With minor exceptions German national unification has been achieved. Further successes cannot be achieved without bloodshed. Poland will always be on the side of our adversaries... Danzig is not the objective. It is a matter of expanding our living space in the east, of making our food supply secure, and solving the problem of the Baltic states. To provide sufficient food you must have sparsely settled areas. There is therefore no question of sparing Poland, and the decision remains to attack Poland at the first opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of Czechoslovakia. There will be fighting.

- Hitler, May of 1939 while addressing German Generals.

Comes from Kursk: The Greatest Battle: Eastern Front 1943 on page 26.

And no, you cannot claim everything that opposes your worldview a forgery.

Most lorewriters consider that book a falsehood maker, and yes I have, I have shown where it is from, go to that book for more, anyway, you and X are wrong.

This thread was not made to be a debate. Rather, it was supposed to a fun topic for the imagination to wander around.

There's absolutely no point taking it literally though. Of course the scenario makes no sense. That's why it didn't happen! Events revolve more around the balance of everything, rather than it does probabilities. There are of course exceptions to this, but that's not the point.

Let's now just take it at a chill, grab a few jelly beans from the jar and throw them out. Just don't spill it. :)

Edited 7/14/2016 21:47:19

Citation: a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work.

Lloyd Clark is a senior academic in the Department of War Studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Professorial Research Fellow in War Studies, Humanities Research Institute, University of Buckingham.

You're really grasping at straws Lawlz :)

Give me a real reason why this isn't a citation considering the person who wrote it is educated and generally respected, Lawlz.

Note: Claim to authority argument isn't always a fallacy, and about half the time is considered a valid argument.

Edited 7/14/2016 23:50:54

>Lawlz
>generally respected

>Lawlz
>generally respected

Wasn't calling Lawlz generally respected, I was calling Karl Lawlz.

It is a citation, the definition fits it and the person is an expert in the field. Applying your logic to everything means that there is no validity in any major non fiction media, and if there is validity in non fiction media it means your logic is faulty. Let's see: The newscaster said it would be around 100 degrees F today, and what do you know, it is.

Your logic and argument is faulty.

Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided - it has been held to be a valid argument about as often as it has been considered an outright fallacy

facism sux

fascism on the other hand...

This is what will happen to Poland
https://www.warlight.net/SinglePlayer/Level?ID=897691

His quote is very well a citation, @British Fascist i would like *you* to provide a *citation* to prove that his citation is not accurate.

I'm a decent person.

Edited 7/15/2016 13:02:13