Jews to blame for Global Warming???

Well that's a relief.... I'll go tell the wife to gas up the SUV for that long trip we've been desiring...

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

In a campaign that has spread like wildfire across the Internet, a group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jews around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukka to help the environment.

The founders of the Green Hanukkia campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.

"The campaign calls for Jews around the world to save the last candle and save the planet, so we won't need another miracle," said Liad Ortar, the campaign's cofounder, who runs the Arkada environmental consulting firm and the Ynet Web site's environmental forum. "Global warming is a milestone in human evolution that requires us to rethink how we live our lives, and one of the main paradigms of that is religion and how it fits into the current situation."

Cofounder Tom Wegner, who heads the public relations firm Update Marketing Media, spread the campaign via mass e-mails and through social interaction Web sites like Facebook and Hook.co.il. He said no money had been invested in the campaign, but it had already raised awareness around the world and made people realize that they have to consider the environment this Hanukka.

Who would have ever guessed?

load of bollocks,or is it?

Must admit the things we do must add to global warming/carbon footprint blah,blah,blah.

Unfortunately,it seems to be the "buzzword" at the minute,thought it might have gone away for a while,as usually most stuff does after a couple of weeks,but me thinks the global warming/carbon footprint debate might be around for quite a while.

So we knacker the o-zone with our cars,but does anyone honestly think that the big oil companies and the major government of the world,namely the U.S really gives a toss?

The world has survived on oil and oil derivitaves for far too long.

The only oil company,as far as i know,which regularly invests in "other" renewable energy is B.P.

But this is on a very loose basis,by this is mean their solar projects in Africa.

(must hasten to add that i am a B.P shareholder)

and:

China is fastly becoming the biggest economy of the world, because of western consumer demand for cheap products,and is now the worlds BIGGEST polluter of the environment,although the U.S is the next worst.

Funnily enough one of the greenest/cleanest cities in the world is actually Sao Paulo,there they recycle everything,including the methane that old landfill sites produce in great quantities,this is used to powere several thousand homes.

as for global warming,spose it is true,as far as my part of the world is concerned,i mean, i have NEVER seen any moths or flies after late october,or perhaps the moths just came out of my wallet,i dont know.

I dont really know where i'm going with this reply,eccept to say:

one mans ceiling is another mans floor?

What next? Blame Global Warming on the Hindus for Diwali, the UK for Guy Fawkes Night, the World for setting off fireworks on New Year.

Personally, I blame it on that 77 year old in Devon and his farting old fart

I blame the joggers. All that panting and exhaling C02. Do the planet a favour and reduce your C02 output by cutting out all physical exercise!

As an added bonus, fat people constitute a 'carbon sink'! The UK and US's obesity crisis is really an anti global warming strategy in the making.

Admittedly its all released again when you kick the bucket, but you can compensate for that by having even fatter children. Either that or we use the dead as a source of heating fuel. Or eat them. But that's getting silly.

One of the main contributors to global warming is cows breaking wind. Yes indeed. Believe it. Look it up if you don't. We should all do more to recycle and conserve energy for the sake of our kids.

Oh, and don't fret bout Bonfire Night. It'll be banned within 5 years time. Where else on earth is it a ritual on one day of the year to burn everything combustable on the back of trying to blow up the government.

Think we should put all the effort into ridding this rotten government instead, but thats for another thread.

i'm all for blaming the jews.

Alf wrote: One of the main contributors to global warming is cows breaking wind. Yes indeed. Believe it. Look it up if you don't. We should all do more to recycle and conserve energy for the sake of our kids.

Oh, and don't fret bout Bonfire Night. It'll be banned within 5 years time. Where else on earth is it a ritual on one day of the year to burn everything combustable on the back of trying to blow up the government.

Think we should put all the effort into ridding this rotten government instead, but thats for another thread.

Perhaps we should burn the goverment!

catholics.:D

I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

Best way to reduce CO2?

STOP BREATHING IT OUT!

I'll give the gorians an inconvenient truth...... "too many monkeys".

Alf wrote:

Oh, and don't fret bout Bonfire Night. It'll be banned within 5 years time. Where else on earth is it a ritual on one day of the year to burn everything combustable on the back of trying to blow up the government.

Never! They can't ban 'national give idiots explosives day'!

404 error wrote:

Alf wrote:

Oh, and don't fret bout Bonfire Night. It'll be banned within 5 years time. Where else on earth is it a ritual on one day of the year to burn everything combustable on the back of trying to blow up the government.

Never! They can't ban 'national give idiots explosives day'!

Ahhh the HSE, Satan's little helpers, banning and restricting all the reall excellent opportunities for Darwin awards. Simultaneously urning the current generation into folks who, if it's not personally explained to them, will not fathom out the nature of the very short but enormously wide field in which they find themselves, nor the meaning of the four long iron rods stretching across it, right up until the train totals their car.

And heres me just completed my Environmental Auditors training!!!!!!!!!

Doctor? wrote: I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

"Indeed !" Far easier to find what they haven't been blamed for.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote: I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

"Indeed !" Far easier to find what they haven't been blamed for.

Did the Jews cause WWII???

All I'm saying to that is this--

Jeff, you are one smartass bastard that needs a good smack in the face... with an ELECTRIC menorah.

Cnut.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote: I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

"Indeed !" Far easier to find what they haven't been blamed for.

Did the Jews cause WWII???

Tricky question...

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Trans-Kraftwerk Express wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote: I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

"Indeed !" Far easier to find what they haven't been blamed for.

Did the Jews cause WWII???

All I'm saying to that is this--

Jeff, you are one smartass bastard that needs a good smack in the face... with an ELECTRIC menorah.

Cnut.

Erm...death to Macca's?!?!

Most piss-poor comeback I've heard in a while.

Animadversion wrote: catholics.:D

Texans

Whats a Menorah?

is it an auntie?

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: Okay, how about fuck off you retarded Japanese cartoon watching cunt...

better?

Oh, and you can shove that electric menorah up your ass...

Just remember--there's a lot of people I know who are a lot smarter than you are. And they're JEWISH!

Make sure that electric menorah doesn't electrocute your ass. ;)

Jiphy wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote: I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

"Indeed !" Far easier to find what they haven't been blamed for.

Did the Jews cause WWII???

Tricky question...

Not really mate.

No. Is the answer, and categorically NO!

Krups, Blue Circle, and other big businesses (most of whom are still around) in Germany were so afraid of "Bolshevism" and Real Reds like Rosa Luxembourg: that they supported anyone who they thought could stop them, which meant Hitler/The Nazi party.

(It's a TOTAL myth that Hitler seized power, he was voted into office.)

The first people the Nazi's killed everywhere they went wasn't the Jews or the disabled or any of their other victims it was the Reds, the dirty commies and socialists.

Look what the bastards did to poor Rosa.

MIMX wrote:

Jiphy wrote: Tricky question...

Not really mate.

No. Is the answer, and categorically NO!

Krups, Blue Circle, and other big businesses (most of whom are still around) in Germany were so afraid of "Bolshevism" and Real Reds like Rosa Luxembourg: that they supported anyone who they thought could stop them, which meant Hitler/The Nazi party.

(It's a TOTAL myth that Hitler seized power, he was voted into office.)

The first people the Nazi's killed everywhere they went wasn't the Jews or the disabled or any of their other victims it was the Reds, the dirty commies and socialists.

Look what the bastards did to poor Rosa.

What about being a jewish communist gay ?

MIMX wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote: I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

"Indeed !" Far easier to find what they haven't been blamed for.

Did the Jews cause WWII???

Tricky question...

Not really mate.

No. Is the answer, and categorically NO!

Krups, Blue Circle, and other big businesses (most of whom are still around) in Germany were so afraid of "Bolshevism" and Real Reds like Rosa Luxembourg: that they supported anyone who they thought could stop them, which meant Hitler/The Nazi party.

(It's a TOTAL myth that Hitler seized power, he was voted into office.)

The first people the Nazi's killed everywhere they went wasn't the Jews or the disabled or any of their other victims it was the Reds, the dirty commies and socialists.

Look what the bastards did to poor Rosa.

Sometime I wonder. Every single occupied country by the Nazis did offer their jewish citizens to them without difficulties... Why were there only a few to protect/hide them by the time ?

Jiphy wrote:

MIMX wrote:

Jiphy wrote: Tricky question...

Not really mate.

No. Is the answer, and categorically NO!

Krups, Blue Circle, and other big businesses (most of whom are still around) in Germany were so afraid of "Bolshevism" and Real Reds like Rosa Luxembourg: that they supported anyone who they thought could stop them, which meant Hitler/The Nazi party.

(It's a TOTAL myth that Hitler seized power, he was voted into office.)

The first people the Nazi's killed everywhere they went wasn't the Jews or the disabled or any of their other victims it was the Reds, the dirty commies and socialists.

Look what the bastards did to poor Rosa.

What about being a Jewish communist gay ?

I guess that there must have been a few, both Rosa and Karl were "Jewish" (atheist "Jews" obviously), so there must have been a few bendy-of Jewish descent-reds, and well; they were fucked weren't they!

MIMX wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote: I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

"Indeed !" Far easier to find what they haven't been blamed for.

Did the Jews cause WWII???

Tricky question...

Not really mate.

No. Is the answer, and categorically NO!

Krups, Blue Circle, and other big businesses (most of whom are still around) in Germany were so afraid of "Bolshevism" and Real Reds like Rosa Luxembourg: that they supported anyone who they thought could stop them, which meant Hitler/The Nazi party.

(It's a TOTAL myth that Hitler seized power, he was voted into office.)

The first people the Nazi's killed everywhere they went wasn't the Jews or the disabled or any of their other victims it was the Reds, the dirty commies and socialists.

Look what the bastards did to poor Rosa.

I dunno. They made Hitler angry. Arguably wound up. Perhaps he would have channelled his anger elsewhere, rather than trying to create a master race.

Burt Reynolds wrote: I dunno. They made Hitler angry. Arguably wound up. Perhaps he would have channelled his anger elsewhere, rather than trying to create a master race.

With "what if(s)?", we can rewrite History. Last time I was thinking : "What if Hitler's teachers gave him his degree at the Vienna School of Arts ?"

Hitler was just a figurehead. If it hadn't been him it would have been some other hate filled half wit. The country was ripe for political change. It's economy was in tatters and is was torn by civil unrest and political fights.

Part of the reason they (German Capitalists) were so scared of the reds was due to a failed revolution in Germany itself.

They'd been treated abysmally at the end of WW1, but had always had a strong streak of militarism (The Prussians) the anti-Semitic part of Nazism, may have been milder with no Hitler, but it was endemic throughout Europe, and strong within Germany itself, Hitler alone as a man would have achieved nothing, without the backing of Germany's ruling class. But if he'd never existed things wouldn't have taken a vastly different road.

MIMX wrote: Hitler was just a figurehead. If it hadn't been him it would have been some other hate filled half wit. The country was ripe for political change. It's economy was in tatters and is was torn by civil unrest and political fights.

Part of the reason they (German Capitalists) were so scared of the reds was due to a failed revolution in Germany itself.

They'd been treated abysmally at the end of WW1, but had always had a strong streak of militarism (The Prussians) the anti-Semitic part of Nazism, may have been milder with no Hitler, but it was endemic throughout Europe, and strong within Germany itself, Hitler alone as a man would have achieved nothing, without the backing of Germany's ruling class. But if he'd never existed things wouldn't have taken a vastly different road.

What you said is right. At school I had a German teacher of German and she once told us that the Nazis had been surprised by the population response to the election of Hitler concerning the Jews. The population began before the laws were voted or the order given. She was from Berlin and pround of it. This town made Hitler crazy as it was the capital city of the III Reich as well as the less nazi one.

Then we agree on another point. Europe was more or less (far more than less) anti-semitic by the time.

And how strange that the fate of the militarian Prussians were in the hands of an Austrian citizen ?

MIMX wrote: But if he'd never existed things wouldn't have taken a vastly different road.

Really have to disagree here. On the many negatives re: what he did in terms of aggression to surrounding nations, and the positives i.e. the most amazing economic turnaround in world history. These two are linked though.

Can't see anyone else heading down that path with such voracity and success. Country was on floor in 1929, wheelbarrows of marks needed to buy a loaf of bread etc. You have to put his economic policy down to a little bit of genius.

Bit more than dodgy on the anti-Semitism stuff, obviously, but hungry people will follow anything for a while if things are improving, and when they stop following, coercion helps together with building up almost a religious style cult following.

El Jarvo wrote:

Jiphy wrote: Sometime I wonder. Every single occupied country by the Nazis did offer their jewish citizens to them without difficulties... Why were there only a few to protect/hide them by the time ?*

Whoah there! Where did you learn history?! You happily offered up Jews who weren't born in France! But made sure your own were, relatively, okay.

That is precisely what I was trying to say in my weak English. The authorities did not only send the foreign Jews to Germany but many of the French born ones too. "The place to be", if I may say so, was Northern Africa. They were out of everything, tolerated in ghettos but never sent to Poland, via Germany.

El Jarvo wrote: Then again, the Germans never actually had more than 1500 troops in France at one time during their occupation.

But let's not get started, hey?

But they were more than that in 1940 before you left in Dunkirk after having tried to save us... We agree on that point ?

edit : "Why were there only a few to protect/hide them by the time ?" I was not meaning states (they all collaborated), I was meaning people, who said no and acted so. Maybe here is the misunderstanding.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

MIMX wrote: But if he'd never existed things wouldn't have taken a vastly different road.

Really have to disagree here. On the many negatives re: what he did in terms of aggression to surrounding nations, and the positives i.e. the most amazing economic turnaround in world history. These two are linked though.

Can't see anyone else heading down that path with such voracity and success. Country was on floor in 1929, wheelbarrows of marks needed to buy a loaf of bread etc. You have to put his economic policy down to a little bit of genius.

Bit more than dodgy on the anti-Semitism stuff, obviously, but hungry people will follow anything for a while if things are improving, and when they stop following, coercion helps together with building up almost a religious style cult following.

I must admit you've kinda lost me here Burt; what he did to surrounding nations was only what Germany had been trying to do since long before Hitler (the Austrian) was conceived, never mind born. It was one of the main reasons for WW1, (capitalist expansion of markets, thirst for colonies etc etc) and the genius that you talk of is the genius of any country whose economy is geared for war, or like Spain and Italy at the time, ran by a Fascist dictator.

PS Of course the Spanish & Italian dictators didn't have quite the same economic success but their countries were far less economically developed at the time.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

MIMX wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote: I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

"Indeed !" Far easier to find what they haven't been blamed for.

Did the Jews cause WWII???

Tricky question...

Not really mate.

No. Is the answer, and categorically NO!

Krups, Blue Circle, and other big businesses (most of whom are still around) in Germany were so afraid of "Bolshevism" and Real Reds like Rosa Luxembourg: that they supported anyone who they thought could stop them, which meant Hitler/The Nazi party.

(It's a TOTAL myth that Hitler seized power, he was voted into office.)

The first people the Nazi's killed everywhere they went wasn't the Jews or the disabled or any of their other victims it was the Reds, the dirty commies and socialists.

Look what the bastards did to poor Rosa.

I dunno. They made Hitler angry. Arguably wound up. Perhaps he would have channelled his anger elsewhere, rather than trying to create a master race.

he did create a master race. whispers really low...north korea

Animadversion wrote:

he did create a master race. whispers really low...north korea

STOP SHOUTING

...this is how you whisper...

MIMX wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

MIMX wrote: But if he'd never existed things wouldn't have taken a vastly different road.

Really have to disagree here. On the many negatives re: what he did in terms of aggression to surrounding nations, and the positives i.e. the most amazing economic turnaround in world history. These two are linked though.

Can't see anyone else heading down that path with such voracity and success. Country was on floor in 1929, wheelbarrows of marks needed to buy a loaf of bread etc. You have to put his economic policy down to a little bit of genius.

Bit more than dodgy on the anti-Semitism stuff, obviously, but hungry people will follow anything for a while if things are improving, and when they stop following, coercion helps together with building up almost a religious style cult following.

I must admit you've kinda lost me here Burt; what he did to surrounding nations was only what Germany had been trying to do since long before Hitler (the Austrian) was conceived, never mind born. It was one of the main reasons for WW1, (capitalist expansion of markets, thirst for colonies etc etc) and the genius that you talk of is the genius of any country whose economy is geared for war, or like Spain and Italy at the time, ran by a Fascist dictator.

PS Of course the Spanish & Italian dictators didn't have quite the same economic success but their countries were far less economically developed at the time.

It's simple really. Germany was virtually a third world country when Hitler took over, yet five years later was classed as a superpower, through a stunning economic policy and a series of impressive and aggressive bluffs and stand-offs. Without this ridiculous economic growth and turnaround, none of the subsequent horrors would have happened or have been financeable.

I went to a series of lectures by the renowned economic historian, AJP Taylor in the eighties (thanks to Mr Nash for jogging my memory), about Adolfs economic policy, and the impression was that it he oversaw a set of masterstrokes re: quick economic growth. If the nutter had stopped in 1938, well who knows.

I don't think this positive side of his policy would have been achieved by anyone else. Unfortunately, the good was followed, by the rest.

Burt mate I'm finding it really fucking hard to stomach your obvious and overt admiration for Hitler.

So I'm just going leave this thread alone for a while, you should have tried to pay more attention to Mr Talyor (I own many of his books, he in no way admired the man).

And payed more attention to the real economic advances made in Germany before Hitler.

MIMX wrote: Burt mate I'm finding it really fucking hard to stomach your obvious and overt admiration for Hitler.

I don't think so. Perhaps all that Special Brew is affecting your reading.

MIMX wrote: So I'm just going leave this thread alone for a while, you should have tried to pay more attention to Mr Talyor (I own many of his books, he in no way admired the man).

AJP was an economic historian. Did a series of lectures on Hitler's economic policy up to 1938. Whether he admired him or not, he certainly rated his economic policy highly. Its there clearly in the history books anyway; such swift turnarounds in a country's fortune do not happen without a bit of genius. As I think i said a few times earlier, shame what it led onto.

I always thought that Hitler's economic policies consisted of ignoring the actual economics. War was the inevitable outcome to keep the system going, with conquered loot of course.

Hum this sounds vaguely familiar.

Chris Nash wrote: If Hitler hadn't been an insane, racist, nationalist murdering bigot, he would quite possibly have been regarded as being one of the greatest world leaders in history. Such a shame. If he'd followed his economic and domestic policies with positive coercion and incentive-led initiatives and sought peaceful alliance and reconciliation with his European neighbours, things would have been so different.

When you think about the way the German people have discarded the Nazi legacy and that of the former Soviet Union with such grace and dignity and become one of UK/USA's closest allies, it goes to show the resiliance and perseverance of the German people. : oktoberfest:

And Mal - I really don't think Burt is expressing any admiration for Hitler as a person, rather the potential for the economic growth/stability that could have been peacefully achieved

I think we will be dead when it happens, but I sometimes think that he will be seen under a different light later. Think, Napoléon did more or less the same thing in his time (except genocides) and is in every history books. France was completly down and without men who died everywhere through Europe after his fall. Some cunts claim he was a genius.

MIMX wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote: I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

"Indeed !" Far easier to find what they haven't been blamed for.

Did the Jews cause WWII???

Tricky question...

Not really mate.

No. Is the answer, and categorically NO!

(It's a TOTAL myth that Hitler seized power, he was voted into office.)

Look what the bastards did to poor Rosa.

That is a bit of a mismomer. The NAZIs were never held the majority in the Reichstag. They were the largest party, yes It is due to other parties being in coalition with them that they gained power. Hitler then convinced the president to grant him emergency power, and we know the rest.

NOOLigan wrote: I always thought that Hitler's economic policies consisted of ignoring the actual economics. War was the inevitable outcome to keep the system going, with conquered loot of course.

Hum this sounds vaguely familiar.

Make the others starve to keep the system going despite the costs of war. I agree on that point. In fact, this is what he did. I remembered some figures... 30% of his husband's salary given to a British woman, when he was on the front. In Germany, it was 80%. So, where the money was coming from ?

Jiphy wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: I always thought that Hitler's economic policies consisted of ignoring the actual economics. War was the inevitable outcome to keep the system going, with conquered loot of course.

Hum this sounds vaguely familiar.

Make the others starve to keep the system going despite the costs of war. I agree on that point. In fact, this is what he did. I remembered some figures... 30% of his husband's salary given to a British woman, when he was on the front. In Germany, it was 80%. So, where the money was coming from ?

I think from memory, devaluing the mark was the masterstroke. Renaming it the deutschmark etc at 10x. Thankfully, subsequent world economic law will never let that happen again.

As Mr Taylor said, if Germany had stopped in 1938, it would be a different more Germanic world today, one suspects.

Jiphy wrote:

Chris Nash wrote: If Hitler hadn't been an insane, racist, nationalist murdering bigot, he would quite possibly have been regarded as being one of the greatest world leaders in history. Such a shame. If he'd followed his economic and domestic policies with positive coercion and incentive-led initiatives and sought peaceful alliance and reconciliation with his European neighbours, things would have been so different.

When you think about the way the German people have discarded the Nazi legacy and that of the former Soviet Union with such grace and dignity and become one of UK/USA's closest allies, it goes to show the resiliance and perseverance of the German people. : oktoberfest:

And Mal - I really don't think Burt is expressing any admiration for Hitler as a person, rather the potential for the economic growth/stability that could have been peacefully achieved

I think we will be dead when it happens, but I sometimes think that he will be seen under a different light later. Think, Napoléon did more or less the same thing in his time (except genocides) and is in every history books. France was completly down and without men who died everywhere through Europe after his fall. Some cunts claim he was a genius.

I agree with you Jiphy. Especially because the main reason Hitler failed was that his cabinet was too scared to give him the reality of the certian situations... similar to how Japan fell.

As for Hitler "hating" the Reds more than the Jews (noted by MIMX), that just silly. He and Japan were vying strongly to get Russia (Stalin) part of the Axis... this main failure led to the destruction of both Nazis and Imperial Japan...

Burt Reynolds wrote: As Mr Taylor said, if Germany had stopped in 1938, it would be a different more Germanic world today, one suspects.

Central Europe would be worldwide known as Mitteleuropa.

EdelBrock wrote:

As for Hitler "hating" the Reds more than the Jews (noted by MIMX), that just silly. He and Japan were vying strongly to get Russia (Stalin) part of the Axis... this main failure led to the destruction of both Nazis and Imperial Japan...

Totally agree. Possibly totally off topic, but it was Stalin and his country's steadfast opposition to Hitler that led to Germany's destruction. Far more than either US or UK's contribution.

EdelBrock wrote: [Hitler] and Japan were vying strongly to get Russia (Stalin) part of the Axis... this main failure led to the destruction of both Nazis and Imperial Japan...

The problem with every European leader who was the most powerful of his time is that they wanted to rule London and Moscow. And as soon as they rushed forward Russia, it was the beginning of the end for them... whatever political régime is in Moscow.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: I always thought that Hitler's economic policies consisted of ignoring the actual economics. War was the inevitable outcome to keep the system going, with conquered loot of course.

Hum this sounds vaguely familiar.

Make the others starve to keep the system going despite the costs of war. I agree on that point. In fact, this is what he did. I remembered some figures... 30% of his husband's salary given to a British woman, when he was on the front. In Germany, it was 80%. So, where the money was coming from ?

I think from memory, devaluing the mark was the masterstroke. Renaming it the deutschmark etc at 10x. Thankfully, subsequent world economic law will never let that happen again.

As Mr Taylor said, if Germany had stopped in 1938, it would be a different more Germanic world today, one suspects.

It wasn't devalued, quite the opposite and it was the Reichsmark well that really already happened in the Weimar Republic when the Rentenmark was introduced. The whole NAZI system of public works re-armament etc was built on debt, that had to be repaid sooner rather than later.

NOOLigan wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: I always thought that Hitler's economic policies consisted of ignoring the actual economics. War was the inevitable outcome to keep the system going, with conquered loot of course.

Hum this sounds vaguely familiar.

Make the others starve to keep the system going despite the costs of war. I agree on that point. In fact, this is what he did. I remembered some figures... 30% of his husband's salary given to a British woman, when he was on the front. In Germany, it was 80%. So, where the money was coming from ?

I think from memory, devaluing the mark was the masterstroke. Renaming it the deutschmark etc at 10x. Thankfully, subsequent world economic law will never let that happen again.

As Mr Taylor said, if Germany had stopped in 1938, it would be a different more Germanic world today, one suspects.

It wasn't devalued, quite the opposite and it was the Reichsmark well that really already happened in the Weimar Republic when the Rentenmark was introduced. The whole NAZI system of public works re-armament etc was built on debt, that had to be repaid sooner rather than later.

ok ya fecker.. its difficult to devalue something 10x. You know what i meant.

Burt Reynolds wrote: Totally agree. Possibly totally off topic, but it was Stalin and his country's steadfast opposition to Hitler that led to Germany's destruction. Far more than either US or UK's contribution.

Surprised to hear this from an Anglo-saxon. You are completly right. Without Stalin and even with the help of America, Britain's future would have been incertain. And also thanks Goering. I always wonder why he gave up bombing British airfields to bomb civilians. Doing so, he let the RAF take superiority and lost many skilled pilots. Back to USSR, we can say that they made it. If you read newspapers by 1945, war was mainly won thanks to the Soviet Union. In the last surveys (two/three years ago), war was won by Americans. History is rewritten.

Here's another little known snippet. Those ever so neutral swiss were very happy to just move the gold supplies from whichever country had just been overrun by the Germans into the German bank vault most central banks held some if not all of their gold stock in Switzerland. Often the gold did not even have to leave the actual bank building.

Just think how much longer that loot kept the war going.

Jiphy wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Totally agree. Possibly totally off topic, but it was Stalin and his country's steadfast opposition to Hitler that led to Germany's destruction. Far more than either US or UK's contribution.

Surprised to hear this from an Anglo-saxon. You are completly right. Without Stalin and even with the help of America, Britain's future would have been incertain. And also thanks Goering. I always wonder why he gave up bombing British airfields to bomb civilians. Doing so, he let the RAF take superiority and lost many skilled pilots. Back to USSR, we can say that they made it. If you read newspapers by 1945, war was mainly won thanks to the Soviet Union. In the last surveys (two/three years ago), war was won by Americans. History is rewritten.

I think the only reason Americans get this 'prestige' is because we were a wild card for half of the European part of the war. Stalin was as well (as he was an opportunist in chosing sides), but he didn't do much outside of Russia. If Hitler's cabinet had not lied to him and not let the army die in the Russian snow, Stalin may not have played such a large part in Nazi defeat. The Americans did help get the other countries out of occupation, allowing them to recover and fight back.

Jiphy wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Totally agree. Possibly totally off topic, but it was Stalin and his country's steadfast opposition to Hitler that led to Germany's destruction. Far more than either US or UK's contribution.

Surprised to hear this from an Anglo-saxon. You are completly right. Without Stalin and even with the help of America, Britain's future would have been incertain. And also thanks Goering. I always wonder why he gave up bombing British airfields to bomb civilians. Doing so, he let the RAF take superiority and lost many skilled pilots. Back to USSR, we can say that they made it. If you read newspapers by 1945, war was mainly won thanks to the Soviet Union. In the last surveys (two/three years ago), war was won by Americans. History is rewritten.

I've always been taught that Russia did the most damage. But then they lost more than all of us put together. I was taught all this in a Cold War pro-US climate too, so it must be true.

On a basic media level, if you watch Downfall, (a monumental film, made by Germans, with a hell of a lot of pain and accuracy), the film says more or less the same thing. Tom Hanks eat your heart out.

EdelBrock wrote: I think the only reason Americans get this 'prestige' is because we were a wild card for half of the European part of the war. Stalin was as well (as he was an opportunist in chosing sides), but he didn't do much outside of Russia. If Hitler's cabinet had not lied to him and not let the army die in the Russian snow, Stalin may not have played such a large part in Nazi defeat. The Americans did help get the other countries out of occupation, allowing them to recover and fight back.

Aye.. not knocking the US involvement at all. They lost as many troops as we did nearly, and in half the time. I dont think UK was ever particularly close to invasion, but US injection deffo helped out France quickly, and made it impossible for Germany to fight on two fronts. Russia was the constant bugger though, throwing millions of kids after millions into the battlefield, and above all, into the winter. Just think the Russian involvement has been underplayed in the subsequent Cold War stand-off. I truly believe, that even though he was as bigger a cnut as Adolf, Stalin won it far more than Churchill or Eisenhower.

Burt Reynolds wrote: I've always been taught that Russia did the most damage. But then they lost more than all of us put together. I was taught all this in a Cold War pro-US climate too, so it must be true.

On a basic media level, if you watch Downfall, (a monumental film, made by Germans, with a hell of a lot of pain and accuracy), the film says more or less the same thing. Tom Hanks eat your heart out.

Some chapters of history are the same in English and French books ? And we were taught this in "a Cold War pro-US climate too", so you are right, it must be true.

I have also seen that film. German made, surely closer to the truth than a Hollywood film.

De Gaulle turned Churchill crazy many times. As France could not supply USSR as the British did via Murmansk, he sent pilots there, some serving already in the RAF. All witnessed that war in the East had nothing to do with the one in the West, even from an airplane. In Russian cold, snow, mud, a lot of them missed England and its rain, the local pub by the airfield and - quite weird for a Frenchman, the British gastronomy.

Burt Reynolds wrote: Aye.. not knocking the US involvement at all. They lost as many troops as we did nearly, and in half the time. I dont think UK was ever particularly close to invasion, but US injection deffo helped out France quickly, and made it impossible for Germany to fight on two fronts. Russia was the constant bugger though, throwing millions of kids after millions into the battlefield, and above all, into the winter. Just think the Russian involvement has been underplayed in the subsequent Cold War stand-off. I truly believe, that even though he was as bigger a cnut as Adolf, Stalin won it far more than Churchill or Eisenhower.

If I only coud say these words quicker than you think them...

No doubt about US involment. The plus was that they were out of range of any bombings, with an industry set on "full ahead" and not completly devoted to war. A lot of French people died in bombings... the most deadly being the American ones. But they gave us chocolate bars after their bombs... in the East, with the Soviets, it was nichivo.

Jiphy wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Aye.. not knocking the US involvement at all. They lost as many troops as we did nearly, and in half the time. I dont think UK was ever particularly close to invasion, but US injection deffo helped out France quickly, and made it impossible for Germany to fight on two fronts. Russia was the constant bugger though, throwing millions of kids after millions into the battlefield, and above all, into the winter. Just think the Russian involvement has been underplayed in the subsequent Cold War stand-off. I truly believe, that even though he was as bigger a cnut as Adolf, Stalin won it far more than Churchill or Eisenhower.

If I only coud say these words quicker than you think them...

No doubt about US involment. The plus was that they were out of range of any bombings, with an industry set on "full ahead" and not completly devoted to war. A lot of French people died in bombings... the most deadly being the American ones. But they gave us chocolate bars after their bombs... in the East, with the Soviets, it was nichivo.

Unfortunately, these are the casualties of war. One thing that is always a sad statistic is that the UK and the US lost more troops than the French did on French soil, fighting the Nazi hun. C'est la vie.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Aye.. not knocking the US involvement at all. They lost as many troops as we did nearly, and in half the time. I dont think UK was ever particularly close to invasion, but US injection deffo helped out France quickly, and made it impossible for Germany to fight on two fronts. Russia was the constant bugger though, throwing millions of kids after millions into the battlefield, and above all, into the winter. Just think the Russian involvement has been underplayed in the subsequent Cold War stand-off. I truly believe, that even though he was as bigger a cnut as Adolf, Stalin won it far more than Churchill or Eisenhower.

If I only coud say these words quicker than you think them...

No doubt about US involment. The plus was that they were out of range of any bombings, with an industry set on "full ahead" and not completly devoted to war. A lot of French people died in bombings... the most deadly being the American ones. But they gave us chocolate bars after their bombs... in the East, with the Soviets, it was nichivo.

Unfortunately, these are the casualties of war. One thing that is always a sad statistic is that the UK and the US lost more troops than the French did on French soil, fighting the Nazi hun. C'est la vie.

Don't ferget we were fighting on both fronts, as it was only the US that fought the other Axis across the globe, upkeeping the embargo placed on Japan by all the Allies.

Britian was hanging on by a thread, France was taken over and Russia only wanted to be in the winner's circle. Without US involvement, Russia would have signed a treaty with the Axis, which would have also spelled our doom as then Japan could have gotten its oil through Russia/China. Russia may have been a keyplayer, but the US convinced Russia to 'join' the Allies.

Burt Reynolds wrote: I dunno. They made Hitler angry. Arguably wound up. Perhaps he would have channelled his anger elsewhere, rather than trying to create a master race.

This thread is hilarious.

EdelBrock wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Aye.. not knocking the US involvement at all. They lost as many troops as we did nearly, and in half the time. I dont think UK was ever particularly close to invasion, but US injection deffo helped out France quickly, and made it impossible for Germany to fight on two fronts. Russia was the constant bugger though, throwing millions of kids after millions into the battlefield, and above all, into the winter. Just think the Russian involvement has been underplayed in the subsequent Cold War stand-off. I truly believe, that even though he was as bigger a cnut as Adolf, Stalin won it far more than Churchill or Eisenhower.

If I only coud say these words quicker than you think them...

No doubt about US involment. The plus was that they were out of range of any bombings, with an industry set on "full ahead" and not completly devoted to war. A lot of French people died in bombings... the most deadly being the American ones. But they gave us chocolate bars after their bombs... in the East, with the Soviets, it was nichivo.

Unfortunately, these are the casualties of war. One thing that is always a sad statistic is that the UK and the US lost more troops than the French did on French soil, fighting the Nazi hun. C'est la vie.

Don't ferget we were fighting on both fronts, as it was only the US that fought the other Axis across the globe, upkeeping the embargo placed on Japan by all the Allies.

Britian was hanging on by a thread, France was taken over and Russia only wanted to be in the winner's circle. Without US involvement, Russia would have signed a treaty with the Axis, which would have also spelled our doom as then Japan could have gotten its oil through Russia/China. Russia may have been a keyplayer, but the US convinced Russia to 'join' the Allies.

As I said, not knocking US contribution at all. Just think that in those 'not so distant' days, wars were more about numbers on the ground, rather than obvious later ideas such as 'intelligence' and 'diplomacy'.

I am under no illusions at all as to what actually won it; a contribution of many factors did it, but for me the final factors that pushed it over the edge were firstly the absolutely doggedness of Mr Stalin, painful though it is to acknowledge, and secondly the US re-igniting a push from the other end.

Just always interested as to how Hollywood and US history books portray it. Hell ... as a Brit, our basic history books say WE won it on our own, with a bit of help, but if you dig a little deeper....

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: I dunno. They made Hitler angry. Arguably wound up. Perhaps he would have channelled his anger elsewhere, rather than trying to create a master race.

This thread is hilarious.

Yeah. I posted that with a little ironic chuckle. Five hours later, not so sure.

EdelBrock wrote:

Without US involvement, Russia would have signed a treaty with the Axis... the US convinced Russia to 'join' the Allies.

Joining the discussion... I reckon this passage is a sheer speculation. I don't know if Stalin felt betrayed either by Hitler or by his own narrowmindedness, but I find it hard to imagine how after such a shocking German raid and destruction, Stalin would have dared to sign a separate peace: after June 22 1941 he would never trust any party of the Axis anyway. Not to mention the awakened mass of millions who fought and who lost almost everything.

I mean, there was no way back whatsoever. Signing a secret treaty with Hitler wouldn't secure anything, especially when such a treaty was indeed signed not long time before the war and was broken by Hitler. Thus there was only one possible way - to completely destroy the enemy (i.e. storm back up to Berlin).

As for the USA, Stalin actually did beg the USA to start a war against Germany as soon as possible and it was the States that hesitated.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

...I don't think so. Perhaps all that Special Brew is affecting your reading...

Then later..

Burt Reynolds wrote: ...AJP was an economic historian.

1st off I've not drank alcohol for years I don't use substances that cloud the brain; only ones that open the mind.

2nd I know damn fine who AJP Talyor was! Many history books do you own mate? At at rough estimate, I own about 100-200 and that's just those in the house at present. I've spent more money on history books than is feasible, and must've read thousands.

When the idiot lay preacher that taught me both English & (O) History told me I'd fail the test I passed with the highest possible grade. The H tutor told me that I wasn't taking a degree, my degree tutor told me that I wasn't doing a post-doc...

As for Auld AJP admiring Adolf...

As he called himself a socialist all of his life He'd probably be as offended by the idea as I am.

But then I'm still utterly disgusted by that murdering bastard Crassus lining the Via Appia with the crucified bodies of six thousand slaves. And history remembers only one.

(And that was by no means the only time the bastards used mass crucifixion.)

But then you've probably been told that Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great, or even Xerxes or Darius if you know who they are, or Richard The Lionheart (or some other dickhead of an English King: "Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled, Scots, wham Bruce has aften led"), or maybe you even admired Lenin or Uncle Joe.

The "Great Man" theory of history went out of fashion a longtime ago, along with other theories like the "sunspot" theroy of history. As for men like the above: Murdering savage ruthless utter utter bastards the lot of them,and the leaders around today are no better.

PS Don't know how long this thread's went since I last read it, anyway I'm outta here like a fart through the forrset...

BYeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Without US involvement, Russia would have signed a treaty with the Axis... the US convinced Russia to 'join' the Allies.

Joining the discussion... I reckon this passage is a sheer speculation. I don't know if Stalin felt betrayed either by Hitler or by his own narrowmindedness, but I find it hard to imagine how after such a shocking German raid and destruction, Stalin would have dared to sign a separate peace: after June 22 1941 he would never trust any party of the Axis anyway. Not to mention the awakened mass of millions who fought and who lost almost everything.

Stalin actually did request the USA to start a war against Germany and it was the States that hesitated.

Yup. Agree again. Stalin wasnt going to change sides. In the end Germany invaded them. Made joining sides easy.

NOOLigan wrote: I always thought that Hitler's economic policies consisted of ignoring the actual economics. War was the inevitable outcome to keep the system going, with conquered loot of course.

Hum this sounds vaguely familiar.

Sorry. Back after saying I was away.

Thank You Ron.

Obviously a man who knows his history.

I'm deffo on that next plane.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Without US involvement, Russia would have signed a treaty with the Axis... the US convinced Russia to 'join' the Allies.

Joining the discussion... I reckon this passage is a sheer speculation. I don't know if Stalin felt betrayed either by Hitler or by his own narrowmindedness, but I find it hard to imagine how after such a shocking German raid and destruction, Stalin would have dared to sign a separate peace: after June 22 1941 he would never trust any party of the Axis anyway. Not to mention the awakened mass of millions who fought and who lost almost everything.

Stalin actually did request the USA to start a war against Germany and it was the States that hesitated.

Yup. Agree again. Stalin wasnt going to change sides. In the end Germany invaded them. Made joining sides easy.

Stalin wasn't on the US's side... you have to remember Japan and Germany were linked to each other, and both knew their fates were linked together. Japan had a treaty almost signed by Stalin around Japan's collapse... Germany was also pushing for this as Hitler was tired of fighting on both sides... the only reason Stalin signed with us was because he wanted ALL of China and Japan was only going to give them half the amount, where we offered the whole damn pie. Stalin almost changed 'sides', though he never chose an actual side until the end of the war. He just kept jumping on the bandwagon of the winning side, or who could offer him more....

MIMX wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

...I don't think so. Perhaps all that Special Brew is affecting your reading...

Then later..

Burt Reynolds wrote: ...AJP was an economic historian.

1st off I've not drank alcohol for years I don't use substances that cloud the brain; only ones that open the mind.

2nd I know damn fine who AJP Talyor was! Many history books do you own mate? At at rough estimate, I own about 100-200 and that's just those in the house at present. I've spent more money on history books than is feasible, and must've read thousands.

When the idiot lay preacher that taught me both English & (O) History told me I'd fail the test I passed with the highest possible grade. The H tutor told me that I wasn't taking a degree, my degree tutor told me that I wasn't doing a post-doc...

As for Auld AJP admiring Adolf...

As he called himself a socialist all of his life He'd probably be as offended by the idea as I am.

But then I'm still utterly disgusted by that murdering bastard Crassus lining the Via Appia with the crucified bodies of six thousand slaves. And history remembers only one.

(And that was by no means the only time the bastards used mass crucifixion.)

But then you've probably been told that Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great, or even Xerxes or Darius if you know who they are, or Richard The Lionheart (or some other dickhead of an English King: "Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled, Scots, wham Bruce has aften led"), or maybe you even admired Lenin or Uncle Joe.

The "Great Man" theory of history went out of fashion a longtime ago, along with other theories like the "sunspot" theroy of history. As for men like the above: Murdering savage ruthless utter utter bastards the lot of them,and the leaders around today are no better.

---

PS Don't know how long this thread's went since I last read it, anyway I'm outta here like a fart through the forrset...

BYeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

LOL. I dunno what this is all about, but you might as well go back to the days of Special Brew, MATE.

Have a re-read. There's agreement in the camp.

As for AJP. confine an economic lecturer to a period, and ask his opinion, you get a refined and honest answer. I think I said he shocked me with his opinions. IN FACT, I took off the little moustache and stopped goose-stepping around. Even in my local, I stopped describing the local chavs as 'untermenschen', and saw past the idea of chicks with blonde hair and blue eyes.

El Jarvo wrote: Smokers are to blame, shirley?

It's one thing heating up the inside of a boozer for warmth but sticking up heaters outside of pubs now is just plain crazy. Heating up the outdoors, whatever next?!

Very true, but they were there before the smoking ban...

Myself? I just wear a fleece/warm coat when I light up outside! :)

Burt Reynolds wrote: Unfortunately, these are the casualties of war. One thing that is always a sad statistic is that the UK and the US lost more troops than the French did on French soil, fighting the Nazi hun. C'est la vie.

Another sad statistic is that France had more casualties than UK and US and that some of the civilians killed from 1939 to 1944 were missing to welcome you and be brothers in arms in a regular army. And I do not know whether someone from the Résistance is to be counted as civilian or military casualty. But as far as I remember, they gave a great help while UK/US pilots were trying to go back to England or to cut Nazi supply chains and communications from opération Overlord. These people were tortured as terrorists, if lucky shot at home, if not, sent to the camps. There is something you miss I think, that is that you have not been a devastated occupied and spoilt country for four years.

On another hand, I do not know if the ones who commited with nazis are in the statistics.

Jiphy wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Unfortunately, these are the casualties of war. One thing that is always a sad statistic is that the UK and the US lost more troops than the French did on French soil, fighting the Nazi hun. C'est la vie.

Another sad statistic is that France had more casualties than UK and US and that some of the civilians killed from 1939 to 1944 were missing to welcome you and be brothers in arms in a regular army. And I do not know whether someone from the Résistance is to be counted as civilian or military casualty. But as far as I remember, they gave a great help while UK/US pilots were trying to go back to England or to cut Nazi supply chains and communications from opération Overlord. These people were tortured as terrorists, if lucky shot at home, if not, sent to the camps. There is something you miss I think, that is that you have not been a devastated occupied and spoilt country for four years.

On another hand, I do not know if the ones who commited with nazis are in the statistics.

LOL.. its been covered before Gentleman Jiphy, but as you know De Gaulle was exiled to the big fuck-off house at the end my road, and was constantly whining in a big annoying French accent in my local pub, about his ration allowance, even though it was double what normal Brits got.

Burt Reynolds wrote: LOL.. its been covered before Gentleman Jiphy, but as you know De Gaulle was exiled to the big fuck-off house at the end my road, and was constantly whining in a big annoying French accent in my local pub, about his ration allowance, even though it was double what normal Brits got.

The général was only 1cm smaller than me and a double ration is a minimum for people like us...

A last fag to contribute to the global warming, let's go back to the subject (and I am no Jew by the way) and bedtime. It is 4 and a half here...

EdelBrock wrote:

As for Hitler "hating" the Reds more than the Jews (noted by MIMX), that just silly. He and Japan were vying strongly to get Russia (Stalin) part of the Axis... this main failure led to the destruction of both Nazis and Imperial Japan...

Thank you John this is without doubt the stupidest thing I've heard since 1990 (Fuck 17 years no bad going.)

Go and find out about Rosa Luxembourg Karl Liebknecht the Freikorps, and the Nazi's fight against the German communists, you deeply silly man!

(And when the pact between the Soviets/Nazi's was signed both parties knew it would be broken!)

EdelBrock wrote: He just kept jumping on the bandwagon of the winning side, or who could offer him more....

I think it's hard to lead a war if you keep jumping on the bandwagon... Plus there's a contradiction: the winning side was actually Stalin's army (after the turning point in 1943), he couldn't choose here. While Romania and Italy were indeed on the bandwagon and closer to the end denounced their ties with Berlin.

I don't know about Japan. They didn't attack the USSR, so technically there was no reason to start a war with them (although the military potential of Japan was a threat to the USSR, no doubt). But, as far as I remember, Stalin agreed to start a war against Japan 3 months after the victory over Germany, as part of the deal he had with the States in Yalta in 1944.

WTF, indeed. If ya'll want to talk about WW2, start a separate thread on that. Everything's way off topic. :)

Burt Reynolds wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

As for Hitler "hating" the Reds more than the Jews (noted by MIMX), that just silly. He and Japan were vying strongly to get Russia (Stalin) part of the Axis... this main failure led to the destruction of both Nazis and Imperial Japan...

Totally agree. Possibly totally off topic, but it was Stalin and his country's steadfast opposition to Hitler that led to Germany's destruction. Far more than either US or UK's contribution.

Might have known you'd agree with that but...

Least we agree on something Burt it was without doubt The Red Army and their tanks that saved us.

Don't ya just love a good political argument?

I'm still trying to quantify MIMX's thing about Hitler not pulling off a stunning turnaround in Germany's economic fortunes, whilst being accused of being Adolf's cock-loving slave bitch.

Commies.. Don't you just their wacky ideas...

Chris Nash wrote: Bloody Jeffery. Starts a war then fucks off for a hotdog and butter popcorn...

So why you'd stay, away to yer bed yeah bloody insomniac!

PS Burt I glad you LOL'd should prob. have re-read b4 posting.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Commies.. Don't you just their wacky ideas...

:)

LOVE It's called LOVE Burt!

I've a superfluity of beds too. Still canny sleep but more beds than I know what to do with.

Where'd you live, me and my bro. used to carry beds on our back singing "Here Are The Young Men A Weight On Their Shoulders."

Chris Nash wrote:

At least I have my favourite Oryctolagus cuniculus to keep me company into the early hours

Your what?

MIMX wrote: PS Burt I glad you LOL'd should prob. have re-read b4 posting.

its amusing yes. Not sure where you've been going at all. Simple argument here really, echoed by a few, re: Germany's rise from being a Third World power to Superpower in less than a handful of years.

Really basic history.. its there...to read.. not admire... mebbe learn from, if at all.

I'm going to comb the streets for some Aryan bitch..

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: He just kept jumping on the bandwagon of the winning side, or who could offer him more....

I don't know about Japan. They didn't attack the USSR, so technically there was no reason to start a war with them (although the military potential of Japan was a threat to the USSR, no doubt).

A delayed aftermath of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905?

Burt Reynolds wrote: mebbe learn from, if at all. I'm going to comb the streets for some Aryan bitch..

I've already posted "Nazi Girlfriend" on the "what are boring people telling them your listening to now" thread.

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: He just kept jumping on the bandwagon of the winning side, or who could offer him more....

I don't know about Japan. They didn't attack the USSR, so technically there was no reason to start a war with them (although the military potential of Japan was a threat to the USSR, no doubt).

A delayed aftermath of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905?

You popping up trying to stir up trouble... tut tut.

I'd have thought control of the Pacific was a good reason for a scrap.

(By the way Popey that's answering whoever you quoted, no you).

The original article (or whatever that is) is a load of crap.

MIMX wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: He just kept jumping on the bandwagon of the winning side, or who could offer him more....

I don't know about Japan. They didn't attack the USSR, so technically there was no reason to start a war with them (although the military potential of Japan was a threat to the USSR, no doubt).

A delayed aftermath of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905?

You popping up trying to stir up trouble... tut tut.

I'd have thought control of the Pacific was a good reason for a scrap.

(By the way Popey that's answering whoever you quoted, no you).

???? Russia had no desire to control the Pacific. They did come to a head with Japan over China. Japan had a treaty that was signed with Russia, however it lapsed and needed to be resigned. Russia was going to do it, as Japan promised half of China for Russia's help to give them oil. The US also knew the treaty lapsed and put in their own, and promised to give Stalin ALL of China. Stalin waited to give anyone an answer, until he saw that Germany was falling, proving the Axis was falling apart. Just before Germany fell, Stalin signed with the US in secret, still leading on the Japanese.

The Russo-Japanese war of 1905 wasn't with the Communist Party, as it started in 1922... so Stalin really didn't care about that.

So in short, Stalin only signed with the Allies because they were offering ALL of China and they had effectively destroyed Germany. He had not chosen any sides until Germany was about to collapse. Granted Germany had attacked Russia, but Stalin was more hungry for China than to hold 'national pride' grudges.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

and

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Deleted by: || | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 on Sun, Dec 09 2007 - 5:41:08 AM

.

Two of the most sensible things said on this thread!

EdelBrock wrote:

MIMX wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: He just kept jumping on the bandwagon of the winning side, or who could offer him more....

I don't know about Japan. They didn't attack the USSR, so technically there was no reason to start a war with them (although the military potential of Japan was a threat to the USSR, no doubt).

A delayed aftermath of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905?

You popping up trying to stir up trouble... tut tut.

I'd have thought control of the Pacific was a good reason for a scrap.

(By the way Popey that's answering whoever you quoted, no you).

???? Russia had no desire to control the Pacific...

...The Russo-Japanese war of 1905 wasn't with the Communist Party, as it started in 1922... so Stalin really didn't care about that.

I was referring to the Japanese & or American wish to control the Pacific. In fact it was a half-joking throw away remark to the Pontiff of Posts our infallible protector of BCD.

The Russian revolution, as you no doubt know, occurred on October 25th, 1917. The "Communist" Party of the Soviet Union was founded in 1912 not 1922, but no doubt that was a mere slip of the finger.

I think you should just chill, slip a flower in your hair and go to San Fran to hang with Popey for a while.

Peace and Love Brother.

That post was answering all three responders at once, so it wasn't all directed at you... so I wonder what flower looks best with my hair color and complexion?

What? Anyone ever goes to bed? I admire the Brits' resilience but it's 2 am here and I'm off for today.

Btw, don't worry about the global warming, there'll be still snow in the Himalayas when we'll die.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Trans-Kraftwerk Express wrote:

Just remember--there's a lot of people I know who are a lot smarter than you are. And they're JEWISH!

Make sure that electric menorah doesn't electrocute your ass. ;)

Really, and just how do you know that there's a lot of people you know that are a lot smarter than me? Have you been looking at my SAT scores? To tell you the truth, I sincerely doubt it. I'm looking forward to you explaining that one to me, but please, make sure you use very small words, that way my ignorant ass can follow along.

Ahem Einstein Ahem

Doctor? wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Trans-Kraftwerk Express wrote:

Just remember--there's a lot of people I know who are a lot smarter than you are. And they're JEWISH!

Make sure that electric menorah doesn't electrocute your ass. ;)

Really, and just how do you know that there's a lot of people you know that are a lot smarter than me? Have you been looking at my SAT scores? To tell you the truth, I sincerely doubt it. I'm looking forward to you explaining that one to me, but please, make sure you use very small words, that way my ignorant ass can follow along.

Ahem Einstein Ahem

not fully a Jew though.... raised Catholic and born in Germany, lived in the US and had nothing to do with banking or Hollywood

Burt Reynolds wrote:

It's simple really. Germany was virtually a third world country when Hitler took over, yet five years later was classed as a superpower, through a stunning economic policy

=Borrow a SHITLOAD of cash from everyone, mainly America, and invest it in largely daft (at the time) makework public works like the autobahn....how many cars do you think there were in Germany at the time?

A quote, one you should NEVER forget, especially these days.

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars. Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

EdelBrock wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Trans-Kraftwerk Express wrote:

Just remember--there's a lot of people I know who are a lot smarter than you are. And they're JEWISH!

Make sure that electric menorah doesn't electrocute your ass. ;)

Really, and just how do you know that there's a lot of people you know that are a lot smarter than me? Have you been looking at my SAT scores? To tell you the truth, I sincerely doubt it. I'm looking forward to you explaining that one to me, but please, make sure you use very small words, that way my ignorant ass can follow along.

Ahem Einstein Ahem

not fully a Jew though.... raised Catholic and born in Germany, lived in the US and had nothing to do with banking or Hollywood

He'd have been close enough for that cunt hitler.

Doctor? wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

It's simple really. Germany was virtually a third world country when Hitler took over, yet five years later was classed as a superpower, through a stunning economic policy

=Borrow a SHITLOAD of cash from everyone, mainly America, and invest it in largely daft (at the time) makework public works like the autobahn....how many cars do you think there were in Germany at the time?

A quote, one you should NEVER forget, especially these days.

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars. Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Cambo you fucking pain in the Ass I'd logged off and was away to my kip, but just had to come back on 1st and say: well fucking said!

Doctor? wrote:

He'd have been close enough for that cunt hitler.

I know you were talking about a different person, and in a different sense, but Göring would have been close enough for that cunt hitler, for me too!

Bed is a calling..... morning all!

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

In a campaign that has spread like wildfire across the Internet, a group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jews around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukka to help the environment.

The founders of the Green Hanukkia campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.

"The campaign calls for Jews around the world to save the last candle and save the planet, so we won't need another miracle," said Liad Ortar, the campaign's cofounder, who runs the Arkada environmental consulting firm and the Ynet Web site's environmental forum. "Global warming is a milestone in human evolution that requires us to rethink how we live our lives, and one of the main paradigms of that is religion and how it fits into the current situation."

Cofounder Tom Wegner, who heads the public relations firm Update Marketing Media, spread the campaign via mass e-mails and through social interaction Web sites like Facebook and Hook.co.il. He said no money had been invested in the campaign, but it had already raised awareness around the world and made people realize that they have to consider the environment this Hanukka.

Who would have ever guessed?

surely all ugly couriers are to blame

Has anyone considered the effect that all these bombs that keep going off all over the world are having?

More than a few flipping candles, I bet.

Not only bombs, but also motor engines, electricity, and a lot of others.

The truth is, all of us contribute to this global warming thing unconsciously. Now, the question is, do we help limit the CO2 we consume or emit?

I do always unplugged electronic appliances when not in use, which include mobile phone chargers and stand by modes of TV and DVD player when not in use. Also, i do not accelerate / step on the pedal hard on the road or while parked when it is not necessary. Even the refrigerator, I defrost / turn it off almost every night before going to sleep, and someone else will trun it on in the morning. That is also how we defrost it.

Indeed*!*

The Sub-Cultured Perfect Kisser*!* wrote: Not only bombs, but also motor engines, electricity, and a lot of others.

The truth is, all of us contribute to this global warming thing unconsciously. Now, the question is, do we help limit the CO2 we consume or emit?

I do always unplugged electronic appliances when not in use, which include mobile phone chargers and stand by modes of TV and DVD player when not in use. Also, i do not accelerate / step on the pedal hard on the road or while parked when it is not necessary. Even the refrigerator, I defrost / turn it off almost every night before going to sleep, and someone else will trun it on in the morning. That is also how we defrost it.

Indeed*!*

Now if only you would turn your computer off.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Chris Nash wrote: Bloody Jeffery. Starts a war then fucks off for a hotdog and butter popcorn...

Hey, all I did was fucking post an article that I found to be a bit funny...

Yes, and how dare you. Who do you think you are posting funny stuff on the internet

Seriously though, how did we get from blaming jews for the end of the world to the economic policies of Hitler

MIMX wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

As for Hitler "hating" the Reds more than the Jews (noted by MIMX), that just silly. He and Japan were vying strongly to get Russia (Stalin) part of the Axis... this main failure led to the destruction of both Nazis and Imperial Japan...

Thank you John this is without doubt the stupidest thing I've heard since 1990 (Fuck 17 years no bad going.)

Go and find out about Rosa Luxembourg Karl Liebknecht the Freikorps, and the Nazi's fight against the German communists, you deeply silly man!

(And when the pact between the Soviets/Nazi's was signed both parties knew it would be broken!)

Hitler always intended to attack the USSR, and regarded Communists as unequivocally the enemy. For him the pact was always just a temporary expedient. Whether Stalin was being rationally cynical or just gullible is less clear. The latter seems more likely to me.

Arguing whether Adolf hated Jews or Reds or some other group more is a waste of keystrokes - hundreds of books have been written by professional historians (and other folk who actually have some idea what they are talking about and don't waste time on web forums) without coming to any definitive conclusion about what Hitler's 'ultimate' motivations were.

Personally I see him as a performance artist, loving conflict and destruction for its own sake. Certainly this desire was more important to him in the end than even his precious German Volk, whom he happily damned to destruction after they 'failed' him. And he was, after all, a failed artist, as were many of the top Nazis.

What I don't know is how much Hitler was just following a traditional German urge to build an Empire in Europe. If that had been his intention he would have been more rational to have stopped before attacking the USSR, certainly not declared war on the US, and just left GB alone until it agreed to a peace treaty. An empire spanning from Brest (France) to Brest (Poland) would certainly have satisfied his predecessors. (Two Brests are enough for anyone?)

Achtung, Bendi! wrote:

Seriously though, how did we get from blaming jews for the end of the world to the economic policies of Hitler

Fuck knows mate... ... beyond me what they two have got to do with each other!

Doctor? wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Trans-Kraftwerk Express wrote:

Just remember--there's a lot of people I know who are a lot smarter than you are. And they're JEWISH!

Make sure that electric menorah doesn't electrocute your ass. ;)

Really, and just how do you know that there's a lot of people you know that are a lot smarter than me? Have you been looking at my SAT scores? To tell you the truth, I sincerely doubt it. I'm looking forward to you explaining that one to me, but please, make sure you use very small words, that way my ignorant ass can follow along.

Ahem Einstein Ahem

Jenn knows Einstein? Does he work in McDonald's too

Minx wrote:

Jenn knows Einstein? Does he work in McDonald's too

Ony own his days aff fae being died!

Translation; Only on his days off from being dead!

Had to go to all the bother of making my name red MIMX so people with dyslexia could differentiate us...

And a Mancunian to boot, if your into fitba' I hope it's city.

               Minx indeed.
                 :laugh:

MIMX wrote:

Minx wrote:

Jenn knows Einstein? Does he work in McDonald's too

Ony own his days aff fae being died!

Translation; Only on his days off from being dead!

Had to go to all the bother of making my name red MIMX so people with dyslexia could differentiate us...

And a Mancunian to boot, if your into fitba' I hope it's city.

               Minx indeed.
                 :laugh:

you'd think that the big purple letters would give them a clue...

though thanks for going red to help out

Not really into football but my brother's a City supporter and you could see main road from the window of the house I grew up in... So I do hate united

Minx wrote:

Had to go to all the bother of making my name red MIMX so people with dyslexia could differentiate us...

And a Mancunian to boot, if your into fitba' I hope it's city.

               Minx indeed.
                 :laugh:

you'd think that the big purple letters would give them a clue...

though thanks for going red to help out

Not really into football but my brother's a City supporter and you could see main road from the window of the house I grew up in... So I do hate united

That's the game! Long long ago when I was about 3 or 4 the same day I decided to support Rangers I picked my favourite English team they wear blue too!

Fuck The Reds !

(I promise that's the last time I'll bore you with a football story.)

But what about the farting cows?

Alf wrote: But what about the farting cows?

Yer right, I heard Hitler hated them MOST of all!

EdelBrock wrote:

Alf wrote: But what about the farting cows?

Yer right, I heard Hitler hated them MOST of all!

Nah he loved Eva

Doctor? wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Alf wrote: But what about the farting cows?

Yer right, I heard Hitler hated them MOST of all!

Nah he loved Eva

Good point, Doctor !

Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Alf wrote: But what about the farting cows?

Yer right, I heard Hitler hated them MOST of all!

Nah he loved Eva

Good point, Doctor !

Well you do have a point Cambo, but what you are forgetting is that Eva left him for a kosher bull... .

Let's remember ALL the history,not just snippets here!

Doctor? wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Alf wrote: But what about the farting cows?

Yer right, I heard Hitler hated them MOST of all!

Nah he loved Eva

And so did I. AH, the cad.