Scandinavia?

They only assisted the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany. And what defenseless nations do you speak of?

 

And what would that do? Nazi Germany wasn't a threat to the United States or Great Britain. They weren't even able to take the English Channel, but yet they were a threat to America across the world? The entire world is practically defenseless against America, unless they all stood against us. Iraq was totally defenseless against America and so is Iran.

 

They would have taken the English Channel if it weren't for the US. Remember, they did take over almost ALL of Europe during WW2. In Iraq, we got rid of an evil dictator, so it was good that they were defenseless. Iran is not quite as defenseless, and we haven't even attacked it yet, so why are we even talking about it?

 

Have you ever heard of a thing called independent thinking? Think for yourself, you're stuck in history 101. First, Hitler was not a threat to Great Britain, if America didn't send Great Britain and the Soviet Union vast amounts of resources, they could of indeed taken over Great Britain. But Nazi Germany did not want a war with Great Britain and the United States, so if we didn't antagonize them, they wouldn't of attacked either nation.

So we took out an evil dictator? What about Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong? Were they clearly not murderous dictators that caused the deaths of m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of people? Why didn't the United States federal government rid the world of Joseph Stalin? Why was the federal government so sympathetic to the Soviet Union? Why did America's government aid them against Nazi Germany, a nation that wasn't even a threat to American existence? Nazi Germany didn't even want a war with America. By contrast, the Soviet Union wanted to spread communism all over the globe, they invaded Poland (the allies excused this but they declared war on Germany for doing the exact same thing), Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Estonia, and the allies just sat back and did nothing. It was the Soviet Union that acquired nuclear weapons, and they would've used them against America and they had the resources to invade our nation.

I'm talking about Iran because the federal government, with or without George Bush, is eager to attack Iran over nuclear weapons they don't even have. It is like a repeat of the war in Iraq, that we haven't even finished up yet. Iraq supposedly had all of these weapons of mass destruction that they could've used against America, but we found nothing of that nature. But yet, we are suppose to invade another Middle Eastern nation for weapons of mass destruction. Do they even have a nuclear bomb yet? Would anyone in their right mind attack nation because they "might" become a nuclear power?

 

Corrections in bold.

 

That should be "would have" or "would've" and "could have" or "could've" and "wouldn't have".

"of" is a preposition.

 

Yes, they were, per the Munroe Doctine. Look it up. It'll explain many of your questions and enable you to take your own advice.

 

I no longer have the patience to argue with people I can't strangle. I hate politics and politicians of either end.

 

So do I, best to keep their power to a minimum so their damage is contained

 

Let me tell you from my experience: Too much sun CAN turn you into something weird

 

... Wow ...

 

Well, we get on average over 300 days of sunshine a year where i live, which is A LOT compared to other places, but i don't think i'm weird at all.

If i seem different it's cuz i was actually dropped off on the wrong planet 32 years ago and i'm still waiting for my real parents (Boba Fett and Walrusman) to come pick me up.

 

Everyone always thinks it's the other guy that's nuts.

 

Hardly.

As I said, you’re still stuck in history 101, you believe that Hitler wanted war with Great Britain (not true) and you think Hitler wanted all of Europe under his control (not true). When you say Germany invaded an “ally” of France and Great Britain I’m going to assume you’re referring to Poland. What an “ally” that is, when Germany AND the Soviet Union agreed to invade Poland and not each other (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) Great Britain and France did not prevent either nation from succeeding. If that isn’t worse, the Poles were sold out to communist slavery and were made into a puppet state of Moscow after the second world war because of the Western allies.

What makes you think Adolf Hitler wanted to attack Great Britain when he “consolidated power”? On January 30 1933 Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, Great Britain and France didn’t declare war on Germany until September 1939. How long was Adolf Hitler going to wait before he invaded Great Britain? Do you even know at all? On May 10, 1941 Rudolf Hess, one of the most powerful men in Nazi German (flew to Great Britain) to offer peace. Instead, he was jailed a prisoner of war.

When you say Nazi Germany wanted all of Europe under control sounds remarkably similar to Franklin Roosevelt's “Navy Day Address” on the Attack on the Destroyer Kearney October 27, 1941 address where he says “For example, I have in my possession a secret map made in Germany by Hitler's government-by the planners of the new world order. It is a map of South America and a part of Central America, as Hitler proposes to reorganize it.” A blatant lie, you can find this bizarre speech on the Internet.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/411027awp.html

Yes, Hitler most certainly declared war on America, as detailed in his December 11, 1941 Reichstag speech. The United States began supplying Germany’s two enemies military resources, billions of dollars worth of resources by the way going back to March of 1941 (9 months) before this declaration of war against America with Japan. Not to mention the perpetual bombardment of German civilian targets by Great Britain by American supplies. That was America and Great Britain’s key strategy, murder as many civilians as possible because the Nazis were much to powerful on the ground, despite the loss of much of their soldiers fighting the Soviet beast.

The Soviet Union was “defending” France and Great Britain? Actually, Stalin didn’t trust the West anymore then he did the Nazis and he actually sided with the Nazis temporally, which was known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as mentioned above. The communist philosophy and the Soviet Union did not care for Great Britain, I mean come on, do you even understand the anti-imperialist nature of Marxism? Great Britain had the largest empire in the history of the entire world, against the will of many indigenous people around the word. America was even part of their vast empire, but yet, you have some nerve to talk about the Nazis wanting to take over all of Europe.

So America aided the Soviet Union because that latter was defending France and Great Britain, even though they were (not) fighting with Germany at that time, but rather bound by a treaty of neutrality with Nazi Germany (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). Do you even know what you are talking about? You say “not including Poland” but what about Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia? The Soviet Union had the Baltic states occupied as a result of the provisions of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the Nazi invasion of Poland was included as well. The Nazis wanted Danzig, they did not want ALL of Poland. Also, what about the lend lease of March 1941, which gave vast amounts of military aid to the Soviet Union after they invaded Finland on November 30 1939?

It was clear to the world that Bolshevism was murderous and dangerous long before world war II even began, or even before the Nazis came to power. The origins lie with world war I, when Hohenzollern Germany allowed communist terrorist into Russia which led to the “Russian” revolution of 1917 and the overthrow of the Czarist powers of Russia and the establishment of the USSR. The federal government was well aware that the communist brutally murdered their political opposition, not to mention the “collectivization” of the USSR, and the massive deaths of Ukrainians by Stalin’s insane policies, this is known as “Holodomor”. So the barbaric nature of the Soviet Union was clear to the Western allies.

In any case, the Western allies could’ve physically removed Stalin from power, they could of rolled to Moscow with the millions of troops and numerous sources of military supplies while simultaneously bombing civilian targets, in an identical strategy used against German civilians and the unfortunate victims of nuclear weapons against Japan (ask Curtis LeMay.)

Are you serious? You haven't heard about the "Iranian threat" on the news? You can't miss it, whether you are watching CNN, Fox News, MSNBC etc. Please tell me you know this.

 

You are correct, the only problem is I don’t go back and check errors like that. When I do, it is hard to see unless I read it over and over, something I don’t do when the debate is informal. I’m most certainly not going to read someone else’s message and look for their errors either. But in any case I said “would’ve” instead of “would of” in the same message. Sometimes I don’t spot my errors. Now stop evading your ignorance on world war II history, and reply to that.

 

I can’t believe I’m replying to this but here goes nothing. First, I don’t care if my thinking or world view converges with your thinking or anybody else’s for that matter. I say what I have to say based on the evidence I’m provided with. This is in marked contrast to what you have to say about me, you say I’m frozen in dogma, to the contrary, I just don’t believe what I’m told without looking at the evidence first, and if I’ve left out certain evidence because I was unaware of it’s existence, I don’t evade this knowledge. Other subjects I can simply say that I’m totally uncertain about, I have great certainty in Newtonian physics, the G Constant, Einstein’s theory of relativity, HIV retroviral reverse transcription, nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, plate tectonics, evolution, natural selection, genetic drift, universal common descent etc, but this isn’t 100% certainty. The exact origin of matter, I’m very uncertain about this origin. With the origin of life on earth, I’m very uncertain about that as well.

You say that you’re proud of your Celtic and Germanic heritage, you believe Europeans have a right to protect our racial integrity, and you believe in racial differences in behavior (more specifically intelligence), you show skepticism in consensus world war II history (a revisionist by all means), you say Poland wasn’t completely innocent, you say the Germans are hard workers and Nazi Germany wasn’t completely to blame etc. You’ve pretty much broke every single rule in the social rule book. You wouldn’t have a lot of friends at Stanford and Berkeley, I can tell you that. You would be a heretic by all means. Would you care? In my opinion, I would think you wouldn’t care at all. Why? Because you think for yourself and you say what you want to say. The same is true with me, but yet, I’m obsessed and you aren’t? No offense, but I think you take this forum way to seriously.

I’m a bit puzzled by some of your statements, especially when you say “Judging from your posts you have no other interests outside of race. And that's boring. No matter what i believe i'd never align myself with stupid crackers like yourself” is just silly by all means. My post? What on earth are you thinking? What else should I talk about on a forum and what would it matter? I’m sorry, but I have no interest in making friends on any forum or the Internet. So you would rather hang out with Tyra then I because of what you’ve read on the Internet? If so, that is “creepy” and it’s so stupid that I don’t even have to type anything further. Your words speak for themselves.

 

Haha.. i was just kidding around. I am weird. No doubt about it, i'm a very odd fellow, and it doesn’t matter where I’m at. I'm just not sure if it's due to excessive sun exposure or the fact that i'm an extra-terrestrial being. Wakka wakka.

Though in retrospect i think i was a tad harsh on ol' Pat. But yeah...monomanical fanatical extremists of any kind are pretty much insufferable characters. You just can't party with people like that.

 

Corrections in bold again.

 

With emphasis on "guy". That's 'cause y'all are. Nuts I mean. Men, that is. See how I changed the subject completely there? Who the hell needs a segue when you have men to argue about supremacy of the worlds?

 

England is germanic. I believe Hitler said in Mein Kampf that he wanted to ally with England for that sole reason (and because they're powerfull). But where I don't agree with Patrick is that once the war started, England and France allied, did declare war on Germany hence Germany fought the english in France and Norway and since then Nazi Germany has always been a threat to Great Britain and the allies.
The Rudolf Hess episode was considered treason for Hitler.. at least if my memory serves me correctly, Hess was acting independantly from the nazi power when he tried to get peace with Great Britain.

Didn't the Australians (english mostly) want to ethnically cleanse the aborigines through mass inter-racial breeding with them untill their phenotype was completely consumed with white blood? Sure thats not as cruel as actually murdering them but hell