Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
9/11-investigator said:
The idea of a discussion forum is to explain why this particular article is 'foolish'. And btw this article merely quotes from Polish documents. Any reason to doubt the veracity of these documents?



Mind you, this is more than 7 months before the invasion of Poland!
Click to expand...

As I said before, I won't repeat what's already been said enough time for even a denier to have had a chance of absorbing it. I will laugh every time anybody cites ihr.org. If the documents have credibility they're available elsewhere. If not, they're only available on ihr and it's clones.
 
ddt said:
Any evidence for this? I need a laugh. Dutch Sefardic Jews (ordinarily called "Portuguese Jews" in Dutch) typically carry Spanish or Portuguese names. Roosevelt is a Dutch name.
Click to expand...

Don't laugh too quick... Roosevelt's ancestors changed their name from Rossocampo when they came to Holland after being 'evacuated' from Iberia.

Source.

The New York Times of March 14, 1935, quotes the President as saying: “In the distant past my ancestors may have been Jews. All I know about the origin of the Roosevelt family is that they are apparently descended form Claes Martenszen van Roosevelt, who came from Holland.”

Additional information regarding the nationality of the Roosevelt family, was given by Chase S. Osborn, early in 1934, at St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. Osborn was formerly Governor of Michigan. The leading newspaper of the city (The Times) carried the following report after the interview: “Although a Republican, the former Governor has a sincere regard for President Roosevelt and his policies. He referred to the ‘Jewish ancestry’ of the President, explaining how he is a descendant of the Rossocampo family expelled from Spain in 1620. Seeking safety in German, Holland and other countries, members of the family, he said, changed their name to Rosenberg, Rosenbaum, Rosenblum, Rosenvelt and Rosenthal.

The Roosevelts in North Holland finally became Roosevelt, soon becoming apostates with the first generation and others following suit until, the fourth generation, a little storekeeper by the name of Jacobus Roosevelt was the only one who remained true to His Jewish Faith. It is because of this Jewish ancestry, former Governor Osborn said, that President Roosevelt has the trend of economic safety (?) In his veins.”

Roosevelt inevitably draws upon his Jewish ancestry. It is, therefore, as natural for him to be a radical, as it is for others to be true Americans. This is why he can boast of flouting conventionalities, and publicly gloat over destroying those traditions which are fundamental to our national character.
Click to expand...

I am sure ddt is able to translate Rossocampo into Dutch, after he dried his tears from his eyes after his outburst of laughter...
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
Any evidence for this? I need a laugh. Dutch Sefardic Jews (ordinarily called "Portuguese Jews" in Dutch) typically carry Spanish or Portuguese names. Roosevelt is a Dutch name.
Click to expand...

Nien 11 really getting farther and farther removed from reality.Woon jij in t'een of t'andere instelling manneke?
 
In the same article we get confirmation from the Polish ambassador to Paris:

The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as explained to him by William Bullitt:

For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning the participation of the United States in the war on the side of France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war. As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish it.'
Click to expand...

It was already clear to Bullitt what the war scenario would be. The US was preparing for this scenario all along. Forget about Pearl Harbor. Forget about the invasion of Poland. The origin of WW2 was this (1933).

The Jews destroyed Germany twice. First time because of a little deal with Britain about Palestine, the second time because Germany had temporarily escaped from the Jewish grip when Dolfie came to power. 'Fortunately' the Anglo dummies were prepared to sacrifice the lives of their children to bring Germany back in the NWO corral.

More from the Polish ambassador to Paris:

Juliusz Lukasiewicz, Poland's Ambassador to France, reported to Warsaw on 29 March 1939 about further conversations with U.S. envoy Bullitt in Paris. Lukasiewicz discussed Roosevelt's efforts to get both Poland and Britain to adopt a totally uncompromising policy towards Germany, even in the face of strong sentiment for peace. The report concludes with these words:
... I consider it my duty to inform you of all the aforesaid because I believe that collaboration with Ambassador Bullitt in such difficult and complicated times may prove useful to us. In any case it is absolutely certain that he agrees entirely with our point of view and is prepared for the most extensive friendly collaboration possible.
In order to strengthen the efforts of the American Ambassador in London [Joseph Kennedy], I called the attention of Ambassador Bullitt to the fact that it is not impossible that the British may treat the efforts of the United States with well-concealed contempt. He answered that I am probably right, but that nevertheless the United States has at its disposal the means to really bring pressure on England. He would be giving serious consideration to mobilizing these means.
Click to expand...

This is what Chamberlain later confided to Kennedy, namely that he was pushed into the war by the Jews.
 
Last edited:
Back to the Polish ambassador in Washington:

Ambassador Potocki's secret report of 7 March 1939 is here given in full:

President Roosevelt. In almost every public speech he refers more or less explicitly to the necessity of activating foreign policy against the chaos of views and ideologies in Europe… The same theme is constantly repeated, namely, the danger of war in Europe and saving the democracies from inundation by enemy fascism. In all of these public statements there is normally only a single theme, that is, the danger from Nazism and Nazi Germany to world peace.

As a result of these speeches, the public is called upon to support rearmament and the spending of enormous sums for the navy and the air force. The unmistakable idea behind this is that in case of an armed conflict the United States cannot stay out but must take an active part in the maneuvers. As a result of the effective speeches of President Roosevelt, which are supported by the press, the American public is today being conscientiously manipulated to hate everything that smacks of totalitarianism and fascism. But it is interesting that the USSR is not included in all this.

In contrast, the State Department is unbelievably interested in the USSR and its internal situation and openly worries itself over its weaknesses and decline. The main reason for United States interest in the Russians is the situation in the Far East. The current government would be glad to see the Red Army emerge as the victor in a conflict with Japan.
Click to expand...

You will remember that before 1939 the USSR had killed millions and millions of it's own citizens, where under Hitler merely a few hundreds got killed before the outbreak of the war, like the 90 Jews who got killed after a Jew killed a popular German diplomat in Paris. 90 people, that's a Bagdad car bomb, Klein beer, insignificant. Yet the Americans were worried about the vitality of the Bolshevik system. You can't get it clearer than this. This forum, same story: nobody cares about what happened in the USSR, all they ever talk about it Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. America, the 'land of the Free and the Brave'! Nonsens, America, the land of the commie lovers and big government worshippers. The John Wayne movie character has nothing to do with the average American, the average American is craving for a job in a big bureacracy.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
Back to the Polish ambassador in Washington:



You will remember that before 1939 the USSR had killed millions and millions of it's own citizens, where under Hitler merely a few hundreds got killed before the outbreak of the war, like the 90 Jews who got killed after a Jew killed a popular German diplomat in Paris. 90 people, that's a Bagdad car bomb, Klein beer, insignificant. Yet the Americans were worried about the vitality of the Bolshevik system. You can't get it clearer than this. This forum, same story: nobody cares about what happened in the USSR, all they ever talk about it Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. America, the 'land of the Free and the Brave'! Nonsens, America, the land of the commie lovers and big government worshippers. The John Wayne movie character has nothing to do with the average American, the average American is craving for a job in a big bureacracy.
Click to expand...

So, 90 innocent people being killed is an acceptable number to you?

ETA: BTW not much of a "secret" report.
 
Last edited:
And then we have a very revealing testimony from the British ambassador in Washington about the secret intentions of the American administration, one year before the outbreak of the war:

The secret policy was confirmed after the war with the release of a confidential diplomatic report by the British Ambassador to Washington, Sir Ronald Lindsay… On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in Europe -- Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S. Constitution and dupe the American people.

The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great loss of life."
Click to expand...


Even the killing of civilians was already planned by Roosevelt, almost 2 years before Churchill ordered the beginning of the bombing campaign, the very minute he got into office.

The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay reported.[19]
Click to expand...
 
And then we have a very revealing testimony from the British ambassador in Washington about the secret intentions of the American administration, one year before the outbreak of the war:

The secret policy was confirmed after the war with the release of a confidential diplomatic report by the British Ambassador to Washington, Sir Ronald Lindsay… On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in Europe -- Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S. Constitution and dupe the American people.

The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great loss of life."
Click to expand...


Even the killing of civilians was already planned by Roosevelt, almost 2 years before Churchill ordered the beginning of the bombing campaign, the very minute he got into office.

The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay reported.[19]
Click to expand...

More confirmation of Roosevelt's intentions from Italy:

The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late 1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister] frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my official position, I could not properly make such a statement without instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]
Click to expand...
 
CptColumbo said:
So, 90 innocent people being killed is an acceptable number to you?
Click to expand...

Don't put words in my mouth.

I said that 90 people killed during the night of the broken glass was nothing compared to what had happened in the USSR during the twenties and thirties. Yet America, our self-described do-gooder and human rights champion, prefers to choose the side of the Soviets rather than that of Germany.

Can you say hypocrisy?
 
Last edited:
Gawdzilla said:
Knot/11, you make it sound like a bad thing to help destroy Nazis. It's actually just another form of rat control. Bravo to FDR for planning ahead.
Click to expand...

That is insulting to rats.The Nazis were the lowest form of vermin,rats are noble in comparison.
 
And then there was the European Burckhardt:

Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations High Commissioner to Danzig, reported in his postwar memoirs on a remarkable conversation held at the end of 1938 with Anthony Drexel Biddle, the American Ambassador to Poland. Biddle was a rich banker with close ties to the Morgan financial empire. A thoroughgoing internationalist, he was an ideological colleague of President Roosevelt and a good friend of William Bullitt. Burckhardt, a Swiss professor, served as High Commissioner between 1937 and 1939.

Nine months before the outbreak of armed conflict, on 2 December 1938, Biddle told Burckhardt with remarkable satisfaction that the Poles were ready to wage war over Danzig. They would counter the motorized strength of the German army with agile maneuverability. 'In April,' he [Biddle] declared, 'a new crisis would break out. Not since the torpedoing of the Lusitania [in 1915] had such a religious hatred against Germany reigned in America as today! Chamberlain and Daladier [the moderate British and French leaders] would be blown away by public opinion. This was a holy war!,[21]
Click to expand...

This is completely in line with the discovery Major-General Schultze-Rhondorf had made (discussed earlier in the thread) that Roosevelt knew about the secret annex of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-agression agreement the very next day. Yet he failed to warn the Poles about this annex (division of Poland between Germany and Russia) and even encouraged them to stay away from compromises.

The Americans (Roosevelt and his gang) wanted war and they got it.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Don't put words in my mouth.

I said that 90 people killed during the night of the broken glass was nothing compared to what had happened in the USSR during the twenties and thirties. Yet America, our self-described do-gooder and human rights champion, prefers to choose the side of the Soviets rather than that of Germany.

Can you say hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

Am I the only one whose Irony Meter just exploded?
 
So where did the infamous British war garantee to the Poles comes from? Buchanan says that this garantee was a British 'blunder'. Buchanan is lying through his American teeth, which he always does when he wants to evade the Jews:

The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have been made without strong pressure from the White House.
On 14 March 1939, Slovakia declared itself an independent republic, thereby dissolving the state known as Czechoslovakia. That same day, Czechoslovak President Emil Hacha signed a formal agreement with Hitler establishing a German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, the Czech portion of the federation. The British government initially accepted the new situation, but then Roosevelt intervened.
In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen, who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.
Click to expand...
 
And US commitment to war was not restricted to declaring intentions in private talks with Polish ambassadors, they were talking about arms deliveries as well:

In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to Poland."[24]
Click to expand...


Bullitt in talks with a journalist, no doubt with the intention that von Wiegand will drum up support via his newspaper for the coming war. No veiled remarks, but instead blunt announcement of things to come:

On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it."[25]
Click to expand...

More confirmation about America's intentions from Czechoslovakia:

In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939, Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain and France in the anticipated European war.[26]
Click to expand...

Same story from France:

Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971, Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did everything he could to make France enter the war."[28]
Click to expand...
 
The real war fever was not in Poland, but in the West!

When Ambassador Potocki was back in Warsaw on leave from his post in Washington, he spoke with Count Jan Szembek, the Polish Foreign Ministry Under-Secretary, about the growing danger of war. In his diary entry of 6 July 1939, Szembek recorded Potocki's astonishment at the calm mood in Poland. In comparison with the war psychosis that had gripped the West, Poland seemed like a rest home.

"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs. They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that as well."[30]
Click to expand...

I could post a lot more but I see that my opponents have given up on defending their position. Tomorrow I will wrap it all up and will answer the question I posed myself in my first post.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
Don't laugh too quick... Roosevelt's ancestors changed their name from Rossocampo when came to Holland after being 'evacuated' from Iberia.

Source.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea to what kind of nutjob you linked? "Watchman" Willie Martin is a member of a fringe Christian cult called "British Israelism", who think that the Western Europeans (Anglo-Saxons, Germans, etc.) are the true descendants of the people of Israel. From another writing of the same nutjob, called "Who are the Jews":
The group of nations which we loosely group under the term Anglo-Saxon, includes the people of the British Isles, the Scandinavian, countries, nearly all of Germany, Holland, and some few of the people of France and Belgium. [...] All these people are the living descendants of the people named Israel of the Bible. We are blood brothers of our Savior, Yahshua.
Click to expand...
Well, nutjobs is too kind. They're racists too. Another minister whose writings are featured on the same site, Wesley Swift, was a member of the KKK, if that wasn't already clear enough.

Now, should I trust the writings of such a nutjob?
Additional information regarding the nationality of the Roosevelt family, was given by Chase S. Osborn, early in 1934, at St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. Osborn was formerly Governor of Michigan. [...] He referred to the ‘Jewish ancestry’ of the President, explaining how he is a descendant of the Rossocampo family expelled from Spain in 1620. Seeking safety in German, Holland and other countries, members of the family, he said, changed their name to Rosenberg, Rosenbaum, Rosenblum, Rosenvelt and Rosenthal.
Click to expand...
Can you provide me with a date for the article in the Petersburg Times? Can you show the genealogical information that has been gathered by Mr. Osborn? Why would Osborn do that at all, BTW?

He continues:
The Roosevelts in North Holland finally became Roosevelt, soon becoming apostates with the first generation and others following suit until, the fourth generation, a little storekeeper by the name of Jacobus Roosevelt was the only one who remained true to His Jewish Faith.
Click to expand...
This makes the story even more unbelievable. Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, or had to convert to Christianity. Portugal soon followed suit. So, these "Rossocampos" have lived for several generations in an oppressive regime, hiding their Jewish identity, and once they arrived in a religiously tolerant country, they quickly became apostates? Sorry, does not compute.

Moreover, the name Rossocampo is not attested anywhere as a Sephardic name, e.g., this database turns up nil. The only finds on Google, besides racist hate sites that parrot the above story, are of a Gregory Thompson on http://genforum.genealogy.com/roosevelt/, who keeps parroting the story, including the claim that Roosevelt's ancestor Claes Roosevelt came from Haarlem (near Amsterdam). He regularly underlines the credibility of his claims by using all-caps.

Claes Roosevelt came to Nieuw Amsterdam (New York) shortly before 1649. His ancestry in Holland has not been conclusively traced. The Haarlem claim is not supported by any incidence of the Roosevelt name (or variants thereof) in the 17th century. The better claim is by the village Oud Vossemeer on the island of Tholen. Roosevelt there occurred as a geographical name, and sometime later in the 17th century occurred as a family name. Also the current distribution of the name "Van Rosenvelt" in Holland concentrates around Tholen (link).

ETA:
I overlooked another piece of - let's say - sloppy research by your nutjob Willie Martin. You quoted him as writing:
The New York Times of March 14, 1935, quotes the President as saying: “In the distant past my ancestors may have been Jews. All I know about the origin of the Roosevelt family is that they are apparently descended form Claes Martenszen van Roosevelt, who came from Holland.”
Click to expand...

Here's the actual letter:
My dear Mr. Slomovitz:

I am grateful to you for your interesting letter of March 4th. I have no idea as to the source of the story which you say came from my old friend, Chase Osborn. All I know about the origin of the Roosevelt family in this country is that all branches bearing the name are apparently descended from Claes Martenssen Van Roosevelt, who came from Holland sometime before 1648—even the year is uncertain. [...]

In the dim distant past they may have been Jews or Catholics or Protestants. What I am more interested in is whether they were good citizens and believers in God. I hope they were both.
Click to expand...
Highlighting mine. Incorrect and tendentious quoting, and he quoted the two sentences out of order. I doubt also the letter appeared in the NYT, as it was directed at the editor of the Detroit Jewish Chronicle.
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
Highlighting mine. Incorrect and tendentious quoting, and he quoted the two sentences out of order. I doubt also the letter appeared in the NYT, as it was directed at the editor of the Detroit Jewish Chronicle.
Click to expand...

You were actually very kind here, ddt. Since not only the order was chance, but the other religions were cut out, thereby changing the meaning.

The original version makes it clear that he simply did not know, and allowed for all possibilities. The version presented left other religions out, thus implying the the probability of them being of Jewish origin is rather high. The person who edited this, which is not necessarily our investigation, was simply dishonest.
 
Doctor Evil said:
You were actually very kind here, ddt. Since not only the order was chance, but the other religions were cut out, thereby changing the meaning.

The original version makes it clear that he simply did not know, and allowed for all possibilities. The version presented left other religions out, thus implying the the probability of them being of Jewish origin is rather high. The person who edited this, which is not necessarily our investigation, was simply dishonest.
Click to expand...

Thanks for writing that out. I had spotted that, and yes, just calling it "tendentious" is too kind.
 
Hitler had plans to invade the Soviet Union as far back as 1925. It wasn't for any noble reasons, such as saving the citizens from Stalin's purges. It was for "Lebensraum," and later, the raw materials of Ukraine. If you want to know some the Reich's attitude towards the people of the Soviet Union you might want to read about Hermann Göring's Green Folder and Herbert Backe's Hunger Plan.
 
CptColumbo said:
Hitler had plans to invade the Soviet Union as far back as 1925. It wasn't for any noble reasons, such as saving the citizens from Stalin's purges. It was for "Lebensraum," and later, the raw materials of Ukraine. If you want to know some the Reich's attitude towards the people of the Soviet Union you might want to read about Hermann Göring's Green Folder and Herbert Backe's Hunger Plan.
Click to expand...

You lost Nazi-boy when you got to the word "read".
 
Belz... said:
And this is supposed to prove what ?
Click to expand...

It's supposed to prove that the US started a war that they were extremely unprepared to fight. That they provoked a world-wide war in order to get into the war in Europe. That it wasn't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊'s fault at all, he just wanted to pick petunias in the Caucuses and the nasty ole commie/jew/liberal/fags wouldn't let him.

Or something along that line. We'll see if Knicks/11 ever produces this magisterial work he's been promising.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom