FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  »Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
Cosmored
F L I N T O I D

Another good one.

A Jew speaks truth about Hitler and Nazi Germany - Full Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFDvtzwT-TU


edit one hour later
------------------------------

these two are good too.

Adolf Hitler and the Real Reason for World War 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn-vlDNZFhw

Learn the Truth about WW2 - Living in Hitler's Germany
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Eyt4ZZKJ1M
Post Wed May 17, 2017 5:59 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Cosmored
F L I N T O I D

As I said in an earlier post, I've seen a lot of supposed quotes of Hitler's in which he says fascist things but I've never seen a video of him actually speaking in which he says fascist things. I'd bet that most or even all of those quotes are bogus.

I'd bet that this is bogus.

https://www.google.es/?gws_rd=ssl#q=hitler%27s+table+talk


http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n5p34_Weber.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birken also quotes repeatedly from The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents, supposedly a transcript of "table talk" remarks made by Hitler in February and April 1945. These "documents" are fake, says British historian David Irving, who reports that the late Swiss banker François Genoud admitted to him that he was the author.
Post Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:08 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Cosmored
F L I N T O I D

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p40_Michaels.html
Post Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:25 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
opas1
F L I N T O I D

so interesting topic
___
Cheap scorts girls
Post Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:55 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Cosmored
F L I N T O I D

Thanks for the positive feedback opas.


This is an interesting article.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p285_Hummel.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------
More robust was the Office of Censorship, created by the First War Powers Act. It examined all forms of communication entering or leaving the country -- letters, cables, telephone calls, even films. It went so far as to suppress private letters that painted a gloomy picture of the war. By 1944, it had detained 500,000 pieces of mail, occupying 10,000 square feet of storage space. The Office also drew up an ostensibly voluntary Code of Wartime Practices that applied to press and radio news reporting. /38 The military engaged in its own independent censorship covering the news it released, the mail sent and received by U.S. troops, the dispatches of war correspondents, and all media within conquered territories. When the isolationist Chicago Tribune innocently published too many details about the Battle of Midway, the Justice Department tried to prosecute. The grand jury refused to indict, however.
Post Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:50 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Cosmored
F L I N T O I D

Another relevant article that helps clear things up.

http://www.ihr.org/other/weber2011soundofmusic.html
Post Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:19 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Cosmored
F L I N T O I D

http://www.ihr.org/other/sobran/beirutconf
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------
The IHR holds conferences featuring speakers who challenge conventional liberal history. One favorite is the brilliant, controversial British historian David Irving. Other recent speakers include the historian John Toland, the former congressman Pete McCloskey, and the journalist John Sack. Sack, himself Jewish, wrote a semi-complimentary article on the IHR for Esquire, expressing his surprise that the revisionists were "affable, open-minded, intelligent, intellectual. Their eyes weren't fires of unapproachable certitude and their lips weren't lemon twists of astringent hate. Nazis and neo-Nazis they didn't seem to be. Nor did they seem anti-Semites." Sack also acknowledged that the revisionists have poked holes in the official Holocaust story and forced the accredited experts to discard some of the myths, though not, of course, the chief point of contention: whether Nazi Germany deliberately exterminated six million Jews. (Most revisionists think fewer than a million Jews perished of various causes -- chiefly disease -- during World War II.)

This year [2001] the IHR decided to co-sponsor a conference in Beirut. But just before it was to begin in late March, when all preparations had been made and the attendees had bought plane tickets and reserved hotel rooms, the Lebanese government suddenly banned the meeting. The Lebanese reportedly did this under American pressure, and the United States Government, it is not far-fetched to suspect, had in turn been pressured by the usual suspects: Jewish-Zionist organizations.

So the U.S. Government acted, underhandedly, to ban a meeting that would have been entirely legal and constitutionally protected in the U.S. Ah, the Land of the Free, spreading the blessings of liberty around the world!
Post Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:15 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Cosmored
F L I N T O I D

https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4882
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------
Roosevelt Provokes Pearl Harbor Attack

Provoking Japan into an overt act of war was the principal policy that guided Roosevelt’s actions toward Japan throughout 1941. Lt. Cmdr. Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote an eight-action memorandum dated October 7, 1940, outlining how to provoke a Japanese attack on the United States.[19]

The climax of Roosevelt’s measures designed to bring about war in the Pacific occurred on July 25, 1941, when Roosevelt froze all Japanese assets in the United States. This brought commercial relations between the nations to an effective end, including an end to the export of oil to Japan.

Prince Konoye, the Japanese premier, requested a meeting with Roosevelt to resolve the differences between the United States and Japan. American Ambassador Grew sent a series of telegrams to Washington, D.C. in which he strongly recommended that such a meeting take place. However, Roosevelt steadfastly refused to meet with the Japanese premier.[20]

Foreign Minister Toyoda made a dispatch to Japanese Ambassador Nomura on July 31, 1941. Since U.S. Intelligence had cracked the Japanese diplomatic code, Roosevelt and his associates were able to read this message:[21]

“Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas… I know that the Germans are somewhat dissatisfied with our negotiations with the United States, but we wish at any cost to prevent the United States from getting into the war, and we wish to settle the Chinese incident.”

This obvious Japanese desire for peace with the United States did not change Roosevelt’s policy toward Japan. Roosevelt refused to lift the oil embargo against Japan. The Roosevelt administration was well aware that Japan imported approximately 90% of her oil, and that 75% to 80% of her oil imports came from the United States. Roosevelt also knew that the Netherlands East Indies, which produced 3% of the world’s oil output, was the only other convenient oil producer that could meet Japan’s import needs.[22]

On October 31, 1941, an oil agreement between Japan and the Netherlands East Indies expired. The Netherlands East Indies had promised to deliver about 11.4 million barrels of oil to Japan, but actually delivered only half of that amount. The Japanese Navy had consumed approximately 22% of its oil reserves by the time the war broke out.[23]

By the closing months of 1941, the United States was intercepting and breaking within a matter of hours almost every code produced by Japan.[24] In the last week of November 1941, President Roosevelt knew that an attack by the Japanese in the Pacific was imminent.

Roosevelt warned William Bullitt against traveling across the Pacific:[25]

“I am expecting the Japs to attack any time now, probably within the next three or four days.”

Roosevelt and his administration knew this based on the intercepted Japanese messages. This information was not given to the commanders at Pearl Harbor to enable them to prepare for and thwart the Japanese attack.

Adm. Husband Kimmel, commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, states that if he had all of the important information then available to the Navy Department, he would have gone to sea with his fleet and been in a good position to intercept the Japanese attack.[26] Kimmel concludes in regard to the Pearl Harbor attacks:

When the information available in Washington was disclosed to me I was appalled. Nothing in my experience of nearly 42 years of service in the Navy had prepared me for the actions of the highest officials in our government which denied this vital information to the Pearl Harbor commanders.

If those in authority wished to engage in power politics, the least that they should have done was to advise their naval and military commanders what they were endeavoring to accomplish. To utilize the Pacific Fleet and the Army forces at Pearl Harbor as a lure for a Japanese attack without advising the commander-in-chief of the fleet and the commander of the Army base at Hawaii is something I am wholly unable to comprehend.[27]
Post Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:56 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >