To Dionysios

I was wondering what your own stance on the Holocaust is.

I've seen you say that the Holocaust was, infact, not true, but that doesn't mean that you believe that the Nazis did nothing to the Jews either.

Just your own views, and use other sources if you can't clarify, or express yourself well enough.

Also, try to keep it below 10 pages, as that's basically the most I can muster, while on the internet. Especially, since I see that most of your posts are essays

I do believe the Nazis persecuted jews and other peoples, and I do not endorse everything the Nazis did.  Perhaps most significantly, their invasion of certain eastern european countries like Greece and Serbia was bad for both the peoples of those countries as well as the jews of those countries as well.  

  I am neither German nor jewish, and I have witnessed many other peoples of different nationalities (for example, Greeks, Africans and east Indians) state that the jewish holocaust of WWII is mere war propaganda.  These are neither jewish nor German as well but have become sick of having this propaganda rubbed in their faces as the jewish suffering in WWII is advertised far more than that of all other peoples combined.  Even jewish writers who accept the holocaust as real acknowledge that like Norman Finkelstein in his book "The Holocaust Industry."

  We could go into details such as that Hitler never issued an extermination order, so-called "holocaust survivors" have been proved to be liars who were not where they claimed to be, other camp survivors (whom the major media ignores) have testified that the claims are not true, jewish organizations like the Jewish Agency and World Zionist Congress who were spouting the propaganda at the time never sent a dime to their suffering brethren, the holocaust claim of precisely 6,000,000 jewish deaths has been a claim of zionist propaganda in many newspaper articles and speeches before WWII ever since Samuel Untermyer wrote a propaganda newspaper article in 1900 claiming this, and we could go on, but to answer your question more briefly I will mention mainly what I believe.

  Aside from the wealthy fascist jews of Spain led by the sephardic jew General Franco himself, the Nazis were allied with the jewish zionists of Germany.  Two jews who became prime ministers of israel took the fascist side in the war:  Menachem Begin and Itzhak Shamir.  I disagree with both the Nazis and the zionist jews on this important point (and I agree with the traditional jews on the same) because as the jews had themselves believed for centuries, the will of God was that the jews be dispersed abroad and only their messiah and not a man-made movement would return them to Palestine.  This solid and righteous jewish tradition is something that the zionist movement abandoned (and it is significant in this respect that the zionist movement was started in the nineteenth century by secualr non-traditional jews like Theodore Herzl whose parents were reform jews and he himself had less interest in religion than they did).  The Nazis wanted the jews out of europe.  The Nazis had also departed from traditional Christian tradition reguarding the jews which was to disperse them and not to expel them.  In this sense Hitler was akin to certain papist rulers of times past (like Isabella of Spain) who had foolishly sought to expel jews (which created a class of wealthy spanish catholics called marranos who were secretly jews).  The zionists of Germany made a pact with the Nazis in 1933, and thus the friendship between the nazis and the German zionist jews had begun.  (The British and american zionists led by Chaim Weizmann hated Hitler ofcourse, and they favored the allies.)  It is important that these German zionists who made the pact with Hitler were the minority of German jews.  The majority of jews in Germany were assimilationists who had no desire to be shipped off to Palestine, and they were content living in Germany where they had lived for centuries.  I believe the Nazis were wrong to force them to move and put them in concentration camps, but to say they were annihilated is a lie.  It is simply not what happened at all and prevents people from grasping what was going on, which was a forced exodus to other places, which the Stern Gang (as the German zionists were called) had participated in with the Nazis if not even being the originators of the idea themselves.

  (If you do not believe men who became prime ministers of israel were allied with the nazis during WWII, then there are several excellent books by jewish historians which illustrate this.)

  The important thing that did happen as far as jewish history in the 1940's was that eastern europe which had been the home ashkenazi jews for centuries actually lost most of its jewish population at that time.  They were not incinerated in gas chambers which is rubbish.  They did what jews have done throughout the diasporic history of this characteristically nomadic people:  they moved onto other places - especially the US, the USSR, and Palestine.

- Dionysios

I do believe the Nazis persecuted jews and other peoples, and I do not endorse everything the Nazis did.  Perhaps most significantly, their invasion of certain eastern european countries like Greece and Serbia was bad for both the peoples of those countries as well as the jews of those countries as well.  

  I am neither German nor jewish, and I have witnessed many other peoples of different nationalities (for example, Greeks, Africans and east Indians) state that the jewish holocaust of WWII is mere war propaganda.  These are neither jewish nor German as well but have become sick of having this propaganda rubbed in their faces as the jewish suffering in WWII is advertised far more than that of all other peoples combined.  Even jewish writers who accept the holocaust as real acknowledge that like Norman Finkelstein in his book "The Holocaust Industry."

  We could go into details such as that Hitler never issued an extermination order, so-called "holocaust survivors" have been proved to be liars who were not where they claimed to be, other camp survivors (whom the major media ignores) have testified that the claims are not true, jewish organizations like the Jewish Agency and World Zionist Congress who were spouting the propaganda at the time never sent a dime to their suffering brethren, the holocaust claim of precisely 6,000,000 jewish deaths has been a claim of zionist propaganda in many newspaper articles and speeches before WWII ever since Samuel Untermyer wrote a propaganda newspaper article in 1900 claiming this, and we could go on, but to answer your question more briefly I will mention mainly what I believe.

  Aside from the wealthy fascist jews of Spain led by the sephardic jew General Franco himself, the Nazis were allied with the jewish zionists of Germany.  Two jews who became prime ministers of israel took the fascist side in the war:  Menachem Begin and Itzhak Shamir.  I disagree with both the Nazis and the zionist jews on this important point (and I agree with the traditional jews on the same) because as the jews had themselves believed for centuries, the will of God was that the jews be dispersed abroad and only their messiah and not a man-made movement would return them to Palestine.  This solid and righteous jewish tradition is something that the zionist movement abandoned (and it is significant in this respect that the zionist movement was started in the nineteenth century by secualr non-traditional jews like Theodore Herzl whose parents were reform jews and he himself had less interest in religion than they did).  The Nazis wanted the jews out of europe.  The Nazis had also departed from traditional Christian tradition reguarding the jews which was to disperse them and not to expel them.  In this sense Hitler was akin to certain papist rulers of times past (like Isabella of Spain) who had foolishly sought to expel jews (which created a class of wealthy spanish catholics called marranos who were secretly jews).  The zionists of Germany made a pact with the Nazis in 1933, and thus the friendship between the nazis and the German zionist jews had begun.  (The British and american zionists led by Chaim Weizmann hated Hitler ofcourse, and they favored the allies.)  It is important that these German zionists who made the pact with Hitler were the minority of German jews.  The majority of jews in Germany were assimilationists who had no desire to be shipped off to Palestine, and they were content living in Germany where they had lived for centuries.  I believe the Nazis were wrong to force them to move and put them in concentration camps, but to say they were annihilated is a lie.  It is simply not what happened at all and prevents people from grasping what was going on, which was a forced exodus to other places, which the Stern Gang (as the German zionists were called) had participated in with the Nazis if not even being the originators of the idea themselves.

  (If you do not believe men who became prime ministers of israel were allied with the nazis during WWII, then there are several excellent books by jewish historians which illustrate this.)

  The important thing that did happen as far as jewish history in the 1940's was that eastern europe which had been the home ashkenazi jews for centuries actually lost most of its jewish population at that time.  They were not incinerated in gas chambers which is rubbish.  They did what jews have done throughout the diasporic history of this characteristically nomadic people:  they moved onto other places - especially the US, the USSR, and Palestine.

- Dionysios

Revising history, Excellent work Dionysios. I look forward to your conversion to my church.

Additionally what are your thoughts on the invasion of poland, and the beggining of WWII and what was dubbed "The phony war".
-ujb.

So, what I understand so far is that you believe some were killed in the concentration camps? I take it then, your numbers can't be as high as the media's been saying

You do know, of course, that Hitler did kill thousands upon thousands of other people, like blacks, asians, etc. What are your views on those?

(On an aside, UJB, is that Mr. Wintony as your avatar?)

So, what I understand so far is that you believe some were killed in the concentration camps? I take it then, your numbers can't be as high as the media's been saying

Typhus. That and the allied invasion of europe which lead to widespread malnutrition. Ofcourse the camps got the short end of the stick, most of them being mutinous and prisoners.

You do know, of course, that Hitler did kill thousands upon thousands of other people, like blacks, asians, etc. What are your views on those?

Well Hitler was an incestuous paedophile and a closet homosexual at the same time, so I guess that would be right up his alley, right? Killing the blacks and asians. Oh he did that too. My.

(On an aside, UJB, is that Mr. Wintony as your avatar?)

Nay, it is I.

I want to say that I especially like the Greek people due to my conversion to the Orthodox Christian Church (though I am not Greek myself) and this has been useful in knowing the bad things the Nazis did.  I do find it hard to believe they slaughtered many blacks and asians specifically as nazi involvement in WWII took part in europe.  I am sure all sides killed peoples of everywhere, but to stress the amounts of asians and blacks that the Nazis killed sounds more far fetched than saying they killed jews.  It sounds quite unbelieveable like propaganda.  There is a tendency these days to ascribe every evil under the sun to the nazis.  This is not history.  Particularly offensive about the black and asian claim is that the british were the ones guilty of this not only during WWII but during the whole of the British empire's history.  The German empire's history had always been one on land which meant they mostly conquered other white peoples in europe (aside from the very late nineteenth century when they took a few places like Tanganyika), while the British had a waterborne empire which took them everywhere in the world.  The abuses of the British were far more universal than that of the Nazis.  Why do you not mention the british as well?  

   The fact is the Nazis were in alliance with the Jpanese as well as with the whole of India.  India is the country of the swastika where the Nazi Karl Hophauer brought the swastika from in 1919 to the Thule Society in Bavaria of which Adolf Schicklegruber (Hitler) was a member.  Are you unfamiliar with the story of Netaji Bose, the Indian war hero and cause of its emancipation from the British or the historic INA trial in Red Fort in Delhi over which the Indian people went wild after learning the had their own blessed war hero who held Indian territory (with Japanese assistance) for nine weeks during the war in defiance of the british which led directly to massive amounts of military and political strikes and mutinies in the late 1940's resulting in Clement Atlee's granting of emancipation to India from Britain?  i am in India now and virtually every bus and taxi have swastikas on them.  This is not becuase of the Nazis.  It is because this ancient symbol is sacred to the religion as welll as to the science of this country.

  As far as racism, Mussolini was far more racist than hitler.  He is the one who invaded Ethiopia.  i think the Nazis were stupid to support him, and it cost them dearly in third world relations.  This did not prevent Sheik Hussein, the arab leader of the time from allying with Hitler as he was sick of British atrocities.

  I am not a Nazi, but I consider that side of the war to have had the better part of valour if your talking about their British opponents.  Actually, if it were not for Winston Churchill, there never would have been a big war.  Remember, the British declared war on germany first, not the reverse.  I do think the Germans and Soviets were both wrong to invade Poland, but the British should have attacked the Soviets as well.  i do not believe Stalin would have agreed to it unless he had been certain the Britiah would not attack him.  I think Stalin knew WWII was about to begin when he made the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but Hitler had no idea.  The British not only gave away Poland to the Soviets after the war, the British murdered the leader of the Polish military, General Sikorski during the war.  The British Secret Service did this on the orders of Winston Churchill.  It is no coincidence that Churchill 's both parents were jewish, and he was fervently pro-Hitler until 1939, when his agreement to submit to the orders of an occult jewish organization known as the FOCUS resolved his mid-1930's financial crisis.  This organization continued to direct his activities throughout the war.  In a book published as late as 1938 entitled 'Great Contemporaries,' Winston Churchill wrote that if Britain had lost the war he wished it "would have found such an indomitable hero to restore among its place among the the nations."  He suddenly became very anti-hitler in 1939 at the same time his financial problem was solved and he was able to avoid mortgaging his estate.  This is documented in David Irving's 'Churchill's War Volume 1.'  I also want to remark that his jewish motherwas involved in the occult to the point that she had a tattoo of a serpent on her right hand.

  The British people during the war liked Hitler more than the modern historians give them credit for.  To his credit, a recent book shows that the king of england favored Hitler as well.  This is a reflection of the old truth that the king is the defender of the people, which traditional Russia adhered to as she and Britain with its weak king and strong nobles (capitalists) have taken two different paths since AD 1066, such a fateful year for Britain.  The defender of the people has certainly not been the British prime minister.

- Dionysios

The comment about typhus in the camps is correct.

  Hitler was not a homosexual.  This is rubbish.  In fact in 1934, he specifically had all homosexuals kicked out of the SA.

  The same thing goes for the pedophile accusation.  This is all garbage.  It is easy to make up lies about our enemies or about dead people, and that is what has happened.  The Bible indicates that those are first in this world will come last in the next world, and that those who come last in this world will be first in the next world.  What does that indicate about people who receive all kinds of praise from those o this world, like Winston Churchill?  

  As to converting to any church, the only Church I will ever submit to is the Orthodox Church, which is the only Church as far as I am concerned.

- Dionysios

The comment about typhus in the camps is correct.

  Hitler was not a homosexual.  This is rubbish.  In fact in 1934, he specifically had all homosexuals kicked out of the SA.

  The same thing goes for the pedophile accusation.  This is all garbage.  It is easy to make up lies about our enemies or about dead people, and that is what has happened.  The Bible indicates that those are first in this world will come last in the next world, and that those who come last in this world will be first in the next world.  What does that indicate about people who receive all kinds of praise from those o this world, like Winston Churchill?  

  As to converting to any church, the only Church I will ever submit to is the Orthodox Church, which is the only Church as far as I am concerned.

- Dionysios

You will convert Dionysios, Or I will off your head.
-ujb.

Just let the axe fall swiftly so we can get it over with.

- Dionysios

I did want to add that forcing anyone including jews or anyone else to run around naked and embarrased is something I find incredibly offensive and my sympathy does go to any and all recipients of such utter disrespect.  I do want to add, however, that the Nazis were hardly the only ones with concentration camps, and this kind of abuse did occur in the US and Britain (psychiatric facilities, internment of Japanese, Germans, Italians, First Nations, among others) as well as in Israel and the american run and established detention centres today.

- Dionysios.

So, to put it in simple terms:

- You're not a nazi
- The high numbers are government propaganda, designed to make Hitler look more evil than he really way


I must say though, you do give a lot of evidence and backups for your claims.

Quote

(On an aside, UJB, is that Mr. Wintony as your avatar?)

Nay, it is I.

Oh, because you look alot like one of my history teachers.

Seriously, the resemblance is remarkable.

- The high numbers are government propaganda, designed to make Hitler look more evil than he really way

There has never been any proven paperwork that Hitler, or any leading Nazi party official, Military official ordered a holocaust of any description. At the nuremburg trials a document was presented claiming to be this order. But it was later proven to be a bad fake. Without the 'consent' or 'order' there was NO holocaust. The burden of proof is then on holocaust supporting, not holocaust revionists.

Not only that, but there is huge flaws in the cremating of all the bodies in the holocaust. And I don't mean holes like in swiss cheese. There is two issues at hand in cremating bodies, (1)The fuel required to burn one million jews would have been unobtainable. And they did not HAVE that amount of fuel. We can see from documents at the time how much fuel they had, and how much bodies you could burn with that. In the crematoriums, which leads to me to my second point. (2)The crematoriums. The crematoriums in the camps could NOT run day and night burning jews. They could run 12 hours a day, at the maximum. But even if they could run day and night, twenty-four hours a day. It would've taken from the start of the war until the 80s to burn 6 million jews.
Although if they had somehow managed to do this, at the destructive expensive of their fuel (During a war on three fronts), then it has been calculated that certain thousands of TONNES of ash would be within the vincinities of the camps. Ofcourse this is nowhere to be found.

I wouldn't call it just 'government propaganda', I beleive that mislabels what it is. Old WWII war propaganda that the allies took up after their complete victory in WWII and turned into fact. For their owns sakes. I beleive this is what Dionyious is referring to when he mentions propaganda. Which is generally heinously exaggerated in the case of the allies. Who have historically smeared the Axis as the 'evil doers'. Yet if you were to look at the trigger for WWII (Poland) you will find some reasonable political justification. And I can tell you, you will also uncover the original purpose of alot of the concentration camps in Poland (Prior to WWII).

Since as early as the roman occupation of Jeruselum 2000 years ago, the jews had made grandiose claims about 'jews suffering'. This includes the absurd claim made by the jews that 6 billion jews were suffering at the hands of the romans. But more recent to WWII, there had been alot of claims within the jewish community that 6 MILLION jews were being persecuted within Europe. Aswell as larger and less beleivable figures - 18 million - etc.
-ujb "Doing gods will through holocaust revionism!"

Dionysis, your statment that orthodox church, although it is subjective to your own thoughts, is the only church could get some people quite angry at you. Everyone has the right to believe in any religious establishment they want, so long as the group does not justify the murder or suicide of it's followers. Any one person could say that their church is the "only church" meaning it is the only correct group. This is also known as, although this time it was passive, religious persecution to any person of another church. Although I follow no religion closly I do believe that there is a god for every belief, and he only has influence over those that believe in him/her/it. I also believe that some things in the bible could be BASED around events happening at the time. All stories in the bible could just be stories told by old people to the children to scare them out of doing things like killing or stealing.[/quote]

Dionysis, your statment that orthodox church, although it is subjective to your own thoughts, is the only church could get some people quite angry at you.

Why should he care?

-Erasmus

Particularly offensive about the black and asian claim is that the british were the ones guilty of this not only during WWII but during the whole of the British empire's history...Why do you not mention the british as well?

How do you deny the atrocities of the Nazi's yet accept the atrocities of the Empire?

i am in India now...

Of course you're going to get a biased view, as the Indians did not like the British Empire.

 

As far as racism, Mussolini was far more racist than hitler.  He is the one who invaded Ethiopia.  i think the Nazis were stupid to support him, and it cost them dearly in third world relations.  This did not prevent Sheik Hussein, the arab leader of the time from allying with Hitler as he was sick of British atrocities.

True, Mussolini was rascist as well.

Remember, the British declared war on germany first, not the reverse.  I do think the Germans and Soviets were both wrong to invade Poland, but the British should have attacked the Soviets as well.  i do not believe Stalin would have agreed to it unless he had been certain the Britiah would not attack him.  I think Stalin knew WWII was about to begin when he made the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but Hitler had no idea.  The British not only gave away Poland to the Soviets after the war,

True but Poland was not the first country Germany invaded. It was simple to see that if Germany was allowed to keep invading countries it would eventually take over Europe and then invade Russia. Once it had done that, Britain would have been powerless to stop it.

Besides, don't you think the Polish had a right to be freed from the occupying German's just as the Indians had a right to be freed from the British Empire?

the British murdered the leader of the Polish military, General Sikorski during the war.  

Evidence?

He suddenly became very anti-hitler in 1939 at the same time his financial problem was solved and he was able to avoid mortgaging his estate.

...that could have something to do with Hitler's invasion of other countries. Anyway Churchill didn't know that Jews were being killed in the Nazi concentration camps, so why would this seedy Jewish cult tell him to invade Germany? Concentration camps were ran by the British before Hitler as you have pointed out so why invade because of tha?

The British people during the war liked Hitler more than the modern historians give them credit for.  To his credit, a recent book shows that the king of england favored Hitler as well.  This is a reflection of the old truth that the king is the defender of the people, which traditional Russia adhered to as she and Britain with its weak king and strong nobles (capitalists) have taken two different paths since AD 1066, such a fateful year for Britain.  The defender of the people has certainly not been the British prime minister.

He wasn't popular with the public during the war but he was popular before the war. In fact Hitler quite liked Britain before the war as well.

I agree with the point on capitalists, they have far more influence than the King or Queen.

Also I don't believe the monarchy has any real effect on government policy now. I think the prime minister does a much better job of running the country than the monarchy.

Sorry, Dionysios, but I was reading your post, and this struck me as somewhat out of place:

I also want to remark that his jewish motherwas involved in the occult to the point that she had a tattoo of a serpent on her right hand.

How, exactly, is this relevant?

Also, I would discourage you from equating respect for one's adversary as condoning what he was doing.  When Winston Churchill wrote that "...if Britain had lost the war he wished it "would have found such an indomitable hero to restore among its place among the the nations."", he was refering to the fact that:

"In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he has succeeded in restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War.... the vanquished are in the process of becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished.... whatever else might be thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world." – Winston Churchill 1935.  "

He also said "...One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I should hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."

I would like to see the documentation provided by David Irving, other than that out of context quote, designed to make it seem as though Chruchill admired everything about Hitler, that show Churchill's rapid change in viewpoints.

Clearly, Dionysios, he was not admiring Hitler's morals, but rather the ability he showed as a political leader, and there can be no debate that Hitler was a skilled diplomat. You'll also find that Churchill was an outspoken critic of appeasement and in favor of going to arms against Germany long before the outbreak of the war in 1939.

Also,

The British people during the war liked Hitler more than the modern historians give them credit for. To his credit, a recent book shows that the king of england favored Hitler as well. This is a reflection of the old truth that the king is the defender of the people, which traditional Russia adhered to as she and Britain with its weak king and strong nobles (capitalists) have taken two different paths since AD 1066, such a fateful year for Britain. The defender of the people has certainly not been the British prime minister.

The reason people liked Hitler so much was that they viewed fascism as a more pleasant alternative to communism, which worried much of the population. Surely it doesn't escape you that a king is much more likely to be in favor of a system of government in which it is quite possible he will retain power rather than a system which tells people they are all equal and attempts to evenly distribute wealth?  The king was in no way defending the people, but rather his own interests.  

As for Russia adhering to this "age-old truth", well that worked out great for them, didn't it?  That's why we're all in line for our potatoes and Britain is a third-rate world power controlled mostly by crime syndicates...oh no...wait...

Also wasnt the King of England that admired Hitler Edward VIII?
THe only British monarch to voluntarily relinquish the throne. I find it hard to view someone who abdicated his responasabilities to a nation on the eve  of its greatest struggle so as to marry a much divorced women a defender of the people. Really the only British monarch of modern times that deserves the title defender of the people (assuming any do which I'll admit is debatable) would be George VI the father of Quenn Elizabeth and monarch during WWII. He put his duty ahead of his personal preference becoming King upon his brothers abdication dspite crippling stage frght. He also refused to flee to Canada during the Blitz staying instead in London and was almost killed by Gernman bombs.
That to me would make on more of a defender of the people thne abandoning duty for love of a women.
Just a thought
Cinlef

He wasn't popular with the public during the war but he was popular before the war. In fact Hitler quite liked Britain before the war as well.

Hitlers always felt close to the english, and kept a place for them in his dark heart. Dunkirk is a prime example of how he felt about the British, sparing 338 000 men.
-ujb.

And I suppose that his orders to stop bombing military targets, and to instead bomb only civilian-filled cities during the Battle of Britain were a result of his oh-so-warm and fuzzy feelings for the British as well?

And I suppose that his orders to stop bombing military targets, and to instead bomb only civilian-filled cities during the Battle of Britain were a result of his oh-so-warm and fuzzy feelings for the British as well?

Yes thats right you are incorrect, well partially but just enough for me to say you're incorrect. THE LONDON BOMBING was a direct retaliation to the British bombing of Berlin, I beleive they call this 'wrath' or 'vengeance' - a human characteristic. So that is why he bombed London, quite a fair retaliation in my opinion, though very costly to his war effort, well detremental to it.
-ujb.

Quote

He wasn't popular with the public during the war but he was popular before the war. In fact Hitler quite liked Britain before the war as well.

Hitlers always felt close to the English, and kept a place for them in his dark heart. Dunkirk is a prime example of how he felt about the British, sparing 338 000 men.
-ujb.

the only reason he done that was because the commander of the luftwaffe (who's name escapes me) said that his men could destroy the British and french on the beaches(this notably failed), so Hitlers panzer divisions stopped at the top of the beaches allowing the 338 000 men of the BEF and the French army to escape from Dunkirk returning heros

Quote from: "UNCLE JIM BOB"

Quote

He wasn't popular with the public during the war but he was popular before the war. In fact Hitler quite liked Britain before the war as well.

Hitlers always felt close to the English, and kept a place for them in his dark heart. Dunkirk is a prime example of how he felt about the British, sparing 338 000 men.
-ujb.

the only reason he done that was because the commander of the luftwaffe (who's name escapes me) said that his men could destroy the British and french on the beaches(this notably failed), so Hitlers panzer divisions stopped at the top of the beaches allowing the 338 000 men of the BEF and the French army to escape from Dunkirk returning heros

Hitler ordered the stop in good will, what you are reciting is merely allies war propaganda in its historical form.
-ujb.

Yes thats right you are incorrect, well partially but just enough for me to say you're incorrect. THE LONDON BOMBING was a direct retaliation to the British bombing of Berlin,

Correct me if I'm wrong -- my WWII knowledge is limited at best -- but I thought the Berlin airstrikes occurred much later in the war than the London bombing.

Correct me if I'm wrong -- my WWII knowledge is limited at best -- but I thought the Berlin airstrikes occurred much later in the war than the London bombing.

The London Blitz occured because Churchill ordered the RAF to bomb Berlin. Before that Hitler has been bombing only military targets but after Berlin was attacked, he retaliated by bombing civilian targets, most notably London.

The London Blitz occured because Churchill ordered the RAF to bomb Berlin. Before that Hitler has been bombing only military targets but after Berlin was attacked, he retaliated by bombing civilian targets, most notably London.

I see, and stand corrected.

Yes but Churchill bombed Berlin in retaliation for the German bombing of the EAst End of London (which happened when Ludwaffe pilots accidently dropped bombs meant for airfields.
An enraged
Cinlef

Yes but Churchill bombed Berlin in retaliation for the German bombing of the EAst End of London (which happened when Ludwaffe pilots accidently dropped bombs meant for airfields.
An enraged
Cinlef

About 1/9999999999999999 of 9/11. Churchwill, who supported the failed British assault on the Dardenales in WWI was a fan for bloodshed. Unlike his german counterpart, who was a charasmatic and kind man - Adolf Shicklegruber.
-ujb

Did someone delete my most recent post here, or was it a fluke?

  I hope it is the former only for the sake that it can still be reinstated, as it took some time.  As for 6strings, thanks for the quotes, and I had answered your question in the post, but I am not going to write the whole thing over again.

- Dionysios

Did someone delete my most recent post here, or was it a fluke?

Hmmm... I was recently through here executing the annihilation of a plague of Richard Simmons-related spam.  It seems likely I may have in error deleted your post... humblest apologies.

Sincerely,
Erasmus

The following is an extremely abbreviated form of my earlier post:

UJB,

  It seems we have some agreement as to the number of jewish deaths in europe during WWII.  I would like to point out that whether or not he agrees with that particular point, you may find that cheesejof's comments often tend to be among the more informed on historical issues.  In fact, several socialist historians like A.J.P. Taylor have written excellent histories of the war.

- Dionysios