[UK] BNP telling members 'to breed' after election disaster

Post Reply New Topic

Because England and France knew, that a war with Germany easily could have turned bad against them around that time and until Germany attacked Poland, it wasnt that easy to have legit causes.

France suffered very hard in first worldwar. Certain parts where armies met each others, were fought for months and years, with the borders only moving a few dozend meters, but costing several hundreds life each day. Also the UK didnt have the material ressources for a long war with germany (thats why they later needed the support of goods that was shipped from the US, that were delivered before the US official entered the war) You could say that all three countries, did a gigantic poker game: France and England simply didnt think that Hitler really would risc a terrible war and millions of deaths, only to attack poland, specially when Hitler knew that England and France were allied with Poland and had agreed to go on war with Germany if Germany attacked Poland.

While Hitler on his side didnt think that England and France really would risk a war with millions of deaths for the people of poland. He thought they would rather turn their backs on poland, to prevent themselves from starting a war.

Why they didnt attack before, when it was about Rheinland, Sudetengermany,... So Hitler had taken other areas before, but it was accepted until then because after the first worldwar, there were lots of areas with mixed people and two countries fighting for them in a not direct way by supporting militant groups and so on. So this happened in a lots of places in europe around that time, and foreign countries didnt want to get involved. Hitler also used a good propaganda around that time, so normally both of that mixed populations in an area had radical people, and whenever notgerman radical killed germans it was presented professional in press and newspapers, so that it seemed for people: "In area xyz this damned radical xyz are slaughtering peaceful german families to clear the area of all germans, so that country xyz can tell that the area belonged to him, because of no germans living there." So this did happen, but it happened on both sides, because both sides normally had idiotic radicals and normal peaceful people. So these small hidden wars about areas with mixed populations were everywhere in europe, and so were "accepted" and France and England didnt want to go on a heavy war with germany about something that was already pretty usual in europe. Additional they would have looked a bit like hypocrytes, when about every second country fought about these small territories in this way, but when Germany did so, they get a war declaration. ^^

When Hitler did attack Poland, France and the UK joined Poland as promised in the war. So this was not anymore about areas with small mixed populations, where it was pretty hard to know who is right or wrong, and also not like the attack on Austria which was rather peaceful (Yeah, I mean Austria and Germany were forced to destroy their armies, when they lost the first worldwar. Austria obeyed and so had no army, while Germany and Hitler did not and build an giant army. And then Hitler visited Austria. Ok, most people simply accepted, because there is simply no use to go on war with an army that has seven times the size of your army, if you still had an army. Additional Hitler saw the Austrians as part of his glorious german race, so he wanted them to assimilate, but not to wipe them out and around 20% of the Austrian already were Nazis anyway.) but simply an attack on a independent foreign countries territory with massive losses of life. Before it was simply about territory, and people got killed in the conflicts, but normally most could leave and move to other areas, so it was not that bad that England and France wanted to start a second worldwar because of small territorial battles.

Because of their experiences in first worldwar, where there were massives fighting only about a few meters, the frances had meanwhile build great "walls, fortresses, and military buildings" (Sorry, dont know the propper words.) in a very long line, so that if they had again this terrible fightings about a few meters, there men were better guarded, had more ressources, better protection. But german tankgeneral Rommel tried against Hitlers orders, a tactic that hadnt been done before (simply because there hadnt been that kind of tanks before) and "sprinted" with his tanks at maximum speed, not waiting for german infantry as backup, beside the ends of the giant french fortress lines and was suddenly massive in the back of the french major defense line. The french had two options: Their major attack line being fractured from two sides if Rommel attacked the frontline, or follow Rommel, leaving their defense line not sufficient guarded or ignore Rommel and let him do inside france whatever he wanted to do, because most military forces were at the major defense line and noone could stop the tanks anymore if they went deeper into France. So France was f****d up within a very short time, which left England alone with his lack of material and human ressources. (So the UK were, when they went to war socially not more modern around that time, then other european countries, so they didnt give woman rather unusual jobs because they appreciated feminism that much, but they simply needed workcraft because you need people in the army, if many of these people were farmers you need aditional people that replace that farmers, because with more people in the army instead of working and less people producing food, you cant feed an army. Additional they needed more people to produce the army material they needed....)

When D-day began, the allied troops succeeded in a row. But you must think of, that at this time Hitler already had lost many of his troops and ressources to the russians and because of his reckless doing at Stalingrad against his own soldiers, had massive lost of moral in his army. So allied it was "easy" then for the allied troops to succeed.

So before 1938, at the time when England and France could have tried to stop Hitler on his own as you say, there was no additional east war with russia where germanies troops already had been massively killed and lost their believings in the Führer, there was no US allied troops,... they didnt try to stop him before, simply because they knew that Germany was at least equal with them if not worse. As it did happen, when they finally decided to go to war. France was f****d up in shortest time, and England also would have had bad chances on their own if they hadnt received goods from the US, and an extraordinary morale. France and England knew of that, thats why they wanted to avoid a war that would cost them everything they had and lots of deads, only to acchieve a 1:1 win chance.

Edit: Short version (the post got longer then I wanted)

You can compare it with China, Tibet and the USA. Should Tibet get support to free himself from China? From a moral view: Absolutely yes.

So why does as example the US not help them if they are innocent people, forced into a foreign country that surpresses them? Because to f**k up with China can lead to a situation that cant be predicted and could cost much, much, much, much more lives, then as if you would holocaust the citizens of tibet four times.

So you do moral political protest, but in the end you accept it, because noone wants to start a war that could end so terrible.

Very interesting

I'm assuming you are German yourself?

I think my sister-in-law's Mother/family lived in the Sudentenland; I don't know if that was before or after other people were cleared from there though. They apparently struggled a lot as regards getting enough food to eat. Also, one of her other relatives or someone they knew ran a guest house and had one of the Baader Meinhof gang staying there, who not unsurprisingly wasn't a very nice person.

I never understood totally what the Baader Meinhof Gang stood for

Ummm, sure the Democrats like talk-the-talk and use a lot of populist rhetoric, but when it comes to actual policies they tend to be pragmatists and corporatists, not true ideological leftists. If they were as extreme to the left economically as the Tea-Party contingent of the Republican Party is to the right, they would be shut out. They would receive no air time because their corporate funding would be cut off. Big business in the US only plays footsie with and feeds power to the right. Only people like Ron Paul are too extreme for them and thus get shut out of the GOP apparatus entirely. The US doesn't have true democracy because of the insane amount of money involved in the political process. It's a joke really.

I have concluded that Nick Gri££in is an agent of the Conservative Party. He might not be a paid up member (although his father Edgar is) but he is working on their behalf to build up the BNP to a level where no other nationalist party stands a chance during the time the Conservatives were in opposition, then wreck the BNP once the Conservatives come to power. If you knew Gri££in as well as I do then this theory fits like a glove. I have encountered several former BNP members who also agree. I would be very surprised if Gri££in was state although I'm of the opinion that 'sinister' Simon Darby is from MI5. He is a very strange character with a hidden history who makes Gri££in appear quite honest and benign in comparison.



The BNP had a councillor in Broxbourne in Hertfordshire which is a strong Tory area. The BNP also beat UKIP in the Henley by-election in 2008. My experience of the BNP is that they appeal most to working class Tories much more than old Labour types. In many strong Labour urban areas the Tories easily win around 25% of the vote without UKIP or BNP candidates and this is what the BNP taps into. One prerequisite to becoming a BNP supporter is to be a homeowner. The BNP has struggled to win support from tenants but has had much more success with working class homeowners who worry about paying their mortgage.

Labour and the left have far more reason to hate him than the Conservatives ever do.

I think the Zionists are responsible for it.





They had a single councillor ten years ago. Which they've no doubt lost.



A fluke result. I bet most of those votes went to Labour at the next election.



And what do you base this on?

The BNP are as good as finished these days.



And how can you prove this?

A lot of BNP supporters, in my experience, seem to be in deprived Labour-run areas without a lot of jobs. Those that have been left on the scrapheap. Or those people living in heavily Muslim areas.

I was just wondering if it was one of the ones near me, like West Morecambe where they lost by 65 votes :p

Gri££in has played the Zionist card in order to appease the mainstream media but I seriously doubt that he is willing to get off his backside and proactively contribute to the Zionist cause. Very few Jews will trust Gri££in or the BNP because of their past history but Zionists who are not Jewish have become more tolerant of the BNP in recent years and are more accepting that the BNP is NOT a neo Nazi party although it may never be respectable. Therefore I doubt that Zionists are responsible for the decline of the BNP.



It's called experience and first hand sources of information.



There is some truth to this but they can still be homeowners and have voted Conservative in the past.



There are a fair few unemployed people in the BNP but they overwhelmingly want to work rather than live off benefits. They tend to want skilled manual jobs like construction more so than unskilled jobs in retail or services. Rarely do they b***h on about Thatcher like the left does but they blame the economic policies of the government at the time.



In largely white areas in close vicinity to heavily Muslim areas. Most whites who live in the middle of heavily Muslim areas are not on the BNP's wavelength.

No, we were third by several hundred votes. Way ahead,of Lab though.