The British are even more invested into the idea of punishing Holocaust Denial http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/09/091001.pdf than the Jews, because they have even more to cover up than Zionist Jews who just wanted Israel as a homeland for diaspora Jews, who of course wanted to justify their land grab against the Palestinian Arabs. This is explained at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/poppy-mania-day-prevents-any-rational.html The British have to pretend to themselves that they had to enter WW1 or the Germans would have invaded, and they would all be speaking German by now if they had not declared war against Hitler for invading Poland. To make it all seem worth their while losing their empire over, they had to big up Hitler as being evil incarnate when it seems that he was actually a nicer person than Churchill. Whatever you think of, Hitler at least was not a drunk and a depressive, nor did he ban smoking even when he was dictator. http://strangeherring.com/2009/05/17/hitlers-secretarys-memoirs-to-be-published-in-english-pop-up-book-and-video-game-to-follow/ Imagine - Hitler actually being more liberal and respectful of the liberty of Germans to smoke than PC Libtards everywhere!
Hitler's greatest mistake was in expecting the British to be reasonable about Poland when they were being so manifestly unreasonable about going to war ostensibly over Belgium in 1914 over "a scrap of paper", as the German Ambassador in London called the 1839 Treaty of London.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/why-i-would-be-pleased-to-see-statue-of.html
The British under Asquith entered World War 1 because Asquith, the Liberal Prime Minister thought a short and successful war would give the Liberal Party an electoral advantage in the 1915 General Election. They clearly thought that any war would be a short one and that the boys would be home by Christmas. In the end, they lost Britain her world empire ...
The British political establishment would have a much bigger axe to grind as regards WW2 than Zionist Jews ever would.
At his talk on Saturday I tried interesting David Irving in my little idea. Indeed, I remember someone else in his previous talks trying to interest him in WW1, but he repeated his answer to me "I know nothing about WW1, absolutely nothing, and stick to the subjects I know."
The "Second Thirty Years' War" is a disputed periodization sometimes used by historians to encompass the wars in Europe from 1914–1945.
Hitler's greatest mistake was in expecting the British to be reasonable about Poland when they were being so manifestly unreasonable about going to war ostensibly over Belgium in 1914 over "a scrap of paper", as the German Ambassador in London called the 1839 Treaty of London.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/why-i-would-be-pleased-to-see-statue-of.html
The British under Asquith entered World War 1 because Asquith, the Liberal Prime Minister thought a short and successful war would give the Liberal Party an electoral advantage in the 1915 General Election. They clearly thought that any war would be a short one and that the boys would be home by Christmas. In the end, they lost Britain her world empire ...
The British political establishment would have a much bigger axe to grind as regards WW2 than Zionist Jews ever would.
At his talk on Saturday I tried interesting David Irving in my little idea. Indeed, I remember someone else in his previous talks trying to interest him in WW1, but he repeated his answer to me "I know nothing about WW1, absolutely nothing, and stick to the subjects I know."
The "Second Thirty Years' War" is a disputed periodization sometimes used by historians to encompass the wars in Europe from 1914–1945.
Poor old David Irving being bullied and brow-beaten by Tim Sebastian. If he doesn't want to hear the answer he shouldn't have asked the question. (Notice how Tim Sebastian's voice was made louder than David Irving's to make him sound more authoritative and David Irving's voice turned down slightly to make him seem weaker and less authoritative.) David Irving also remorsefully apologises for saying "nigger" when he angrily shouted at a black man for running into him and hurting him. Understandable, I would have thought. Every person can think of a derogatory word to describe anyone they want to insult, so I don't see why black people should be protected from this. If Pakistanis can be called Pakis and the Chinese can be called Chinks why not black people niggers? It is actually racially discriminatory to say only black people are protected from being racially insulted while all the other races have to take it on the chin.
