, do the same with Churchill and you get a similar flick-flack of stances and ideas in that time. Judge by what he actually attempted to do in office, not by what he wrote whilst in jail.
2 He held that belief and that is why he militarised Germany as he did, not for a World War but for rapid response to attacks from the jews and their supporters. Let me quote one of the greatest Historians that has ever lived, AJP Taylor: "Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership" That is from his finest and most praised work of his lifetime The Origins of the Second World War page 104. We make a big deal of him getting ready for a World War, he did not and any military man who knows his onions will tell you that he was preparing for an entirely different war.
3 That is the point, but even you in finally accepting Haavara happened and despite me pointing out the fact still want to call it as if the Germans ran it, they did not, it was run by Jews themselves, they had access to 3rd Reich money, they were given all the transport facilities and every German Embassey along the land route was a 'free' way station. It wasn't some half-hearted 'go away' it was a fulsome "You wanna go, we've spoken to the Grand Mufti and arranged for you to have land, your own money and we'll get you there safely and at zero cost" I know it doesn't fit with the narrative of the last 70yrs but victors tell the stories of victory. Until now.
4 No, it was the creation of a home in the Holy Lands, the Jews greatest yearning at the time. He facilitated that and put the 3rd Reich's power behind it.
5 The same goal was shared by both, they were allies, medals were struck that had both the Star of David on one side and a Swastika on the other, a commemoration of the outcome of 2 years secret talks between the Reich and Jewish leaders in reaching the Haavara Agreement.
Please read my reply above, read it carefully, none of it is wrong.
As for AJP Taylor, you're quoting a historian so out of date that no modern historians reference him in any serious analysis of the origins of the Second world war, particularly with respect to Nazi foreign policy. Seeing as he published that work in 1961, you may want to check out some rather more up to date works, by, I dunno, Gerhard Weinberg or Andrews Hillgruber, or just those who spent years painstakingly going through documentation in the archives. Adam Tooze (Formerly Cambridge, now at Yale) won the Wolfson prize in 2007 for ''The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy'. As he states in the introduction to this mammoth analysis of Nazi economic and military policy he states:
"It is hard to imagine now, but there was a time, not so long ago, when Historians routinely dismissed Mein Kampf as a historical source (looking at AJP Taylor here) and thought it reasonable to treat Hitler as just another opportunistic imperialist. Now, thanks to the work of two generations of historians we have a far better understanding of the way in which Nazi ideology conditioned the thoughts and actions of the Nazi leadership and wider German society'."
That Nazi ideology was absolutist is Fundamentally recognised nowadays. Again, as Tooze states,
'Hitler's conduct of the war involved risks so great that they defy rationalisation in terms of pragmatic self interest. And it is with this question that we reconnect to mainstream historiography and its insistence on the importance of Ideology. it was ideology which provided Hitler the lens through which he understood the international balance of power and the unfolding of the increasingly globalised struggle that began with the Spanish Civil War in 1936. in Hitler's mind, the threat posed by the United States was not just that of a conventional superpower. The threat was existential, and bound up with Hitler's abiding fear of the world Jewish conspiracy. It was this fantastical interpretation of the real balance of power that gave Hitler's decision-making its volatile, high risk quality. Germany could not simply settle down to become an affluent satellite of the United States, as had seemed to be the destiny of the Weimar Republic, as this would result in enslavement to the world jewish conspiracy and, ultimately, race-death. Given the pervasive influence of the Jews, as revealed by the mounting international tension of the late 1930's, a prosperous future of capitalist partnership with the West was seemingly impossible, War was inevitable. The question was when, not if"
If you want to know what Hitler really thought when in power read Hitlers own words whilst talking to friends. read 'Table Talk'. His words were taken down as he sat down to supper with friends and he let loose with his real ideas.
There you will find the real Hitler warts and all. Read it. It will make your head explode.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Hitler+The+white...
franki68 said:
RottenIcons said:
cardigankid I am grateful for your post as it has jogged my memory regarding this 'Israel' thing, you are right Hitler did tend to refer to a homeland for Jews as Israel, it's used in exactly in that manner in Mein Kampf, referring to it as a Country.
Hitler did not foresee the future, he was using the term coined by (Louie?) Rothschild when in 1895 the Rothschild family tried, but failed, to buy a huge tract of 'The Holy Land' with the intention of naming it after the Twelve Tribes of Israel, unifying them and calling 'his' purchase 'Israel' (Like Xanadu in Citizen Kane, but much bigger) it took hold and was the name of a Country that didn't yet exist.
In 1933 Hitler did what Rothschild failed to do and what's more he did it without spending a single penny of jewish money, he convinced the Grand Mufti of Palestine to give away land for the settlement of the German Jews. FREE.
Edit. Note the manner in which Israel today repays that original generosity from the people of Palestine. KL is in possession of this knowledge just as much as I am as is anyone who reads this.
Since Palestine was a mandate ,the land was not the grand mufti's to give away ,and if you want to bring him not it it would be shameful not to talk about his plans to build gas chambers to exterminate the Jews,or does that just slip your mind ?Hitler did not foresee the future, he was using the term coined by (Louie?) Rothschild when in 1895 the Rothschild family tried, but failed, to buy a huge tract of 'The Holy Land' with the intention of naming it after the Twelve Tribes of Israel, unifying them and calling 'his' purchase 'Israel' (Like Xanadu in Citizen Kane, but much bigger) it took hold and was the name of a Country that didn't yet exist.
In 1933 Hitler did what Rothschild failed to do and what's more he did it without spending a single penny of jewish money, he convinced the Grand Mufti of Palestine to give away land for the settlement of the German Jews. FREE.
Edit. Note the manner in which Israel today repays that original generosity from the people of Palestine. KL is in possession of this knowledge just as much as I am as is anyone who reads this.
Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 11:33
They became enemies, have you noticed that when emnity arises people who were once friends say and do vile things? But the start of that emnity was Israel and it was Israel that carried that on as we tried to mediate between them only to have the our Servicemen regularly killed by Israeli Terrorists culminating in the bombing of the King David Hotel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bom...
We really fall into the trap that the Pally/Issy lead us to, bickering about tit-for-tat.
Let's keep to KL and his words, he was right and no shilly-shallying can hide that fact.
The cross-hairs should be turned on John Mann now. it is that hysterical cry-bully that has perverted truth this week, he should be the subject of our ire.
Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 11:54
Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 11:56
RottenIcons said:
Mandate or not the accommodation was only the Mufti's to give and his office would have been the beneficiary of the accommodation. Moot point.
They became enemies, have you noticed that when emnity arises people who were once friends say and do vile things? But the start of that emnity was Israel and it was Israel that carried that on as we tried to mediate between them only to have the our Servicemen regularly killed by Israeli Terrorists culminating in the bombing of the King David Hotel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bom...
We really fall into the trap that the Pally/Issy lead us to, bickering about tit-for-tat.
Let's keep to KL and his words, he was right and no shilly-shallying can hide that fact.
The cross-hairs should be turned on John Mann now. it is that hysterical cry-bully that has perverted truth this week, he should be the subject of our ire.
I know you,you're that guy that I exposed a few yeas back,I can't remember your username then...what was it 3000 posts and literally 2999 were on the subject of Israel and Jews ? Never heard of again once exposed but now you're back.They became enemies, have you noticed that when emnity arises people who were once friends say and do vile things? But the start of that emnity was Israel and it was Israel that carried that on as we tried to mediate between them only to have the our Servicemen regularly killed by Israeli Terrorists culminating in the bombing of the King David Hotel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bom...
We really fall into the trap that the Pally/Issy lead us to, bickering about tit-for-tat.
Let's keep to KL and his words, he was right and no shilly-shallying can hide that fact.
The cross-hairs should be turned on John Mann now. it is that hysterical cry-bully that has perverted truth this week, he should be the subject of our ire.
Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 11:54
Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 11:56
I'm sure you will deny it but your arguments are identical nonsense ,your writing style is very similar from what I recall.
Maybe you learned from it and spread your stuff our over more threads,it is you isn't it?
The replies on here and interning and informative and I've learnt quite a lot.
However, in this sound byte world regardless of correctness using Hitler as an example of good isn't really going to get you anywhere and is ill advised at best. Thesis is fine, 90 second radio interview, noooooo.
However, in this sound byte world regardless of correctness using Hitler as an example of good isn't really going to get you anywhere and is ill advised at best. Thesis is fine, 90 second radio interview, noooooo.
boxst said:
The replies on here and interning and informative and I've learnt quite a lot.
However, in this sound byte world regardless of correctness using Hitler as an example of good isn't really going to get you anywhere and is ill advised at best. Thesis is fine, 90 second radio interview, noooooo.
However, in this sound byte world regardless of correctness using Hitler as an example of good isn't really going to get you anywhere and is ill advised at best. Thesis is fine, 90 second radio interview, noooooo.
Can't disagree with that, dumber than a rock.RottenIcons said:
Trouble is Joey Ramone, every military Historian agrees with AJP Taylor.
No they don't. In fact here's a quick list of those that don't.Hugh Trevor-Roper, Isaac Deutscher, Louis Morton, Barbara Tuchman, Ian Morrow, Gerhard Weinberg, G.F. Hudson, Elizabeth Wiskemann, W.N. Medlicott, Tim Mason, John Lukacs, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Frank Freidel, Harry Hinsley, John Wheeler-Bennett, Golo Mann, Lucy Dawidowicz, Gordon A. Craig, A. L. Rowse, Raymond Sontag, Andreas Hillgruber, Yehuda Bauer ad infinitum
Don't bother trying to reference Max Hastings or Anthony Beevor. They're not serious military historians. That title applies to people like Gerhard Weinberg, David French, Sir Michael Howard, Sir Hew Strachan, David Reynolds, Denis Showalter et al
Edited by Joey Ramone on Saturday 30th April 13:36
franki68 said:
RottenIcons said:
Mandate or not the accommodation was only the Mufti's to give and his office would have been the beneficiary of the accommodation. Moot point.
They became enemies, have you noticed that when emnity arises people who were once friends say and do vile things? But the start of that emnity was Israel and it was Israel that carried that on as we tried to mediate between them only to have the our Servicemen regularly killed by Israeli Terrorists culminating in the bombing of the King David Hotel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bom...
We really fall into the trap that the Pally/Issy lead us to, bickering about tit-for-tat.
Let's keep to KL and his words, he was right and no shilly-shallying can hide that fact.
The cross-hairs should be turned on John Mann now. it is that hysterical cry-bully that has perverted truth this week, he should be the subject of our ire.
I know you,you're that guy that I exposed a few yeas back,I can't remember your username then...what was it 3000 posts and literally 2999 were on the subject of Israel and Jews ? Never heard of again once exposed but now you're back.They became enemies, have you noticed that when emnity arises people who were once friends say and do vile things? But the start of that emnity was Israel and it was Israel that carried that on as we tried to mediate between them only to have the our Servicemen regularly killed by Israeli Terrorists culminating in the bombing of the King David Hotel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bom...
We really fall into the trap that the Pally/Issy lead us to, bickering about tit-for-tat.
Let's keep to KL and his words, he was right and no shilly-shallying can hide that fact.
The cross-hairs should be turned on John Mann now. it is that hysterical cry-bully that has perverted truth this week, he should be the subject of our ire.
Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 11:54
Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 11:56
I'm sure you will deny it but your arguments are identical nonsense ,your writing style is very similar from what I recall.
Maybe you learned from it and spread your stuff our over more threads,it is you isn't it?
Joey Ramone said:
RottenIcons said:
Trouble is Joey Ramone, every military Historian agrees with AJP Taylor.
No they don't. In fact here's a quick list of those that don't.Hugh Trevor-Roper, Isaac Deutscher, Louis Morton, Barbara Tuchman, Ian Morrow, Gerhard Weinberg, G.F. Hudson, Elizabeth Wiskemann, W.N. Medlicott, Tim Mason, John Lukacs, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Frank Freidel, Harry Hinsley, John Wheeler-Bennett, Golo Mann, Lucy Dawidowicz, Gordon A. Craig, A. L. Rowse, Raymond Sontag, Andreas Hillgruber, Yehuda Bauer ad infinitum
Don't bother trying to reference Max Hastings or Anthony Beevor. They're not serious military historians. That title applies to people like Gerhard Weinberg, David French, Sir Michael Howard, Sir Hew Strachan, David Reynolds, Denis Showalter et al
Edited by Joey Ramone on Saturday 30th April 13:36
Additionally not one of those historians you list has ever or will ever work for Janes, why? Because they are not ingrained in the detail of operational use, not even a clue for the most part.
AJP Taylor remains the definitive guide to this precisely because he used Fuller and Hart who knew every detail of operational tactic weaponry.
My quote from AJPT is the finest short summation of Hitler's tactical position in September 1939, absolutely no doubt about it.
You only have to look at the course of the war itself to see just how true that was, take off the blinkers and see how he planned each assault using the short-duration 'Blitzkrieg' to it's best advantage. His main intention was not war in Europe it was to attack Russia, probably in 1942 or 1943.
He did not build up a Navy to take us on, it was tiny in comparison to ours, instead used the Wolf Pack, again, maximum damage in short bursts, every single detail of the progress of WW2 shows that Germany was preparing for the destruction of the Communists that he saw to the East.
I'll stop here as I don't really think we can develop argument further and it is a further diversion from the main topic, but I will close with another quote from AJP Taylor from the same book, it is from the Comparison of Armament potential section of it, it is again a stunning summation of what went before it. "The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all" (The Origins of the Second World War) He was right then in 1961 and he is equally right today.
It's a great book, as is Hitler's Table Talk buy both, read both, consider all they convey, make a judgement then about the 'Victors Story' you and countless others have swallowed whole.
The weather is kind, the sun has burned away the clouds, these are the good times, make the very most of them, we're all gonna miss them when they're gone.
You're cool with me and it's good to debate.
Edited to correct the names of the real Military Historians, originally quoted names of those more associated with financial affairs of the era.
Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 14:46
AJPT was a wee bit mixed up. A left winger by upbringing he was firmly political in most of his writing and broadcasting. Everything was based on his political beliefs. He was fabulous on TV - so good he was frequently banned - but his logic was a little strained at times.
No historian is ever right, in exactly the same way that no scientist every is. Every historian is a revisionist; it is a requirement of the job. In January 1914 there was a series of reviews of five or six books on the causes of WWI in The Times. They disagreed with one-another and on fundamentals.
There is no definitive cause of WWII. Not yet and not ever.
Taylor had a peculiar and unsupported view of Germany. He hated the country and its peoples and this coloured his interpretations. That said, he could still be right of course.
His tortuous views on the nature of Germans verged on laughable and nowadays would be classed as racist. Well worth reading but seriously weird.
Historians are not always, in my experience, and I have read a bit, the seekers after ultimate truth. They have agenda.
Quoting the interpretations of historians is fraught with difficulty. For everyone saying A there's another favouring B, and probably twice as many reckoning C. Then there'll be those suggesting 7.
There's only one way of judging a person, and that's by what he or she does. Everything else is fluff. They can say what they like, and profess belief in whatever, it means little. Vicars bugger little children right after mass.
No historian is ever right, in exactly the same way that no scientist every is. Every historian is a revisionist; it is a requirement of the job. In January 1914 there was a series of reviews of five or six books on the causes of WWI in The Times. They disagreed with one-another and on fundamentals.
There is no definitive cause of WWII. Not yet and not ever.
Taylor had a peculiar and unsupported view of Germany. He hated the country and its peoples and this coloured his interpretations. That said, he could still be right of course.
His tortuous views on the nature of Germans verged on laughable and nowadays would be classed as racist. Well worth reading but seriously weird.
Historians are not always, in my experience, and I have read a bit, the seekers after ultimate truth. They have agenda.
Quoting the interpretations of historians is fraught with difficulty. For everyone saying A there's another favouring B, and probably twice as many reckoning C. Then there'll be those suggesting 7.
There's only one way of judging a person, and that's by what he or she does. Everything else is fluff. They can say what they like, and profess belief in whatever, it means little. Vicars bugger little children right after mass.
If you are going to explain or map out the roadmap to war, any war then the words you speak or write will have to at times appear nonsensical, that is because along that road many of the decisions made were themselves nonsensical. The real test is 'cohesive consequence', not logic. The "Victors Story" we were all taught here in the UK since 1945 has too many pot holes and some consequences and actions just make no sense.
I've put this 'test' question up a couple of weeks ago and repeat it once more: Explain to me, if you have been told the full truth about the path to WW2, why did we declare War on only Germany when both Germany and Russia invaded Poland?
Why was it that no Allied Nation declared war on Russia despite us losing men to their Army in conflict and them killing 10's of thousands of Poles? When you discover the reason, when you dig enough to find out this startling reason, you will be on the road to a far greater understanding of WW2.
I know that Ken Livingstone knows the answer. I've encountered no-one on here to date that does.
But now you've been told the fact we didn't declare war on Russia (90% of people don't even know that Russia was a belligerent but almost 100% don't know we didn't declare war despite suffering losses) and I can tell you that we made a purposeful decision in the HoP in one of the rare secret assemblies of the HoC, where the penalty for even mentioning that this secret Parliament even met behind closed doors was death under the law of treason, it might just raise sufficient interest to find out why this happened.
Hansard was excluded and only the Clerks record exists that it happened at all. But you can find out, if you dig, you'll need a stiff drink when you do find out.
Oh and about 99.999999% of the people who were born and live in the UK will not know that we have a Parliament that meets in secret and has done so almost 100 times since 1899 when the provisions were made for it to happen.
Those 2 ever higher barriers to understanding real history means that people like AJPT, KL, Corbyn and Myself can spot each other from our words like a sailor can spot a w
e house from his ship as his foot touches dry land. It's a beacon.
First thing to do, check the facts. Did we declare war on Russia? Does the HoC meet secretly and did it do so immediately upon the Russian invasion of Poland? Once you've established that as fact and you are satisfied that I am telling you the truth, you then have a damned good reason to start digging.
I've put this 'test' question up a couple of weeks ago and repeat it once more: Explain to me, if you have been told the full truth about the path to WW2, why did we declare War on only Germany when both Germany and Russia invaded Poland?
Why was it that no Allied Nation declared war on Russia despite us losing men to their Army in conflict and them killing 10's of thousands of Poles? When you discover the reason, when you dig enough to find out this startling reason, you will be on the road to a far greater understanding of WW2.
I know that Ken Livingstone knows the answer. I've encountered no-one on here to date that does.
But now you've been told the fact we didn't declare war on Russia (90% of people don't even know that Russia was a belligerent but almost 100% don't know we didn't declare war despite suffering losses) and I can tell you that we made a purposeful decision in the HoP in one of the rare secret assemblies of the HoC, where the penalty for even mentioning that this secret Parliament even met behind closed doors was death under the law of treason, it might just raise sufficient interest to find out why this happened.
Hansard was excluded and only the Clerks record exists that it happened at all. But you can find out, if you dig, you'll need a stiff drink when you do find out.
Oh and about 99.999999% of the people who were born and live in the UK will not know that we have a Parliament that meets in secret and has done so almost 100 times since 1899 when the provisions were made for it to happen.
Those 2 ever higher barriers to understanding real history means that people like AJPT, KL, Corbyn and Myself can spot each other from our words like a sailor can spot a w
e house from his ship as his foot touches dry land. It's a beacon.First thing to do, check the facts. Did we declare war on Russia? Does the HoC meet secretly and did it do so immediately upon the Russian invasion of Poland? Once you've established that as fact and you are satisfied that I am telling you the truth, you then have a damned good reason to start digging.
It doesn't matter if the details of what Livingstone said to Vanessa Feltz were right, invoking "Hitler did it" (aka the Godwin defence) as a way to address the issue of Naz Shah being suspended it crass and stupid. If he can't see that he needs to be muzzled. WTF was he doing on the radio AGAIN this morning.
What Livingstone *completely* fails to understand is the damage he's doing to the Labour party. Many Jewish immigrants were far left. My grandparents met as members of the communist cycling club. My grandfather was a communist agitator.
My father has always voted for Labour, with one exception. He voted for Boris *only* to get Livingstone out.
And it's not about Corbynista/Blairite party factions. Cherie Blair once caused controversy by saying that having visited Palestinian refugee camps she understood why people became suicide bombers. You don't get much more Blairite than being married to the man.
There is an anti-semitic hue to the Labour party, both old and new guard and it might have been possible for Corbyn to do something about it in a considered way. What Livingstone has done is hand all of the moral high ground to Zionist organisations by throwing a spotlight on the problem.
Simon
What Livingstone *completely* fails to understand is the damage he's doing to the Labour party. Many Jewish immigrants were far left. My grandparents met as members of the communist cycling club. My grandfather was a communist agitator.
My father has always voted for Labour, with one exception. He voted for Boris *only* to get Livingstone out.
And it's not about Corbynista/Blairite party factions. Cherie Blair once caused controversy by saying that having visited Palestinian refugee camps she understood why people became suicide bombers. You don't get much more Blairite than being married to the man.
There is an anti-semitic hue to the Labour party, both old and new guard and it might have been possible for Corbyn to do something about it in a considered way. What Livingstone has done is hand all of the moral high ground to Zionist organisations by throwing a spotlight on the problem.
Simon
RottenIcons said:
A point of view.
You have your ideas on what caused WWII. I was taught in the 50s that it was a continuation of WWI. There's an awful lot of logic to support that contention, together with facts. But the proposition is wrong because it is simplistic. Your thoughts are also wrong as are those of AJPT. History is a subject without definitive answers.
Every history book is written in order to sell. In the case of a university professor, there are other needs. The one fact that comes out is that despite agreements, disagreements, those pulling rank of superiority, there will be another book in five years, equally valid.
History is a collection of best ideas that will be refuted then or later.
You have your beliefs. They seem to be based on political bias. But just accept that they are a guess as neither you nor any university knows the truth. To believe anything is to be wrong.
A little while ago I read The Sleepwalkers. Fascinating. The logic is irrefutable and there are references and facts galore. Convinced me. It also contradicted AJPT. But it is wrong. I know that.
I read a book which suggested that the cause of WWI and hence WWII dated back to William and Mary. With that logic one could take it back to Cromwell. But the logic was pristine.
I have read lots on the British Civil Wars of the 17th C. I have read that it was a religious war, one of revolution of the workers, one of political bias, once even Marxist, and many other reasons. What we can say is that its cause was multi-faceted.
But that might be wrong.
If you are convinced on one point of view, which you seem to be, you should read more.
simonrockman said:
It doesn't matter if the details of what Livingstone said to Vanessa Feltz were right...
Only a person with Communist credentials could write that. It really does matter, it matters a huge amount to most of us, it is only to a 'select' few that it matters not one jot. Takes all sorts I suppose.Western Civilisation: Truth Matters.
Derek Smith said:
You have your ideas on what caused WWII. I was taught in the 50s that it was a continuation of WWI. There's an awful lot of logic to support that contention, together with facts. But the proposition is wrong because it is simplistic.
Your thoughts are also wrong as are those of AJPT. History is a subject without definitive answers.
Every history book is written in order to sell. In the case of a university professor, there are other needs. The one fact that comes out is that despite agreements, disagreements, those pulling rank of superiority, there will be another book in five years, equally valid.
History is a collection of best ideas that will be refuted then or later.
You have your beliefs. They seem to be based on political bias. But just accept that they are a guess as neither you nor any university knows the truth. To believe anything is to be wrong.
A little while ago I read The Sleepwalkers. Fascinating. The logic is irrefutable and there are references and facts galore. Convinced me. It also contradicted AJPT. But it is wrong. I know that.
I read a book which suggested that the cause of WWI and hence WWII dated back to William and Mary. With that logic one could take it back to Cromwell. But the logic was pristine.
I have read lots on the British Civil Wars of the 17th C. I have read that it was a religious war, one of revolution of the workers, one of political bias, once even Marxist, and many other reasons. What we can say is that its cause was multi-faceted.
But that might be wrong.
If you are convinced on one point of view, which you seem to be, you should read more.
You are correct, WW2 was a consequence of the Great War and also the brokered peace.Your thoughts are also wrong as are those of AJPT. History is a subject without definitive answers.
Every history book is written in order to sell. In the case of a university professor, there are other needs. The one fact that comes out is that despite agreements, disagreements, those pulling rank of superiority, there will be another book in five years, equally valid.
History is a collection of best ideas that will be refuted then or later.
You have your beliefs. They seem to be based on political bias. But just accept that they are a guess as neither you nor any university knows the truth. To believe anything is to be wrong.
A little while ago I read The Sleepwalkers. Fascinating. The logic is irrefutable and there are references and facts galore. Convinced me. It also contradicted AJPT. But it is wrong. I know that.
I read a book which suggested that the cause of WWI and hence WWII dated back to William and Mary. With that logic one could take it back to Cromwell. But the logic was pristine.
I have read lots on the British Civil Wars of the 17th C. I have read that it was a religious war, one of revolution of the workers, one of political bias, once even Marxist, and many other reasons. What we can say is that its cause was multi-faceted.
But that might be wrong.
If you are convinced on one point of view, which you seem to be, you should read more.
For me the real culprit was Marshall Smigly, it is his belligerence that brought about the invasion of Poland and plunged the World into war, again. From memory his infamous often spoken words (possibly paraphrasing) throughout the Spring and Summer 1939; 'We will have a war with Germany, whether Hitler wants it or not'.
RottenIcons said:
Those 2 ever higher barriers to understanding real history means that people like AJPT, KL, Corbyn and Myself can spot each other from our words like a sailor can spot a we house from his ship as his foot touches dry land. It's a beacon.
You do think an awful lot of yourself, don't you!!e house from his ship as his foot touches dry land. It's a beacon.sidicks said:
RottenIcons said:
Those 2 ever higher barriers to understanding real history means that people like AJPT, KL, Corbyn and Myself can spot each other from our words like a sailor can spot a we house from his ship as his foot touches dry land. It's a beacon.
You do think an awful lot of yourself, don't you!!e house from his ship as his foot touches dry land. It's a beacon.
RottenIcons said:
I'd hazard a guess that both those facts about the most important matters that concern the entire course of WW2 were unknown to you then!
It's a generic comment based on the majority of your posts, many of which have been completely wrong, no matter how confident your comments have appeared.I know very little about WW1 or WW2 but given the nonsense you've posted elsewhere, I'm certainly not inclined to believe you on this either!
If WWI and II were the same war but with a period of R&R in between then this lowers the blame apportioned to AH for starting it. Certainly the demand from France for reparations was resisted by other allies. The logic of the settlement after WWI, which reduced Germany to penury, being the catalyst for WWII would tend to indicate that we owe our post war period of peace to the USA, and its largesse with Marshall, the loan to the UK and the financial benefits to Germany of occupying forces.
These are fascinating theories, and fun to run with, but again are simplistic.
But I see little argument against AH being a racist as far as Jews were concerned. The behaviour of 'encouraging' Jews to leave is racist behaviour almost by definition. It wasn't done for the sake of the Jews.
These are fascinating theories, and fun to run with, but again are simplistic.
But I see little argument against AH being a racist as far as Jews were concerned. The behaviour of 'encouraging' Jews to leave is racist behaviour almost by definition. It wasn't done for the sake of the Jews.
sidicks said:
RottenIcons said:
Those 2 ever higher barriers to understanding real history means that people like AJPT, KL, Corbyn and Myself can spot each other from our words like a sailor can spot a we house from his ship as his foot touches dry land. It's a beacon.
You do think an awful lot of yourself, don't you!!e house from his ship as his foot touches dry land. It's a beacon.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff