# Udet- Germany really did not intend to Invade UK ever.



## Hunter368 (Jan 28, 2006)

Udet I will only respond to what you wrote to me.

1) First, not sure if everyone here agrees with you on alot of you ideas or opinions that is up to them to decide (not sure if you really care anyways), but I do see more then most some truths in your opinions but it is sometimes the way you talk to people that gets them upset. I know this is not the first time you have heard that, but it is worth repeating. I think you are very knowledgeable on Germany in WW2 but perhaps alittle slanted towards Germany and against the Allies. Now at times I get tried of reading about alot of the Allied opinions and thoughts of WW2 but it is my right to put that book down and not read it. That is why I buy books of WW2 from the Axis powers point of view about 5-1 ratio b/c I have read sooooo much about the Allies it gets boring. So I do respect your opinions here but if you tried passing them along alittle more respectfully I and perhaps others would be more agreeable to them. I would like to point out or ask is English your first language? Its just that it is alittle hard to understand what you are saying at times, it is like English is maybe your second language is all, I mean no offense here just asking.

2) Your first and second point in the other thread the peace offering by Hitler. Lets start there. You say Hitler made two peace offers to UK, true. With Russia ever, other than the broken treaty no. But to me that means nothing. All it means is that he truly did not want to fight a very dangerous enemy in UK and wanted to end it with peace not a war. Hitler in Mein Kampf (which I read) states Germany needs living space, that space is to the East in Russia. He always wanted to destroy Russia from way back. As far as France goes Hitler was not interested in Alger or Morocco b/c he had no interest in them. It was not worth he time or effort to invade them he had bigger fish to fry then them. Hitler did respect UK but that means nothing. Hitler was not a fool at times he was a genius and at other times he was a fool.
3) Your third point you say this: Think of this, and I believe it is here where you miss the point: 
I will try -and want- to make peace with you, please...but if you continue in the bully mode in-spite of my efforts it will get to the point where I´ll say "to hell with you, really want to fight? good, I will be glad to please your needs you bloody sod..." 

I say what are you saying here? Not sure if you are quoting someone here or aiming this at me or what. 

Then you say how Hitler if he wanted to he could of threw everything at UK that he could, air-force, navy (surface fleet), Uboats. Lets me answer all point by point.
Airforce - He did try this it failed, BoB.
Uboats- He did try this it failed, Battle of the Atlantic
Surface Navy- He did send some out on raids in the Atlantic. But for the most part Hitler had no confidence in his navy (surface fleet) and very much concentrated on land battles alone. He in the end just had them sit in their ports and tried his luck with the only part of the navy he trusted or liked, Uboats.

Finally you say this: "Hitler´s alleged plan to invade England was more the product of a sudden undesired circumstance and not one of premeditation and profound desire."

I agree with you some there. Did he always dream or wish to invade UK like he did with Russia, no. But when war was declared on him by France and UK he knew that he might have to. So he did the smart thing, defeated France first, then second, tried to bluff and intimidate UK into surrendering, while at the same time preparing to invade them if it was necessary. He quickly realized part way BoB that was imposable and gave it up. 


As a side note if you have any good books from the Axis point of view please do give me a list, always looking for more good reading. Thanks


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 28, 2006)

I have posted this here so the thread" D-Day - 6th June, 1944." can get back on track. This is for Udet but anyone can post here also if you like, it is based on the disscuion started back in thread "D-Day - 6th June, 1944.
" between me (few others also) and Udet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Surface Navy- He did send some out on raids in the Atlantic. But for the most part Hitler had no confidence in his navy (surface fleet) and very much concentrated on land battles alone. He in the end just had them sit in their ports and tried his luck with the only part of the navy he trusted or liked, Uboats.



Actually it was not that he did not trust his surface fleet. Hitler himself said he was fascinated with Battleships and Carriers and Surface fleets, but he was terrified of war on the high seas.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > Surface Navy- He did send some out on raids in the Atlantic. But for the most part Hitler had no confidence in his navy (surface fleet) and very much concentrated on land battles alone. He in the end just had them sit in their ports and tried his luck with the only part of the navy he trusted or liked, Uboats.
> ...



Interesting view point, just from my point of view I have seen it written and TV that Hitler never had confidence in his surface fleet. But either way it gets the same point across to Udet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2006)

I am sure he did not either. I would be skeptacle also after my first few Battleships and Battlecruiser got destroyed pretty quickly.

Either way the German surface fleet was not prepared for the war. His Admirals even told him this on several occasions.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 30, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am sure he did not either. I would be skeptacle also after my first few Battleships and Battlecruiser got destroyed pretty quickly.
> 
> Either way the German surface fleet was not prepared for the war. His Admirals even told him this on several occasions.



I agree and that is what I am trying to point out to Udet. But he has not responded mmmmmm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2006)

He will.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 30, 2006)

I hope so I do enjoy talking to him, he has alot of different ideas which I like to hear. Its always easy to say everything that is known or that everyone else agrees on but harder to fight up the current so to speak. I will wait for him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2006)

I agree with you. Many times he has good things to say, it is the way he comes across that gets people all riled up.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 30, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree with you. Many times he has good things to say, it is the way he comes across that gets people all riled up.



I agree, he does have of interesting ideas, he makes you think about things differently which is what I like.


----------



## Udet (Feb 1, 2006)

Mr. Hunter368, hello:

Your first question: yes, English is my first language. I believe it got slightly overwhelmed by another language likewise spoken at home though. Do no pay too much attention to my english, i am crazy, so i speak accordingly (all other languages I am fluent in are all spoken the same).

It took me a few years of reading, seeing and hearing to conclude Germany did not intend to invade England.


Point (2) of your posting pretty much agrees with my views on the matter.
France was not a plan either. They got defeated alongside the British Expeditionary Force. Did Germany unleash any rampage to humilliate the defeated french? Not at all. 

Treatment given to the defeated French in 1940 (occupied and non-occupied France, no claims to the french fleet, no claims to France´s african colonies, etc.) adds soundness to the case Mr. Hunter: Hitler´s gesture towards the west was authentic. 

Very authentic and consistent. Far more consistent than both France´s and Britain´s contradictory policies in the continent, which lacked any intelligible meaning. 

Who´s to deny having battleships _Richelieu_ and _Jean Bart_ -although not yet completed by 1940-, and battlecruisers _Dunkerque_ and _Strasbourg_ plus several more new french cruisers, added to the order of battle of your navy is a bad idea?

This is pure speculation, we will never know what would have happened if Hitler had actually attempted the seizure all those powerful french units and have them deployed to challenge British sea power manned by German crews. The vessels were constantly moving in north african ports, but some of them returned to Toulon.

That was speculation. Now the facts: we do know Hitler never even considered the thought. (Oddly, more french sailors perished to the guns of their British "allies").

I repeat, other than implementing the necessary measures to ensure any combat potential still left for the french would not be deployed against Germany, nothing excessive was imposed to the defeated size.

But Mr. Churchill continued to present Germany as the most fearsome threat, a threat to the continuation of the human species as we know it.


Now, point (3) deserves the following response: No. It was not aimed at you. It was an hypothetical scenario of two guys that have been fighting. One of them seeks peace, but the other guy refuses all offerings issued by the other. The whole situation will flow to reach one point when the guy who sought peace will say "to hell with you. you want a war? you will have it."

Pretty much what Hitler endured during the year of 1940 with Great Britain.

In fact mr. Hunter, had England been a plan for Hitler he would have launched everything out to get it. The outcome? Very difficult to figure out. A bloodbath for sure though.

We agree that when it came to achieve his goals, he did not save any efforts right?

You might re-read my comments and you will find I did say Hitler proceeded further with was the most feasible of the ventures to put the most pressure on England: an air campaign (Battle of Britain), to no avail.

Also you are correct when you say that in the end, the so called Battle of the Atlantic failed to achieve the primary goal. But hey, let´s place us on the platform I am herein referring to: 1940.

Although I have no numbers at hand, I believe the number of U-boats after the fall of France was not that large; still, I see Hitler ordering Admiral Dönitz to deploy as much as possible in the Channel accesses to attempt hindering Royal Navy´s operation against the German invasion force.

But hey, I am not going to move onto the fruitful "what ifs" hemisphere. It is pointless and meaningless. Hitler did not want to invade.

You also agreed with me: his fundamental goal was the east.

This has gotten just too long. Sorry.

Might add more stuff in next days.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 1, 2006)

The situation for the British was more like "Well, you've attacked and conqured several of my friends, given us a bloody nose and now, just when we are strong behind our defences and can give you back some of your own, your offering us peace? *Snigger* Bugger that for a game of soliders, you bully."

British policy had been for centuries that there should be no single, monolithic power bloc dominating the Continent. Hitler simply wasn't an astute enough historian to realise that the British would never accept Europe under any single power. Germany also completely misread the British character and determination.

How ever, what he did realise that the most basic prerequisite to sucessfully conquer England was the establishment of aerial superiority over the Channel and southern Englang. Without that both, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force could play merry hell with any invasion attempt. 

The actual physical evidence that an invasion was intended, planned and prepared for is fairly overwhelming.

Germany began reconnisance of British radar and costal defences before the war had even begun. In *May and August, 1939*, General Wolfgang Martini, used the _Graff Zepplin_ to conduct signals and radar intelligence operations over the southern and eastern UK.

Adolf Galland certainly though that Germany wanted to invade the UK. He noted in a post-war article that:

"Time was required to complete *invasion preparations*, especially by the navy. The Luftwaffe was to make good use of this breathing-space by carrying out independent operations aimed at securing air superiority. Though there was no deviation from the *original purpose of invading Britain*, the nature of operations began gradually to shift the emphasis to the strategic mission of the Luftwafe"

The official German study of British air defences from 1940-1941 seems to also think that there was the intention to invade:

"After the victorious conclusion on June 25th 1940, of the campaign against France, it was the intention of the German General Staff to force a swift defeat on the British by landing on the mainland of Britain"

it continues a little later

"Thus the only possibility open was to get the British bases into German hands. In these circumstances, the German High Command had decided to attack the British mainland; for this purpose, they had first to achieve air superiority"

Even Directive 16 has the title 'Preparations for a Landing Operation Against England'. Part of the LuftWaffes role described in the document is to "prevent air interdiction during the invasion"

More later


----------



## 102first_hussars (Feb 1, 2006)

Ill accept the possibility that Germany itself did not want to invade england, but Hitler himself f*cking dead on wanted england in his hands and those who argue that fact are seriously misinformed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2006)

Hmmm....

Today Europe, tomorrow the world....


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2006)

Hmm, I see the thread has been moved. Ill express my opinion on this later...

To the notion that Hitler was stupid, no he wasn't stupid, he was insane and very "misinformed". He wanted it all at once, and acted like a baby to get it, that was his mistake.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

he was demented and stupid and his late war tactics wishing full control instead of relying on his experienced Wehrmacht staff proved it


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2006)

Erich said:


> he was demented and stupid and his late war tactics wishing full control instead of relying on his experienced Wehrmacht staff proved it



How can you call him stupid and demented Erich ? Sure he made some unwise strategical choices, but the man himself wasn't stupid, misinformed in the way of tactics and logistics(Not to mention human rights) sure, but not "Stupid". 

His extreme paranoia and wishful thinking(Especially in the end), shows us he was mentally unhealthy, "insane" might be an appropriate word.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

insane is a great word but also preoccupation with dementia. the man became totally warped after his near death experience and of course we know it would of been a God-send had he died with the others in the blast.

I feel earnestly that he indeed took a violent brain shake up which caused his dementia not often heard nor accepted during war time and the after to today but according to witnesses and copied official logbooks from superiro Stab offiziers not to mention his female staff it well appears that the guy lost real control mentally, so in effect he became over time ........... stupid

one of his hair brain schemes was after the disaster on 2 Novmeber 44 as he wanted to sack the entire Sturmfw (3) gruppen. Two of them had caused some terrible US bomber casualties but in so doing also lost as many heavy Sturms to the Us Mustang escorts. Hitler thought it was not enough, that every Strum should of given itself - pilots- in taking out 1-2 bombers, and in fact he was terribly upset that any Luftw. pilot landed safely in his outrage.

crazy, stupid ?


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 1, 2006)

Soren said:


> Erich said:
> 
> 
> > he was demented and stupid and his late war tactics wishing full control instead of relying on his experienced Wehrmacht staff proved it
> ...



Soren, I agree with you. Hitler was a genius at times and about somethings and a moron about other things. Tactics was not his strong suit for sure. Talking to people, knowing people, manipulating people, he was ambitious, thought big, those are some of the things he was good at. Being a mil. leader, tactics, strategy these were just a few of the things he was bad at. As the war went on he got more and more loonie. But few men in history can claim to have shaped history as much he as. If Hitler would of never lived think about all the things that would of been different (other than a hell of alot of people being alive that are now dead) in our world, I mean on the technical level mostly but human rights also. Don't get me wrong he was a evil man and I am not fan of his but he did do alot to shape our world in many ways or at the very least accelerated them happening. But this is alittle off subject but oh well.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 1, 2006)

Erich said:


> insane is a great word but also preoccupation with dementia. the man became totally warped after his near death experience and of course we know it would of been a God-send had he died with the others in the blast.
> 
> I feel earnestly that he indeed took a violent brain shake up which caused his dementia not often heard nor accepted during war time and the after to today but according to witnesses and copied official logbooks from superiro Stab offiziers not to mention his female staff it well appears that the guy lost real control mentally, so in effect he became over time ........... stupid
> 
> ...



Erich I think you are right too, in that as the war progressed Hitler got more and more loonie. I think everyone would agree with that. I think Soren is talking about before then, early in the war or even before the war.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Feb 1, 2006)

Soren said:


> Hmm, I see the thread has been moved. Ill express my opinion on this later...
> 
> To the notion that Hitler was stupid, no he wasn't stupid, he was insane and very "misinformed". He wanted it all at once, and acted like a baby to get it, that was his mistake.



He was insane, misinformed and he was also stupid


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 1, 2006)

He turned a impoverished country in severe economical drought into a world power, not bad for a totally insane or a stupid person. Now did he turn insane later ??? yes I agree on that part.


----------



## Maestro (Feb 1, 2006)

Insane, yes.
Misinformed, yes.
Stupid, not so sure.

Would any stupid guy be elected at the head of a country ?

*Looks at the picture of Jean Chrétien* Okay, never mind...


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2006)

a blessed though that is not quite the word I am looking for........orator. he had the charisma for fact and even today the Alt age groups say he brought Deutschland out of the depression but he did not share at first his dream(s) of total one Europe under his fat thumb. Stupid at this time, yes taking on the Soviet Union, Britain, and then the US and the rest of the Allies.

He had duped the German populace totally during his reign and only from mid 43 did they wake up, too late


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 1, 2006)

Erich said:


> a blessed though that is not quite the word I am looking for........orator. he had the charisma for fact and even today the Alt age groups say he brought Deutschland out of the depression but he did not share at first his dream(s) of total one Europe under his fat thumb. Stupid at this time, yes taking on the Soviet Union, Britain, and then the US and the rest of the Allies.
> 
> He had duped the German populace totally during his reign and only from mid 43 did they wake up, too late



Charismatic yes very in the extreme, I have listened to some of his speeches (not that I speak German) and even i was getting excited. Yes like I said taking on Russia, UK, USA all at the same time was stupid (not tactically wise in the least). But that is what I said, he was not a general or even a good strategical mind, not even a good tactical mind.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Feb 1, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> He turned a impoverished country in severe economical drought into a world power, not bad for a totally insane or a stupid person. Now did he turn insane later ??? yes I agree on that part.



Many of his ideas were ahead of his time;yes, but he made all of the same mistakes that Napolean Bonapart made, gave up too easily when trying to invade england (probably for the best  ) then trying to invade Russia, the Germans in Russia suffered the EXACT same fate that Napoleans men did years prior, Hitler was an ignorant, paranoid, sadistic, idiotic moron, And I thank that hippie haired goteed son of a bitch watchin over me for it because, if Hitler wasnt all those things , who knows? we may still be still be fighting him right now.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 1, 2006)

In my opinion he was stupid not to let the Generals run the war but after the July 20th assassination attempt he couldn't trust the army. He was also a schizophrenic which didn't help, and I read somewhere is doctor was precribing all kinds of harmful drugs as medicine (cocaine was one if I remember right, as I think was arsenic).


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 1, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> In my opinion he was stupid not to let the Generals run the war but after the July 20th assassination attempt he couldn't trust the army. He was also a schizophrenic which didn't help, and I read somewhere is doctor was precribing all kinds of harmful drugs as medicine (cocaine was one if I remember right, as I think was arsenic).



Actually he should of let his Generals run the whole war. lol Actually I have this great good of all of Hitlers medical problems and all his health issues, just have not gotten aorund to reading it. I have about 75 books just waiting for me to read them, I see a good one I buy it, then I just have to find time to read it.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 1, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > He turned a impoverished country in severe economical drought into a world power, not bad for a totally insane or a stupid person. Now did he turn insane later ??? yes I agree on that part.
> ...



Hussars I agree with all the things you call him but you still can't ignore what he did. Hell if its so easy that any moron can pull a country off its azz and turn it into a world power, then why don't you run for Priminister of Canada? (not saying you are a moron just pointing it out that what he did is not easy, he had to have a few things going for him, whether you liked him or hated him he still did what no normal man could do). Hell you compare him to Napoleon, Napoleon's not bad company to be compared to when comparing leaders of nations. Not alot men have done more to shape or influence this world in the last 100 years then Hitler (even Stalin).


----------



## 102first_hussars (Feb 2, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> In my opinion he was stupid not to let the Generals run the war but after the July 20th assassination attempt he couldn't trust the army. He was also a schizophrenic which didn't help, and I read somewhere is doctor was precribing all kinds of harmful drugs as medicine (cocaine was one if I remember right, as I think was arsenic).



There is no way he could have been a schizo, that is just too hardcore of a disorder to hide from people.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 2, 2006)

Udet said:


> Mr. Hunter368, hello:
> 
> Your first question: yes, English is my first language. I believe it got slightly overwhelmed by another language likewise spoken at home though. Do no pay too much attention to my english, i am crazy, so i speak accordingly (all other languages I am fluent in are all spoken the same).
> 
> ...



Udet,

I agree that Hitler did not seek out to humiliate the French or UK before WW2 even started other than to maybe stick it to them alittle like they did to Germany after WW1. But once they declared war on him and he saw that no peace was going to happen then it was a different story. Then he realized that he had to conquer them. He could not leave two very powerful enemies in his rear when he knew he was going to wage war in the east sooner or later. So he kicked France's azz and even held back alittle on the BEF in France. Then with France under his shoe (using that victory as an example to UK) he tried to get UK to quit this war and settle. UK wanted no part of that so he had no choice but to attack them, again he knew he could not leave UK behind him when he attacked Russia. So he tried his hardest to crush UK, BoB (to gain control of the air so he could land), if you are saying BoB was staged by Germany for any other reason but to control the skys so German could land troops then let me hear why they did it. Why did they do it? 

Battle of the Atlantic trying to starve UK out and prevent anymore supplies from getting to them. Again he was trying to soften UK up to invade them and to reduce his effectiveness to fight/hold on. If you think that this was not the reason tell me why they did it? Why did they do it?

German spent alot of resources doing both battles and lost alot of men and machines. Hitler knew at this point that UK was not going to surrender without a fight. So why did Hitler do this all? No nation can be taken over by planes dropping bombs alone or subs sinking their ships. So he must of intended to invade UK at some point when the time was right. IMHO that is why he waged both BoB and Battle of Atlantic, if you do not agree then tell me why he did it.

The point you bring up about the French navy is a good one I like that one. But I do not think he would of been able to get his little hands on those ships anyways (at least not all of them), they were either not in French ports in France or they would of been sunk by the English (some were I believe) and some would of been scuttled by the French themselves. But good point.

You said this to: " I repeat, other than implementing the necessary measures to ensure any combat potential still left for the french would not be deployed against Germany, nothing excessive was imposed to the defeated size." 

That is true but he needed his troops else where so he had beaten his enemy but did not want to humiliate him b/c it would of meant he would have to keep more troops in France to either deal with the French underground or would of have to fought what France had still left of army and he did not want to risk (for no reason) losing anymore of his Panzers when he knew he was going to need them soon else where.

You said then : "But Mr. Churchill continued to present Germany as the most fearsome threat, a threat to the continuation of the human species as we know it." 

Yes he did and his was right about that. Based on how Hitler got to power and what he did allow to happen under his name makes Churchill justified by saying this. 

Then you said : In fact mr. Hunter, had England been a plan for Hitler he would have launched everything out to get it. The outcome? Very difficult to figure out. A bloodbath for sure though. 

I say he did everything he could. air force, Uboats, could not send surface fleets it would of been crushed, so I think he did do everything he could.

Then you said : Also you are correct when you say that in the end, the so called Battle of the Atlantic failed to achieve the primary goal. But hey, let´s place us on the platform I am herein referring to: 1940. 

Ok that is what I meant, true maybe the Battle of the Atlantic maybe started officially later but I mean Hitler using his Uboats to try and cut of UK from the world. He did try this.

Then you said : Although I have no numbers at hand, I believe the number of U-boats after the fall of France was not that large; still, I see Hitler ordering Admiral Dönitz to deploy as much as possible in the Channel accesses to attempt hindering Royal Navy´s operation against the German invasion force. 

You are right the Uboats totals were very low at the time but it would of been interesting to see them in the straits and near UK trying to intersect and sink UK capital ships. That would of been interesting.

Then you say: You also agreed with me: his fundamental goal was the east.

100%, before the war even started Hitler wanted to invade Russia for living space for the German people.

Then: "This has gotten just too long. Sorry."

No sorry needed this is why we are here to talk and I enjoyed it. I think we agree on some things about this discussion and disagree on some of the other details but I love to talk about it. Look forward to your reply.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> He turned a impoverished country in severe economical drought into a world power, not bad for a totally insane or a stupid person. Now did he turn insane later ??? yes I agree on that part.



You have to understand what Germany was going through before Hitler came to power. I asked my grandmother what she thought of Hitler when he first took power and she told me this: "He gave me hope."


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 4, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > He turned a impoverished country in severe economical drought into a world power, not bad for a totally insane or a stupid person. Now did he turn insane later ??? yes I agree on that part.
> ...



I agree


----------



## Erich (Feb 4, 2006)

sometimes with the best intentions or the "look of" reveals the evilest intentions


----------



## delcyros (Feb 5, 2006)

By the way, gents. Hitler and his nazi party never was elected in a justified way. The best results for the NS party were in 1932, but Hindenburg repeatedly refused to acknowledge Hitler as chancelor, instead he accepted others. By 1933 his party received substantial losses in votes and all believed the brown storm was over (indeed the peoples will to vote was very polarized, either NS-party or communists), so Hindenburg accepted a minority gouvernment with chancelor Hitler. This was only possible by excluding the communists results from the whole election and add those far left votes to the NS-party! Under recent impresion this must be considered therefor as a fake election. Technically in 1933 less around 30% of the votes were for Hitler.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2006)

Yes you are correct Erich and delycros that is correct also.


----------



## Twitch (Feb 8, 2006)

A sane Hitler, and that's an oxymoron, that had a burning desire in his heart to annex the British Isles when he rose to power in 1933 could have easily set this as a goal to be reached. Remember when Hitler said something it was absolute no matter how seasoned generals appealed to his better sense or those close to him rationalized with him. IF he'd wanted to ultimately take England back in 1933 and would have left Russia alone he would have done it. Most certainly if GB was connected by land to France the Wehrnmacht would have rolled in and ultimately conquered the country.

The whole scenario of WW2 in Europe had no purposeful clockwork plan unfolding. Everything, literally everything in the form of weaponry that could have been developed was halted due to the simple fact that Hitler envisioned short intense conflicts therefore long-term projects for thing like jets or nuclear weapons were seen as not cost effective.

Hitler had this concept that the folks in Britain saw things as plainly as he did- that communist Russia was mankind's threat and they'd fight them together. Counting on them as a future allie there was no reason in his freaky mind to make long-tern seige plans against England.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Hitler had this concept that the folks in Britain saw things as plainly as he did- that communist Russia was mankind's threat and they'd fight them together. Counting on them as a future allie there was no reason in his freaky mind to make long-tern seige plans against England.



I find that very hard to believe, sorry.


----------



## Erich (Feb 8, 2006)

so do I


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 8, 2006)

I also. 

Hitler rarely thought of working with anyone long term. It was about what he wanted or what he envisioned how things should be. Hitler wanted to unite the German speaking people and to gain living space in the east (aka Russia) for his German people to populate. Where he ran into problems is when UK and France did not see things the same way, when he kept taking land in Europe finally they said NO when he invaded Poland. Then he was forced to react to them with war. Its just he could not finish what he started (aka war with UK) before his ego/desire to start a war with Russia got him into further trouble. IMHO


----------



## Udet (Feb 9, 2006)

Mr. Hunter:

Thanks for the kind comments in your other response. I too enjoy discussing like mature people.

Your last comment is not entirely correct Hunter. It was England who first declared war against Germany. I am sure you know this, but in your posting it sounds as if it had been Germany who "started" the war with England.

Whatever the political motivations that caused England to declare war -I know them all- it was England who started the war with Germany.


Now, getting back to the response you produced to my posting is that I can tell you the following:

*(i)* I agree with you when you affirm Hitler could not leave two powerful enemies alive in his rear -UK and France- before sending his force eastwards. Precisely! That is why he sought peace with both England and France after Poland. Germany had no claims whatsoever to make to the western allies after Poland.

His offerings were put in the dustbin by both the brits and the french; so as you correctly stated, he of course had to deal with such a menace. The armies of 2 enemies staring into his window in the west could not be left unattended. I insist, the armies of 2 enemies who had first declared war on Germany.

You believe Hitler´s acquital of the British Expeditionary Force had purpose other than trying to convince them his gesture was authentic? I do not think he held back a little on the BEF Hunter; all British historians and veterans have admitted the BEF was condemned, awaiting execution.

If the order to stop issued to German divisions around Dunkerque is not evidence enough to demonstrate Hitler never really had the intention to invade let alone occupy England, then I would ask for your explanation to this fact.

Did they declare war on Germany to defend Poland? Perhaps, but the argument will not hold water when one knows of Churchill´s proposal to the soviets in late 1944 to have "preponderance" in Romania when the war ended.

I can assure you Hitler would have liked his entire Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe ramming the east as opposed to see his military getting gradually scattered in regions where he had no interest.

Do you know how many divisons were left to watch over the west after the fall of France and the cancelling of air operations over England in late 1940?

Let´s play with the what ifs a little bit, but if JG 2 and JG 26 -who remained in the west- had been added to the known Order of Battle for Barbarossa in June 1941, then perhaps the VVS would have been wiped out to the very last pilot and aicraft in less than 3 days.

*(ii) *The french fleet. I agree with you, and that was right what I said. We can not know if the french seamen would have allowed Hitler to get his hands on the powerful french vessels. This turns secondary when we know Hitler did not make any claims to the french fleet -again, other than assuring *it would not end in the hands of the Brits* waging war against Germany-.

I recall an opinion for which I have no verification saying Hitler, right after the fall of France, when asked what to do with the french fleet, responded it was his desire to see the french sailors burning their ships thus putting an end to the issue.

*(iii) *The U-boat campaign. To claim Germany was trying to starve England out in 1939-41 is way out of the line. Again, I will stick to a simple fact: they had declared war against Germany, and refused peace offerings issued. 

I will pretend I walk in Hitler´s shoes. I am a man making authentic political offerings to Great Britain. They reject them all. Although my intentions towards them are honest, I am no hummingbird, so I will punch them back. I digress, my nation is in a state of war with them. I will of course launch my submarines to inflict as much damage as possible, and to put the heaviest pressure possible on both the Brits and the French (1939-1940).

By the time Germany issued its second peace offering to England in 1940, the number of the U-boats was nowhere near sufficient to achieve anything such as starving England out Hunter.

Also as you may recall, by September of 1940, the USA loaned 50 four stacked destroyers to England. What would you think Hitler´s reaction would be?

Furthermore, do not forget the USA although "neutral" was directly involved in the war. October 31, 1941, a skipper of the USA navy pushed the limits, and his vessel, the destroyer USS _Reuben James _got sent straight to the bottom of the Atlantic by U-552, taking almost the entire crew with her.

(As interesting note, the executioner of that doomed destroyer was *Konteradmiral Erich Topp *who passed away hardly a month ago). 

Hitler´s campaing in the Atlantic was the natural outcome of the events of 1939 -first against both France and England-, and 1940 after the french defeat.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 10, 2006)

Let me get this straight, you blame Britain for World War II? And Germany was perfectly innocent?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

Sorry Udet. Hitler started WW2, not England. England did what was needed and had to be done. Someone had to stop Hitler, he was a madman in his visions. He wanted the annhialation of all Jews, and he invaded Poland which England and sworn to protect.

Hitler was not the nice man that you seem to try and make him out to be.


----------



## Udet (Feb 11, 2006)

Gentlemen:

I will throw my response in the form of a question:

Are you going to affirm the facts I commented here are false, untrue or unaccurate?

Germany did not intend to invade England; the case is sound and supported with evidence as strong as the one presented to prove the contrary.

I´ve been telling this for more than 3 years now: inspite of the allegedly overwhelming evidence presented to prove England was the next conquest that would be added to the German trophy room, Hitler did not want to do such a thing.

None of the combatant nations of WWII is free of guilt, at all. None is innocent. 

Adler, no one is trying to present Hitler as a nice person.

Politicians are not nice people. Politicians have interests, and will do everything necessary to preserve them. They pursue outlined goals. Whatever the cost they will try to achieve them.

Hitler was not nice; Stalin was not nice; Churchill was not nice; Rossevelt was not nice; Truman was not nice; Antonescu was not nice; Mussolini was not nice; De Gaulle was not nice.

Talking of very un-nice people there you have Mr. Eisenhower. Not a commander but a politician as proved later after the war (by the way, U.S. army officers and veterans have told me he was 100% an incompetent soldier).

Politicians have been like this since ancient times.


What we should acknowledge is very clear fact:

By the late 1930´s the world saw a critical arrangement of parts. When the global situation of the world is just like that of the 1930s the outcome can only be the kind of catastrophe nowadays known as World War Two.

Nothing different could have happened. 

There were just too many powers very close to each other, each with an agenda to pursue.

In one corner we had the Britsh Empire, that although showing signs of decline, was still a world power; in other corner there was Hitler´s Reich, seeking expansion eastwards; the french, still a colonial power likewise playing their role in the continent; slightly to the east we had smiley Dzugashvili´s domain of terror seeking expansion; the USA also a power in some sort of isolation; the far east had the Japanese who were too reading their own procedure manual.

I am not so sure if the world will experience such a positioning of powers again. Perhaps not in the near future. Who knows for sure.

The fact is, and you have to believe this, when there are just too many powers seeking supremacy you have a contest at hand.

This has occurred many times throughout history. See the ancient state-cities of Greece. Thebes, Sparta, Corinth, Athens...some of them would be allies one day to become enemies later on. It was war after war after war...see the catastrophe that fell upon Athens when the Peloponessus war came to an end. The consequences of the Peloponessus war, were for the system of that era, a very similar thing to what Europe experienced after WWII.

The other world power of the era: Cyrus´ Persian Empire, the achemenid dinasty. Whether a direct military intervention against the greeks or persian gold financing wars between greeks, the persians presence was there.

East the mediterranean there was Karchedon gaining power as well, and also playing its role.

Later on Filippo II, pulled Macedonia out of the dark, and his reign emerged as a new power in the arena. First he beat the greeks on the battlefield; later on his son, Alexander III would put an end to the persian empire.

That is how the world works.

Adler, we do know who drew first blood in the war, but I will insist on the erratic and contradictory foreign policies both England and France implemented when Fall Weiss was launched.

The questions:

(1) Why did they only declare a state of war against Germany leaving the USSR outside the war declaration package?

If two individuals conspire together to murder some person, and they do it, who would you try? just one of them? or both guys? (Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact)

(2) After the fall of Poland, the next offensive move in the continet was carried out by the soviets; their predatory attack against Finland, known in the present-day world as the Winter War.

Why, again, did France and England did not do anything that we could call "material" to show the soviets they meant what they were saying? 

I am talking about positive affirmative action against the soviets and not the void and blanket words they launched.

(3) Are you sure they declared war on Germany to "defend Poland"? Do you know, as I commented in my last posting, of Churchill´s juicy offerings made to Stalin in 1944, so his expanding reign would have "preponderance" over what you could call a vast extension of land?

I will end my posting by affirming the foreign policy of the Reich was consistent. And please, do not misinterpret my words; by "consistent" I am trying to say a coherent set of ideas being implemented and not "ethic", "legal" or "politically correct".

The foreign policy of both France and England during 1939-1940 simply stumbled. It was contradictory and very erratic. To make a prettier choice of words I will say their policies were like autumn leaves blown by the forests wind. First they are moved in one direction, then after a brief moment they are moved in a diametrically opposed direction. 

Gotta close this posting. Might add more in following days. Now out of my place; saturday night: electro/dark party.

Cheers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2006)

Udet no matter how you try to church it up. Hitler was evil. Did he not try to erradicate the Jews? Did he not start WW2? Was England not Just in declaring war on Germany? Was his politics not responsible for the most devastating war in the History of the Human race and was he not responsible for the single most loss of life in the History of the Human Race.

You can not church it up.

Yes poloticians are not nice people, no one says they are however I have one question for you. Did Roosevelt or Churchhill attempt to destroy a whole population of people? NO


----------



## plan_D (Feb 12, 2006)

Where is the evidence that Hitler did not want to invade England? It's been said time and time again; Why did he build up barges? Why were plans written up? Why did he waste planes attacking Britain? Why did he have occupation plans? 

For the answer to your question, why did Britain not declare war on the Soviet Union too? Why did Britain invade Norway, Udet? 

The Anglo-French invasion of Norway was to gain Narvick to ship Swedish Iron. It was also to gain a land route into Finland to support them with men and arms against the Soviet Union. Hitler thought this as excellent, but was not willing to have British troops on the European continent. 

So, yes, Udet - Britain were willing to go to war with both Germany and the Soviet Union.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 12, 2006)

I've rarely seen so much bull dust posted on one page of any forum, ever.

Couple of points Udet:

1. von Runstead stopped the pazers in front of Dunkirk, not Hitler. It was done solely for military reasons, not political ones.

2. Nevil Chamberlain was Prime Minister ofGreat Britain when it declared war on Germany, not Winston Churchill. It did so becuase it was leagally and morally obligated to do so by treaty, international law and its historical friendships. Churchill is not Chamberlian, though it might pain you to recognise that fact.

3. Eisenhower planned, organised, ran and supervised the LARGEST seaborne invasion of all time. He also oversaw running of a 11 month campaign commanding a force of some 3 million men. He wasn't as gifted a field commander as Rommel, Montgomery, Patton, Mountbatten or Zukhov, but as a military organiser, HE HOLDS NO EQUAL IN HISTORY. To call him "a 100% an incompetent solider" is a complete falacy.

4. There were several strong motions in the UK parliment to declare war on the Soviet Union. The were overruled by Churchill, a politcal realist if ever there was one, who knew what his nation was capable of taking on. You don't fight two enemies, if one of them is a potential friend. Churchill was NEVER a fan of communism in general, and definately not of Stalin in particular. But he was wise enought to see which battles could be fought properly, and what was best for the rest of Europe.

Finland was neither treatied or allied to Great Britain. Therefore, Great Britain wasn't obliged to do anything if it was invaded. If the Soviet Union had invaded Finland in 1935, the Anglo-French reaction would of been largely similar to waht it was in 1939, because of the geopolitics of the stuation. 

Looking at if from a WW2 perspective, in 1944 the Soviet Union didn't invade Poland, they liberated it. Much in the same way that the western Allied powers didn't invade France, Holland and Belgium in 1944, they liberated them. In western eyes, a "free, liberated" Poland under the Soviet sphere of influence, was better than a conqured and enslaved Poland under the German sphere of influence. 

5. Hitler completely misjudged both France's and Great Britain's determination and will to fight. They were sick of seeing Europe's bully-boy trying to push everyone else around. Austria, Chezchsolvakia, the Sudeten land. They declared war on Germany because they were legally bound to do so, it was the RIGHT thing to do and an aggressive Germany lead by Hitler was a threat to the entirety of European civilisation.

If France had suddenly invaded Italy in 1938 without a declaration of war, do you think that Germany would of been correct in answering its treaty and military obligations and declaring war on France?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 13, 2006)

Good post there jabberwockey and I agree with most of it.



> 3. Eisenhower planned, organised, ran and supervised the LARGEST seaborne invasion of all time. He also oversaw running of a 11 month campaign commanding a force of some 3 million men. He wasn't as gifted a field commander as Rommel, Montgomery, Patton, Mountbatten or Zukhov, but as a military organiser, HE HOLDS NO EQUAL IN HISTORY. To call him "a 100% an incompetent solider" is a complete falacy.



Agreed 100% and what just said explains why.



> In western eyes, a "free, liberated" Poland under the Soviet sphere of influence, was better than a conqured and enslaved Poland under the German sphere of influence.



Not so sure on that because that is one reason for the cold war.



> They were sick of seeing Europe's bully-boy trying to push everyone else around. Austria, Chezchsolvakia, the Sudeten land. They declared war on Germany because they were legally bound to do so, it was the RIGHT thing to do and an aggressive Germany lead by Hitler was a threat to the entirety of European civilisation.



While I agree with most of this and do agree that Hitler was threat to European civilisation, some of these lands that you talk about were Germanys in there own right. Sudeten Land, Danzig, and several other places that were taken in the beginning of the war or before war was declared were rightfully Germany's and taken from them after WW1. Does this make Germany right though? No.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 13, 2006)

Good points Jabberwocky, I agree with them.


----------



## Udet (Feb 13, 2006)

"I've rarely seen so much bull dust posted on one page of any forum, ever."

Possibly because you had not yet come across someone who has done his homework.

*(a)* What was all that Chamberlain-Churchill thing about? You believe I believed it was Churchill who declared the war against Germany? Whoever did it -and I know who did- does not play any influence on my comments. 


*(b)* So it was von Rundstedt who issued the order to stop around Dunkerque, for military reasons?

What could such military reasons be? 

Whatever the answers might be, and I say this with all due respect, they will be wrong.

There were no military issues that could hinder the Wehrmacht from either annihilating or capturing the BEF. Accepted by veterans whom I´ve met that admitted a generalized moral disarray and panic in the mouse trap.

*(c)* Putting aside the fact there is something very bad about the face of that individual Eisenhower...well, I said what I was told by men who have served and serve in the USA military; in fact they said things far, far more terrible about the man, but it is not an issue here. Just one point, that he was appointed the chief of all allied armed forces in Europe, and that the war was won does not necessarily make him "skilled" or "wise". 


*(d) *All the arguments laid down to attempt explaining why England declared war only against Germany, having the Soviet Union as an ally are weak to say the least.


Now, of course all British guys in here will agree with you Mr. Jabberwocky -while disagreeing with me-, the hard fact of all this is that none of them, absolutely none of them will be able to dispute the facts I have commented here as untrue.


*(e)* I am not sure if Hitler "completely" misjudged France´s and England´s determination and will to fight. He was no fool; a gambler suits better here. From the offset he knew his policies in the continent could mean having both France and England as enemies, although it was not his goal to wage war against them.

Many of his communications with Admiral Dönitz and Admiral Raeder in 1939 can help you understanding that he wanted no war with the west, but that it could happen.




And please, do not adopt the "hard-line" here; I am not the one "holding the truth". What I do have is exactly the same you have there in your books. Recorded facts. 

Plan: Yes, I have Hitler´s directive for Seelowe -in 4 languages-; I have a collection of photos of the motley fleet gathered for the alleged invasion; I have the photo of German officers staring at England in the distance from the continent´s coast; the alleged order of battle...

I will insist: pressure. The psychologic factor playing its role too. You think the Germans did not know of the psychologic conditions in England when the BEF was allowed to escape the mousetrap?

What could the mood be in the island when so many people witnessed the powerful BEF arriving all shocked and wearing only their trousers to British ports?

Who had the upper hand? Whatever the fighting spirit of the British people could be, German had the finger on the trigger.

Peace in the west was Hitler´s most convinient item to "comfortably" switch east.

Now we know his gambles did not turn out as he had in mind.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 14, 2006)

I do so enjoy our little chats Udet.

Reasons for von Runsteads decision to halt German forces:

1.The May 22nd telephone call from Colonel Schmundt who reported that the 7th Panzer Division had been attacked by "five British divisions" as well as "heavy French armour" engaging and destroying lead panzer reconnisance elements.

Von Runstead was rightfully fearful of the unknown, particularly given the poor intelligence he had been given. German High Command estimated that the British had landed 4 additional infantry divisions and 2 additional armoured divisions to reinforce the BEF in early May. In actuality the British had only landed the 1st Armoured and the 52nd Lowland Division in May, as well as elements of the 20th and 30th Infantry Brigades. 

2. Strong localised defence at Blaireville and St Orine throught May 20-21 and the counter-attacks at Arras against the 7th Panzer division on 21st caused concern about the strength of the defences around the French ports. The 6th Panzer division reported strong resistance by one French armoured divison and a French infantry divison (actually an understrength battalion of French troops reinforced with a few tanks). The Arras counter attack made by 2 British battalions was reported as a 5 division attack. The 8th Panzer reported increasingly heavy contact with French units to the south. 

Despite the fact that around Dunkirk there were just 4 British and 2 French divisions against some 17 German divisons, German estimated were that they were facing some 9 or 10 divisions directly in front of them. With the possibility of a further 2 British armoured divisions arriving in the immediate future, and strenghtening French resistance, von Runstead though that consolidating in the north and then swinging south far wiser than continuing the attack towards the Channel ports.

3. German High Command, and especially Hitler, were afraid of a massed French counter attack from the south. By the 20th the Panzer columns had outrun most of the other combat units as well as their supply and maintence formations. They had stuck their neck out advancing so far and so fast, and von Runstead was afraid of having it chopped off. 

4. The logistics, service and supply situation dictated a halt. von Runstead suspected that Guderian's units were no longer completely effective when mixed reports of the Arras counter attack and attacks on Calais and Bolougne reached him. He had been willing to call the gamble for a while, but military necessity and the apparent situation dictated that he called a halt to the tanks. Up to 1/3 of all tanks were either out of action or undergoing mechanical repair.

Von Runstead ordered the Panzer colums to halt on the evening of the 23rd. Hitler didn't have any say in the decision, and actually wasn't informed until the afternoon on the 24th when he visited von Runstead's headquaters.

Aerial reconnisance on the 26th revealed that the BEF was preparing to evacuate. However, Goering assured Hitler that the LuftWaffe could both block the port to evacuation and cripple the Royal Navy was it attempted to evacuate British and French forces. German infantry forces, swinging north in an attempt towards Bolougne suffered heavy casualties when the 50th and 5th Infantry Divisions threw in everything they had to stop them. 

If you look at the situation (overextended units, stiffening defence and counterattacks, British, French and Belgain forces still fighting, fear of a southern counter attack, unknown number of British reinforcements) von Runsteads decision was the right thing to do in terms of the bigger picture of operations. Yes, it was a godsend to the BEF and yes, many panzer unit commanders felt hard done by. But the fact remains that it was a military decision made for the correct reasons at the time. Only with hindsight can we marvel at it.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> > In western eyes, a "free, liberated" Poland under the Soviet sphere of influence, was better than a conqured and enslaved Poland under the German sphere of influence.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so sure on that because that is one reason for the cold war.



Only in the post-war world. While there was a deep-steated distrust of Communism in some sections of the west, it never approached anything like that seen from the late 1940's onwards.

There was a positive prevailing goodwill towards Russia in the mid 1940's. "Uncle Joe" and the Red Army was on our side (whatever that was) and was kicking the Germans out of Eastern Europe. Given the lack of transperancy about communism, and the general political idealism of the time (as most aptly displayed by Roosevelt at Yalta), the cold war feelings about the Soviet Union haven't taken root yet.



> They were sick of seeing Europe's bully-boy trying to push everyone else around. Austria, Chezchsolvakia, the Sudeten land. They declared war on Germany because they were legally bound to do so, it was the RIGHT thing to do and an aggressive Germany lead by Hitler was a threat to the entirety of European civilisation.






> While I agree with most of this and do agree that Hitler was threat to European civilisation, some of these lands that you talk about were Germanys in there own right. Sudeten Land, Danzig, and several other places that were taken in the beginning of the war or before war was declared were rightfully Germany's and taken from them after WW1. Does this make Germany right though? No.



While I agree that Germany was correct in moving back into the Sudetenland, futher moves into Czechsolvakia were provocative and warlike in the extreeme. The Anchsluss (sorry about the spelling) of Germany and Austria smacks to me more like standover tactics than a freindly merger.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2006)

I agree with you, they should not have moved further into Sudetenland. I think they were right in taking the lands back that belonged to them, but everything else was an act of war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2006)

> I think they were right in taking the lands back that belonged to them



i don't mean to start a fight or anything but did the land really begin to them? how is land most often won? war. how is land lost? war. the germans lost the land because they lost the war, the way i see it that means the land doesn't belong to them, although having said that i will agree that the leaders were useless at dividing up the land after WWI...........


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 15, 2006)

Sorry Udet and Jabber,
I have been away from this talk for a while. I have read what I have missed out on. It is hard for me to make as many points that you both have said as I would like to so I will not go point by point. But to make a long story short I agree with you both on some parts.

Udet agree with you on alot of your points (not 100% of them just more than most people here), they are not the main stream ideas or the popular choices etc but we are not here for that. Thats what I like about you, you don't really care, but you still stand up for your ideas. Well done. The Allies were very convenient in their moral choices of who to declare war on and who not to. They turned a blind eye when they wanted to at times. Russia under Stalin rule was almost as bad as Nazi Germany under Hitler for being evil.

Jabber you are right on some of your points also. Yes the reason why the panzers did not crush BEF was not just political. There reason to believe
that they were over stretched and in danger.

Udet you and I, I think see the whole Germany invading UK the same. Did Hitler always dream on invading it? no Did he respect the UK? yes Did it become necessary to invade a enemy once they did not surrender? yes Then who started WW2? Well yes technically France and UK started it first by declaring war on Germany but they were justified to do so. If you see a family member being beaten up by a guy on the street, you are justified to beat him until he stops. Thats what UK and France tried to do, Germany was taking land and more land they decided to try and stop him by honoring their treaty with Poland.

Sorry for being away for so long I will watch this post alittle more carefully and keep up. Later


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > I think they were right in taking the lands back that belonged to them
> 
> 
> 
> i don't mean to start a fight or anything but did the land really begin to them? how is land most often won? war. how is land lost? war. the germans lost the land because they lost the war, the way i see it that means the land doesn't belong to them, although having said that i will agree that the leaders were useless at dividing up the land after WWI...........



I can see how you believe you this and I can completly understand it. The only reason I see it this way is because for instance people like Grandmother were driven from there homes when this happened and when Germany retook them, they got there homes back. I do however understand what you are talking about and can somewhat agree with you also.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > I think they were right in taking the lands back that belonged to them
> 
> 
> 
> i don't mean to start a fight or anything but did the land really begin to them? how is land most often won? war. how is land lost? war. the germans lost the land because they lost the war, the way i see it that means the land doesn't belong to them, although having said that i will agree that the leaders were useless at dividing up the land after WWI...........



I can see how you believe you this and I can completly understand it. The only reason I see it this way is because for instance people like Grandmother were driven from there homes when this happened and when Germany retook them, they got there homes back. I do however understand what you are talking about and can somewhat agree with you also.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 16, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Sorry Udet and Jabber,
> 
> 
> Udet you and I, I think see the whole Germany invading UK the same. Did Hitler always dream on invading it? no Did he respect the UK? yes Did it become necessary to invade a enemy once they did not surrender? yes Then who started WW2? Well yes technically France and UK started it first by declaring war on Germany but they were justified to do so. If you see a family member being beaten up by a guy on the street, you are justified to beat him until he stops. Thats what UK and France tried to do, Germany was taking land and more land they decided to try and stop him by honoring their treaty with Poland.



I'd say that Germany, not France or Britain, started WW2 by invading Poland when it knew exactly the consequences of what would happen if it did so. The Western allies were not the aggressors, Germany was.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2006)

Absolutely Jabberwockey. There is no way to hide the fact or to cover it up.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 17, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Udet and Jabber,
> ...



I agree 100%, but the point I was trying to make was that Udet was or is talking literally who started WW2 first. That is techically UK and France but we all know like you stated that really it was German. So yes I agree with you here and on the post you quoted.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 22, 2006)

No actually it was Germany that started it first, not Britain or France. Germany invaded Poland not England or France. There is no way to cover it up or hide it.

2nd I will say that the only way France and England could have had a hand in starting WW2 is the Versaille treaty that Germany was placed under.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 22, 2006)

I'll second Alder's sentiment here.

Britian and France waited until September 3rd to declare war on Germany, 2 full days after Germany began the invasion of Poland on September 1. 

It was Germany that was the instigator, because it was the invading nation and the active party The actions of the UK and France were in response to Germanys actions. Their actions were reactive, not proactive. 

There was no formal German declaration of war against Poland, the LuftWaffe simply started area bombing Wielun at 4:40 in the morning. The Westerplatte was shelled by the German battleship Schleswig-Holstein at 4:45 and German troops began to move across the border at 8 in the morning.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 22, 2006)

They moved off at 0445. Both Guderian and Von Mellenthin state this in their books.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 24, 2006)

Sources say that radar was a vital aspect to the winning of BoB and that the Germans didnt have any, in fact, the German Radar was the one that was more modern-looking and that they didnt know the british had radar cause they were towers which didnt look anything like radar,

how long did it take for Germany to capture Poland anyway?


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 24, 2006)

About 4 weeks they surrendered on the 29th of September 1939 having been invaded on the 1st of September.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 24, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> Sources say that radar was a vital aspect to the winning of BoB and that the Germans didnt have any, in fact, the German Radar was the one that was more modern-looking and that they didnt know the british had radar cause they were towers which didnt look anything like radar,



Germany was aware of British radar, they just weren't very sucessful at countering it, either through destroying the Chain Home and Chain Low radar systems, or using electrnic jamming.

Germany made several reconnisance missions of British radar sites in May 1939, with a Zepplin no less . General Wolfgang Martini was charged with acquiring the location of British radar sites, thier operational status and the wavelength they operated at. Loaded with recievers and technicians the _Graff Zepplin_ made several two up the British coastline, in late May and early August. 

On both runs all the recievers picked up was high volumes of electronic noise. No high frequency signals, such as those used by the Freya or Wurzburg radars Germany was developing. British radar actually used lower frequencies at higher power than thier German counterparts. A German scientist fell from the zepplin to his death on British soil on the second mission and all subsequent flights were canceled. 

The failure of the German survey efforts were a great boon to Britain in 1940, when Germany failed to understand how valuable the radar network was to the RAF and how vulnerable the Chain Home and Chain Low networks actually were. Many stations could of been replaced by the new Mobile Radar Units, but their detection range was around 30 miles shorter than the C.H. stations, so they gave less warning.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 25, 2006)

"fell" from the zeppelin? he must have been drunk or something


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 27, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No actually it was Germany that started it first, not Britain or France. Germany invaded Poland not England or France. There is no way to cover it up or hide it.
> 
> 2nd I will say that the only way France and England could have had a hand in starting WW2 is the Versaille treaty that Germany was placed under.



Not sure about Udet (he can speak for himself), but for my part Chris I am not trying to cover anything up or hide anything. Wether you call Hitler start WW2 or not thats cool by me. I am talking literally, in my mind Hitler did not declare war on France and England first. They declared it on him first. 

Now I fully understand and I want you to understand that I agree with you 100% that Hitler knew (at least highly likely) that invading Poland that France and UK would declare war on him. So yes WW2 was sort of started by Hitler even if he did not declare war first, agree with you.

Its like walking up to Mike Tyson and calling him alittle B*tch, saying his face tattoo looks dumb and his Mom is a wh0re. Well when you wake up and you are staring at a Doctor and Cop in emergency room, they will most likely call you dumb. But you did not start the fight literally, but in a sense you did start.

But either way I am not trying to start a big debate on the subject, Hitler in a sense started WW2 b/c he knew that as a result of his actions it would start a WW. He did it anyways so if you want to say Hitler started WW2 I am cool with that. I am not here to defend a evil crazy nut like Hitler. I am just splitting atoms on how I see who started WW2. I hope we are cool now. Later Mark


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2006)

Hitler Invaded Poland, that started WWII, that's end of story as i see it, i realise the roots of the war go much, much further back, but that's the action that directly started the war, the fact that Briton and France then joined in is inconcequential, the war was 3 days old by then...........


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 27, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Hitler Invaded Poland, that started WWII, that's end of story as i see it, i realise the roots of the war go much, much further back, but that's the action that directly started the war, the fact that Briton and France then joined in is inconcequential, the war was 3 days old by then...........



I can see your point. I am not saying otherwise. It is like arguing about the difference between assault and aggravated assault.

If a guy (Hitler) calls your wife a wh0re and you (UK and France) punch him. Thats aggravated assault. Now is he guilty of egging you on and deserved to be punched ? yes, he got what he deserved. But who actually threw the first punch and literally started the fist fight? you.

If you don't agree thats fine no problem, we will agree the disagree. Its fine by me.


----------



## redcoat (Feb 27, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> If a guy (Hitler) calls your wife a wh0re and you (UK and France) punch him. Thats aggravated assault. Now is he guilty of egging you on and deserved to be punched ? yes, he got what he deserved. But who actually threw the first punch and literally started the fist fight? you.


But Hitler wasn't insulting Poland, he was attacking it, killing innocent men, women, and children.
So a closer analogy would be, if a person(Hitler) attacked a friend (Poland) of yours with a knife, stabbing him, and you came to his aid (France and Britain) .


----------



## Hellbird (Feb 27, 2006)

Amen brother redcoat


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 27, 2006)

redcoat said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > If a guy (Hitler) calls your wife a wh0re and you (UK and France) punch him. Thats aggravated assault. Now is he guilty of egging you on and deserved to be punched ? yes, he got what he deserved. But who actually threw the first punch and literally started the fist fight? you.
> ...



Sure I can go with that analogy, same thing we all know what was meant. The point is still the same.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2006)

Hunter no matter how it is put, Hitler invaded Poland, that started World War 2. France and England are not the aggressors and they did what was expected of them.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, so did the US start Desert Storm because they declared war on Iraq with the Coalition. No they did was right and kicked him out. Just like France and England and the rest of the world did.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 1, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hunter no matter how it is put, Hitler invaded Poland, that started World War 2. France and England are not the aggressors and they did what was expected of them.
> 
> Iraq invaded Kuwait, so did the US start Desert Storm because they declared war on Iraq with the Coalition. No they did was right and kicked him out. Just like France and England and the rest of the world did.



Oh I 100% agree with you again, Hitler b/c of his actions caused WW2 to be started and justly so. In fact UK and France should of declared war even before Poland but that is beside the point. I never said UK and France were the aggressors, all I said was they declared war on Germany which started WW2. I am speaking literally only here, I 100% agree that b/c of Hitler actions it provoked France and UK into action. Let me say it again Hitler caused WW2 to start but UK and France declared war first (which turned into WW2 as me know it). So I am again saying I agree with you 100%.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2006)

Okay then.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No actually it was Germany that started it first, not Britain or France. Germany invaded Poland not England or France. There is no way to cover it up or hide it.
> 
> 2nd I will say that the only way France and England could have had a hand in starting WW2 is the Versaille treaty that Germany was placed under.



I agree

Most of Europe actually embraced Woodrew Wilsons eased 14 Point Plan but it was rejected by GB and France.

What angers me most about it is France got off pretty easy at the Congress Of Vienna in 1814 for the Napoleanic Wars but they had to be so goddam persitant about having there way with the Versailles Treaty, and did it ever blow up in there face.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2006)

I think the funny thing is that the capitulation of France to Germany was signed in the same rail car that the Versaille Treaty was signed in.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think the funny thing is that the capitulation of France to Germany was signed in the same rail car that the Versaille Treaty was signed in.



Yeh that was a nice touch by Hitler to rub their noses in it. I am sure he laughed his butt off about that.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 2, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> If a guy (Hitler) calls your wife a wh0re and you (UK and France) punch him. Thats aggravated assault. Now is he guilty of egging you on and deserved to be punched ? yes, he got what he deserved. But who actually threw the first punch and literally started the fist fight? you.



Stealing territories off Germany was just asking for it IMHO.




redcoat said:


> But Hitler wasn't insulting Poland, he was attacking it, killing innocent men, women, and children.
> So a closer analogy would be, if a person(Hitler) attacked a friend (Poland) of yours with a knife, stabbing him, and you came to his aid (France and Britain) .



It's like a family of thieves stealing someones car, then them giving them what for. Then you (France, who are jealous because you've had your arse recently kicked by this bloke) asking a mate of yours (who is reluctant - Britain) to help give him a kicking as an excuse.

- Then, and this is the best bit, getting beaten back then joining the bloke against your mate (Vichy).


I'd say going beyond the Sudetenland and Polish Corridor was maybe too far.  




102first_hussars said:


> What angers me most about it is France got off pretty easy at the Congress Of Vienna in 1814 for the Napoleanic Wars but they had to be so goddam persitant about having there way with the Versailles Treaty, and did it ever blow up in there face.



Damn right hussars!




DerAdler said:


> I think the funny thing is that the capitulation of France to Germany was signed in the same rail car that the Versaille Treaty was signed in.



Heheh! Yeah, then blown sky-high.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 2, 2006)

In case you didn't notice, France managed to stop Germany in WWI and then push her back with British, Commonwealth and then US help. The last time before WW2 that France got her 'arse recently kicked' was in the 1878 Franco-Prussian war. The French considered WWI and the Versailles treaty more than sufficient retribution.

If anything, Germany was the jealous party because France had put her under such a punishing regieme after 1918 and then moved in and occupied sections of the Rhur when she defaulted on the payments and conditions of the treaty.

After France losing 1.3 million men in WWI, having an armed agressive Germany was like waving a gun in the face of France. Having a totalitarian regieme declaring itself the natural and rightful leader of Europe was even worse. 

Britain wasn't exactly a reluctant party to WW2 either. It explicitly formed a defence pact with Poland specifically stating that any acts of German aggression against Poland would be met with a declaration of war by Britain against Germany. Hilter knew this. The planned date of the German invasion was the same day that the defence pact was signed, and Hitler ordered the invasion halted for a week while they considered the implications.

The defence pact was declared publicly, published in the media and made known to all of Europe. The fact that Hitler then still decided to attack Poland a week later, despite the fact that he knew that doing so would FORCE both France and Britain to declared war on Germany because of their treaty obligations, is indisputable. 

In the whole course of WW2, there was just one nation which Germany declared war on: the USA. Strangely enough, of all the independent warring nations, it was the only one that Germany didn't attempt to invade.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 3, 2006)

it's almost impossible to send an invasion armada through the atlantic ocean


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 3, 2006)

No it isn't it is just difficult besides they managed to do it for Operation Torch so they could (in theory) replicate the feat on a different target...


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 3, 2006)

operation torch? dont know that sry


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 3, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> operation torch? dont know that sry


http://www.internet-esq.com/ussaugusta/torch/`
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/torch.htm
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/OperationTorch.html

The invasion of North Africa, with the ships coming from the US.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 5, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> In the whole course of WW2, there was just one nation which Germany declared war on: the USA. Strangely enough, of all the independent warring nations, it was the only one that Germany didn't attempt to invade.



That is kind of funny though, you are correct.


----------



## Twitch (Mar 7, 2006)

If anyone doubts Hitler's original intent that England would be an ally please read HITLER'S 2ND BOOK. He states this in Chapter XVI Conclusion in section B.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2006)

Sorry Hitler was still the aggressor, no way to deny it.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sorry Hitler was still the aggressor, no way to deny it.



I agree.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 13, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Hitler was still the aggressor, no way to deny it.
> ...


Yep and he had been since 1936 and the Rhineland which where followed by Austria and the Sudentenland in 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939 by which point Britain and France had enough of Hitler's dealings and the war started as a result of Hitler's aggressions not of Britain and France (theirs was a reactionary move not and aggressive move). Hitler only ever declared war on one country (the US) but almost all the countries he was at war with were as a result of his aggressive moves.


----------



## Udet (Mar 14, 2006)

Good evening gentlemen:

It´d appear some people here fret about the idea of anyone coming along with the view Hitler was not an aggressor.

The purpose of the present thread is quite a different one I believe.

Politicians are all dirty people. Politics is a not a matter of chivalry and honor. To believe such a thing would be flat wishful -naive- thinking.

Think of this, if any of the members of this forum would like the idea of politics as a career, then he should prepare his mind to become dirty and filthy. At least dirtier and filthier than the guys in other political parties -your enemies, your adversaries-. Leave your chivalry codes at home.

Mr. Adler,I am convinced no one is white-washing anything nor anyone here.

The purpose here could in fact be one more illustrative, and I believe there will be some who will agree on this:

*(1)* Germany was not the sole aggressor in the continent from the offset.

*(2)* Germany, although conscious war in the west could happen, did not intend to wage war against England much less invade it.

*(3)* The western powers made a selective -and very bizarre- choice of enemies in September 1939.

*(4)* Unlike the official history that rolled across the earth after the war -still being taught in classrooms in the same fashion today-, the events in Europe in 1939 were the consequences of world powers trying to preserve and/or expand their interests. Period here.

*(5)* Hitler was not necessarily worse than Churchill.

Churchill proved he could in fact surpass Hitler, and contest smiley Dzugashvili for the Gold Medal in the "filthy politician" department.

I bring the Mers-el-Kebir incident forward to the table in order to substantiate this claim. I´ve read kilometers of British attempts to defend what can not be defended. They simply do not make a case.

And Mers-el-Kebir can certainly be _small_ when compared with other incidents happily approved by Mr. Churchill. The word "small" here might be tricky; Mers-el-Kebir was "small" in terms of lost lives when compared with other British felonies carried out during the war; the incident against the french fleet in Algeria is by no means a small one: its significance is huge as to the actual meaning of moral leadership for the British -or the lack thereof-.

In fact, if we were to make a case just like the one experienced by the German _créme de la créme_ at Nurenberg, then Churchill and Eisenhower go straight to death by hanging.

So the British deemed the promises made to the Poles paramount?
8) 
Sure!


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 14, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> ...




100% agree and never have said anything but.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 14, 2006)

Udet said:


> Good evening gentlemen:
> 
> It´d appear some people here fret about the idea of anyone coming along with the view Hitler was not an aggressor.
> 
> ...



1) agree, continent ? Europe? or where? Japan yes, Italy yes, Russia yes.
2)agree
3)Selective choices, yes.... Bizarre? not sure about that, they choose the lesser of two evils at the time (not sure who was worst... Hitler or Stalin)
4)Sort of agree, yes.
5)While am I no fan of Churchill (I have read some not very nice things about the man) I am no expert on him either but never have I heard he was in the same league as Hitler or Stalin for being evil.


But I am sure you comments should create some interesting debate Udet as always, nice to hear from you.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 14, 2006)

Just have to give the head a good shake in disbelief with some of Udet's comments.  

re 4) What was Germany trying to do?  

re 5) Did Churchill try to eliminate completely the peoples of a certain religion, never mind the others he considered racially inferior? Hitler sure did.

One has to really wunder about someone who defends Hitler.  

Lets see your comments Udet on what the British should have done with regards to Mers-el-Kebir.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 14, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> Just have to give the head a good shake in disbelief with some of Udet's comments.
> 
> re 4) What was Germany trying to do?
> 
> ...




  I am just waiting for our British friends to comment of this, it shall be entertaining. I will say this, I am not so sure that Udet is "defending Hitler", more just looking at things in the big picture without bias (add into the pot that he is trying to stir up a debate). Stalin killed alot of innocent people also. Jews were not liked, they were even hated, by most of Europe in the 20 and 30's, not just by the German people. They were looked at very much the same way as the Germans saw them. The big difference they just did not kill them all. But Jews were hated by alot of people at that time. Hitler used the Jews as a goat and focus for his (German) problems and hate. Hitler was a evil man there is no doubt about that, but he was not the only evil man at that time, just one of the worst.

Udet just likes to point out that very point out, he likes to go against the popular western propaganda and popular western history of the events of WW2. What do you think the history books would of looked like if the Germans would of won? You think Churchill and Eisenhower would of been portrayed as heros? I think not. History is written by the winner of the war, simple as that. Anyone who thinks anything else is naive. The Allies won the war (thank god) but if German would of won we all would of been taught that Hitler was a Hero, Visionary and a Genius ahead of his time. Thats just life. We would of been doing alot "88" around school and work.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 14, 2006)

If Hitler had won, some of us would not be alive today. I don't care how you want to sugar coat it, Hitler was pure evil. Sure there are politicians that do bad things, but Hitler had eugenics for his "master race" and invaded other lands to create his "liebensraum". Say what you want about Churchill, but none of my list were done by Churchill. There are no benevolent leaders.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 14, 2006)

evangilder said:


> If Hitler had won, some of us would not be alive today. I don't care how you want to sugar coat it, Hitler was pure evil. Sure there are politicians that do bad things, but Hitler had eugenics for his "master race" and invaded other lands to create his "liebensraum". Say what you want about Churchill, but none of my list were done by Churchill. There are no benevolent leaders.



I agree.


----------



## Hop (Mar 15, 2006)

> I will say this, I am not so sure that Udet is "defending Hitler", more just looking at things in the big picture without bias



I think he's trying to rehabilitate Hitler, by arguing he was no worse than any other leader. In other words, he's arguing there was nothing particulary evil about the Nazis, they were just another government.



> Politicians are all dirty people. Politics is a not a matter of chivalry and honor. To believe such a thing would be flat wishful -naive- thinking.



Ah but there's dirt and there's dirt. Just like there's crime and there's crime. Nothing bad about Ian Brady, I mean, who hasn't broken the law now and again?



> (1) Germany was not the sole aggressor in the continent from the offset.



Hard to see who else was. When Germany sought to reunite the Berman speaking people, there was some sympathy for them, and they were not prevented from doing so. Taking over other, non German countries was pure aggression, and afer Germany had done so with the rump of Czechoslovakia, a line was drawn with Poland.



> (2) Germany, although conscious war in the west could happen, did not intend to wage war against England much less invade it.



No, of course not. Much easier, richer pickings elsewhere. I doubt I'm high on the list for local thugs to victimise either, as I'm a relatively fit man, not an old woman who can't defend herself.



> (3) The western powers made a selective -and very bizarre- choice of enemies in September 1939.



From your perspective, that sees the Nazis as just another government, perhaps. But from the perspective of the time, no. 

You see, they understood what the Nazis were, they understood what a Nazi victory would mean. 

They also saw Germany move from the (sort-of) legitimate reintegration of German speaking countries to taking over non-German neighbours, and knew that sooner or later, they would be a target.



> (4) Unlike the official history that rolled across the earth after the war -still being taught in classrooms in the same fashion today-, the events in Europe in 1939 were the consequences of world powers trying to preserve and/or expand their interests. Period here.



If by "preserve their interests" you mean "preserve their independence from Nazi domination" then yes.



> (5) Hitler was not necessarily worse than Churchill.



Rubbish. Hitler came up with the idea that his particular rae was superior to all others, and that the solution wasn't to try to raise other races up to his level (which was to some extent the colonial concept) but to keep other races inferior, and to exterminate them. And to that end his death squads murdered several million people a year, once he had power over those other "races".



> Churchill proved he could in fact surpass Hitler, and contest smiley Dzugashvili for the Gold Medal in the "filthy politician" department.
> 
> I bring the Mers-el-Kebir incident forward to the table in order to substantiate this claim.


  

Giving a neutral (formerly allied) fleet notice that if they didn't surrender, or move to a safer location, he would attack them, and then carrying out the attack, is worse than murdering 6 million Jews?



> In fact, if we were to make a case just like the one experienced by the German créme de la créme at Nurenberg, then Churchill and Eisenhower go straight to death by hanging.



Go ahead. Quote the crimes you think they committed, and we'll see.



> So the British deemed the promises made to the Poles paramount?



Why do you think they made promises to the Poles? When they hadn;t to the Austrians, Czechs etc?

The reason is, until Germany anexed the rump of Czechoslovakia, they thought Hitler would be content with traditional German territory. After Czechoslovakia, they realised he wouldn't, and Poland was the line in the sand to prevent Hitler picking off the rest of Europe one country at a time.

This is from Chamberlain's speech a few days after Germany had annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia: (for those who don't know, the Munich agreement ceeded the German speaking areas of Czechoslovakia to Germany. In March 1939, in defiance of that agreement, Hitler took over the non German areas as well)

"One thing is certain. Public opinion in the world has received a sharper shock than has ever yet been administered to it, even by the present regime in Germany."

"When I came back after my second visit I told the House of Commons of a conversation I had had with Herr Hitler, of which I said that, speaking with great earnestness, he repeated what he had already said at Berchtesgaden-namely, that this was the last of his territorial ambitions in Europe, and that he had no wish to include in the Reich people of other races than German. Herr Hitler himself confirmed this account of the conversation in the speech which he made at the Sportpalast in Berlin, when he said: "This is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe." And a little later in the same speech he said: "I have assured Mr. Chamberlain, and I emphasise it now, that when this problem is solved Germany has no more territorial problems in Europe." And he added: "I shall not be interested in the Czech State any more, and I can guarantee it. We don't want any Czechs any more."

"How can these events this week be reconciled with those assurances which I have read out to you? Surely, as a joint signatory of the Munich Agreement, I was entitled, if Herr Hitler thought it ought to be undone, to that consultation which is provided for in the Munich declaration. Instead of that he has taken the law into his own hands. Before even the Czech President was received, and confronted with demands which he had no power to resist, the German troops were on the move, and within a few hours they were in the Czech capital.

According to the proclamation which was read out in Prague yesterday, Bohemia and Moravia have been annexed to the German Reich. Non-German inhabitants, who, of course, include the Czechs, are placed under the German Protector in the German Protectorate. They are to be subject to the political, military and economic needs of the Reich. They are called self-governing States, but the Reich is to take charge of their foreign policy, their customs and their excise, their bank reserves, and the equipment of the disarmed Czech forces. Perhaps most sinister of all, we hear again of the appearance of the Gestapo, the secret police, followed by the usual tale of wholesale arrests of prominent individuals, with consequences with which we are all familiar.

Every man and woman in this country who remembers the fate of the Jews and the political prisoners in Austria must be filled to-day with distress and foreboding. Who can fail to feel his heart go out in sympathy to the proud and brave people who have so suddenly been subjected to this invasion, whose liberties are curtailed, whose national independence has gone? What has become of this declaration of "No further territorial ambition"? What has become of the assurance "We don't want Czechs in the Reich"? What regard had been paid here to that principle of self-determination on which Herr Hitler argued so vehemently with me at Berchtesgaden when he was asking for the severance of Sudetenland from Czecho-Slovakia and its inclusion in the German Reich?

Now we are told that this seizure of territory has been necessitated by disturbances in Czecho-Slovakia. We are told that the proclamation of this new German Protectorate against the will of its inhabitants has been rendered inevitable by disorders which threatened the peace and security of her mighty neighbour. If there were disorders, were they not fomented from without? And can anybody outside Germany take seriously the idea that they could be a danger to that great country, that they could provide any justification for what has happened?

Does not the question inevitably arise in our minds, if it is so easy to discover good reasons for ignoring assurances so solemnly and so repeatedly given, what reliance can be placed upon any other assurances that come from the same source?

There is another set of questions which almost inevitably must occur in our minds and to the minds of others, perhaps even in Germany herself. Germany, under her present regime, has sprung a series of unpleasant surprises upon the world. The Rhineland, the Austrian Anschluss, the severance of Sudetenland-all these things shocked and affronted public opinion throughout the world. Yet, however much we might take exception to the methods which were adopted in each of those cases, there was something to be said, whether on account of racial affinity or of just claims too long resisted-there was something to be said for the necessity of a change in the existing situation.

But the events which have taken place this week in complete disregard of the principles laid down by the German Government itself seem to fall into a different category, and they must cause us all to be asking ourselves: "Is this the end of an old adventure, or is it the beginning of a new?"

"Is this the last attack upon a small State, or is it to be followed by others? Is this, in fact, a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force?"

Those are grave and serious questions. I am not going to answer them to-night. But I am sure they will require the grave and serious consideration not only of Germany's neighbours, but of others, perhaps even beyond the confines of Europe. Already there are indications that the process has begun, and it is obvious that it is likely now to be speeded up. "

"I do not believe there is anyone who will question my sincerity when I say there is hardly anything I would not sacrifice for peace. But there is one thing that I must except, and that is the liberty that we have enjoyed for hundreds of years, and which we will never surrender. That I, of all men, should feel called upon to make such a declaration-that is the measure of the extent to which these events have shattered the confidence which was just beginning to show its head and which, if it had been allowed to grow, might have made this year memorable for the return of all Europe to sanity and stability.

It is only six weeks ago that I was speaking in this city, and that I alluded to rumours and suspicions which I said ought to be swept away. I pointed out that any demand to dominate the world by force was one which the democracies must resist, and I added that I could not believe that such a challenge was intended, because no Government with the interests of its own people at heart could expose them for such a claim to the horrors of world war.

And, indeed, with the lessons of history for all to read, it seems incredible that we should see such a challenge. I feel bound to repeat that, while I am not prepared to engage this country by new unspecified commitments operating under conditions which cannot now be foreseen, yet no greater mistake could be made than to suppose that, because it believes war to be a senseless and cruel thing, this nation has so lost its fibre that it will not take part to the utmost of its power in resisting such a challenge if it ever were made. For that declaration I am convinced that I have not merely the support, the sympathy, the confidence of my fellow-countrymen and countrywomen, but I shall have also the approval of the whole British Empire and of all other nations who value peace, indeed, but who value freedom even more. "

That's Chamberlain, who had been sympathetic to the reunification of the German people, realising he'd been had, that Hitler had no intention of stopping with Czechoslovakia.[/url]


----------



## Udet (Mar 15, 2006)

Mr. Hop,

My phased response to your posting which is an assortment of sarcasm, half truths and -amazingly- agreements with my views. 

*(1)* There´s dirt and there´s dirt and there´s crime and there´s crime? How come? Who coined the phrase?

Where does Great Britain´s action in Mers-el-Kebir belong then? Just dirt? Crime? Or a mix between dirt and crime? Can dirt be contained in crime?

I digress: no one is white washing nobody here.

It´d appear things flow in the opposite direction here: you are trying to justify and paliate British felonies carried out during the war.


*(2) *When it comes to characters of the weight of those who were in office during world war two none of them requires any rehab nor restoring Mr. Hop.

Get acquainted with the laws of power.

Politicians; leaders of the world powers in the 1930s. No rehabilitation is needed there. Just like there will be no rehab required for the politicians head of the world powers of the present-day world.


*(3)* I can understand and deal with nationalism; I can even deal with radical nationalism. Also that you are trying to whitewash allied felonies is just fine.

I have issues in dealing with deliberate blindness though.

Your deliberate blindness is comprised by 2 elements: (i) you do not know who was the other very aggressive state in Europe and, (ii) also you ignore what are the crimes for which both Churchill and Mr. Eisenhower get an appointment with the hangman -I am not interested at all in debating those crimes; since your reponse is so tough I will assume you know what those crimes are-.

So it is hard to see who else was an aggressor in Europe? 

I could play sarcasm following your style Mister, but I will not. 

The Soviet Union had a very aggressive agenda for the continent and for the world as well. 

Do you ever mention this particular fact? That the soviet union had expansionism planned for both Europe and the rest of the world?


*(4)* Much easier, richer pickings elsewhere?

Like suggesting Germany could not deal with England? Or perhaps suggesting the German military feared British military?

Ought to double check the record of the British Army against the Heer throughtout the war, and you might discover, that with a few exceptions, the German soldiers and commanders cleanly surpassed their British counterparts.

I do not know whether if you are a woman are not. I do not know you.


and -finally-,

(5) Yes, a very bizarre and selective choice of enemies is what the western powers did. If you want to continue living in denial that is just great.

If you really want to convince people *that think*, the world owes England because of its contribution to the destruction of a regime "that sought enslavement of all non-aryan races" I can assure you a very tough task which I do not believe you are going to achieve.

Some people here might recall one time when I wrote that the foreign policiy of Great Britain was like autumn leaves blown by the wind?

One moment they follow the direction of the wind, to immediately switch the opposite way when the wind changes its blow?

Well, here it is Mr. Hop: thank you very much for posting Mr. Chamberlain´s speech. 

It tells me you agree 100% with me. Didn´t I tell politicians are dirty, filthy people?

Then, if Hitler lied to Chamberlain, my idea is simply confirmed. Hitler was a politician, therefore a very dirty individual.

What about Great Britain´s posture towards the Soviet Union eh?

You know of Churchill´s offerings made to Stalin as the war progressed?
Did the people of England, a free people, knew what their leaders were doing in support of a totalitarian state which would have loved to have all their liberties supressed and have all those that might oppose them either exterminated or sent to a certain death to some forced labor camp?

They understood what the nazis were? 
I ask you Mr. Hop, did they know what the bolsheviks were?

Also Mr. Hop, do you know what the bolsheviks would have done to the British people if they had come close to the chance of implementing their regime in England? 

May I know of your standard to define which regime was the so called "lesser evil"?

So very bully against one bad regime, but very friendly towards another which was by far more brutal?

See? Like the leaves of an autumn forest...


Mers-el-Kebir...giving them notice of some terms which include the threat to destroy the fleet? Same thing against the _Richelieu_ in Dakar by the way.

No Mr. Hop, no. That was a vulgar ambush. Or maybe, repeat maybe, it was one Great Britain´s latest displays of raw and flat gunship diplomacy:

"See Mister, I am here to deliver the terms of my government to which you are to abide by. In case of refusal, I have to inform you my battleships are visible from your window to ensure performance of these terms."

So where was this "superb" allied intelligence eh?

This "superb out of this planet" British intelligence which cracked enigma codes, Luftwaffe plans, U-boat deployments, Heer preparations in the eastern front eh?

Could not they know of a German intention to grab the French powerful battleships and battlecruisers?

They knew Hitler made no claims at all to the French fleet and colonial territories in Africa. 

So when it serves your interest British intelligence was the ultimate cookie, but when it does not it is amusing to realize British intelligence is not even mentioned. 

Mr. KraziKanuk:

You do not know what to think of a person who defendes Hitler? With such a comment you are accusing me of not being a nice boy who will not get his lollypop.

Hunter, thanks for the nice comments. I share some of your views as well, but there are some points where of course I do not.

Cheers!


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 15, 2006)

No problem Udet, always nice to chat. Our different opinions is what makes taking to you a pleasure and entertaining (not to mention thought provoking). Cheers


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 15, 2006)

> Go ahead. Quote the crimes you think they committed, and we'll see.


The death by fire of thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent German women and children throughout the cities firebombed by the Allies....


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 16, 2006)

- Which was first attempted, by Germany, on British cities.

Because Britain succeeded where Germany failed does not make them evil.

It's like if you kick a dog - it may not be vicious, but it'll probably bite you.

That's a thing about the British; you can goad, prod and poke some, but when they retaliate, *they retaliate*!


----------



## Hop (Mar 16, 2006)

> Where does Great Britain´s action in Mers-el-Kebir belong then? Just dirt? Crime? Or a mix between dirt and crime?



In a war in which tens of millions of civilians were killed, attacking a fleet of warships, after giving them many hours warning, doesn't exactly come high up the list of dirt, let alone crimes.



> It´d appear things flow in the opposite direction here: you are trying to justify and paliate British felonies carried out during the war.



Not at all. I just object to the legitimisation of the Nazis by glibly saying all politicians are dirty. 



> (i) you do not know who was the other very aggressive state in Europe and



Of course I do. However, the British, French, Belgians, Dutch, Norwegians, Danes etc had far more to fear from Germany than Russia. _You_ might not think Germany was that bad, they knew it was.



> also you ignore what are the crimes for which both Churchill and Mr. Eisenhower get an appointment with the hangman -I am not interested at all in debating those crimes; since your reponse is so tough I will assume you know what those crimes are-.



No, I'd really like to know. 



> The Soviet Union had a very aggressive agenda for the continent and for the world as well.



Well, there were two points about the Soviets. 

Like the Nazis, they sought to build a utopia. However, the Soviet utopia was based on class, and included the majority of the population. The Nazi utopia was based on race, and included a minority of the population of Europe. In countries that attempt to build utopia by force, it's not healthy to be in the wrong group, and under the Nazis, far more were in the wrong group.

You can see the effects of this in Poland. Germany ran it for a little over 5 years, and murdered over 5 million of the population. The Soviets ran it for nearly 50 years, and killed far, far less.

Secondly, the Soviets might have talked a good world domination plan, but they were far happier using subterfuge than open war to achieve their aims. Germany chose war, and that's far more destructive.



> That the soviet union had expansionism planned for both Europe and the rest of the world?



They might have had plans, but I don't recall them using open war nearly as much. They only really moved when they had treaties with Germany to cover their back.



> Much easier, richer pickings elsewhere?
> 
> Like suggesting Germany could not deal with England?



I seem to remember they didn't quite manage that.



> Or perhaps suggesting the German military feared British military?



Depends what you mean by "military". If you mean army, no, if you mean armed forces, yes. Their navy was in terror of the RN, Goering knew that the RAF was the most formidable foe the Germans faced.

Don't forget, war with Britain meant automatic blockade, which meant reduced access to oil, rubber, many metals, etc. Reduced food imports, too, that had been so damaging to Germany in WW1.



> Ought to double check the record of the British Army against the Heer throughtout the war, and you might discover, that with a few exceptions, the German soldiers and commanders cleanly surpassed their British counterparts.



Check the records of the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe, while you're at it. Britain was not a land power, and had a weak army, but it had a far stronger navy than Germany, and an equally powerful air force. And most of all, there was nothing the Germans could do to defeat Britain, as events proved.



> Yes, a very bizarre and selective choice of enemies is what the western powers did. If you want to continue living in denial that is just great.



From your perspective. But then your perspective is that Hitler was no worse than Churchill, so why not have a Nazi Britain? For people in the real world, the Nazis were by far the greatest menace to western democracy.



> If you really want to convince people that think, the world owes England because of its contribution to the destruction of a regime "that sought enslavement of all non-aryan races" I can assure you a very tough task which I do not believe you are going to achieve.



I have no idea what circles you move in, but you'll find that is the prevailing opinion in the first world, at least. You won't even find many Germans who think otherwise.



> Some people here might recall one time when I wrote that the foreign policiy of Great Britain was like autumn leaves blown by the wind?
> 
> One moment they follow the direction of the wind, to immediately switch the opposite way when the wind changes its blow?
> 
> ...



Not at all. Britain recognised that certain parts of the Versailles treaty were unjust, and had no objection to them being changed. It had no obkection to a greater Germany including German areas of Europe. 

But as soon as Hitler went beyond that, and started to take over non German territories, Britain stood up to him.



> Didn´t I tell politicians are dirty, filthy people?



Chamberlain was possibly naive. But Churchill summed him up nicely in parliament a few days after his death:

"It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned."

Chamberlain dirty? No, he bent over backwards to avoid another war. That he was wrong to trust Hitler might make him foolish, but it doesn't make him dirty.



> Then, if Hitler lied to Chamberlain, my idea is simply confirmed. Hitler was a politician, therefore a very dirty individual.



There you go again. All dirt is not the same, like all crimes are not the same.



> What about Great Britain´s posture towards the Soviet Union eh?



What about it? Britain stood up to the SU in the early days, and would have again in the 30s and 40s. But Hitler came along, and he was seen as a far greater menace. It's just part of the tragedy of the Nazis that they enabled the spread of communism, by being so much worse the western democracies had to focus on Germany, instead of the SU.

If Germany had been a respectable state, even a fascist one along the lines of Italy, then a united front against communism would have been possible. 



> You know of Churchill´s offerings made to Stalin as the war progressed?



Of course. They were our allies. Not from choice, but from necessity.

Churchill warned of the dangers of communism before the war, he warned again after the war. But faced with the lesser, more distant danger of communism, and the immediate threat of Nazism, as Churchill said on the Nazi invasion of the SU:

"If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons"



> Did the people of England, a free people, knew what their leaders were doing in support of a totalitarian state which would have loved to have all their liberties supressed and have all those that might oppose them either exterminated or sent to a certain death to some forced labor camp?



Yes.

You are approaching this from a position that the communists were worse than the Nazis, and saying what Britain did doesn't make sense. With that view, it doesn't, and no doubt if you'd been in charge, things would have been different.

But from the British point of view, where the Nazis were much worse than the communists, it makes perfect sense. Then, you ally with the lesser evil to defeat the greater. Not because you support communism, but because you have a common enemy.



> Also Mr. Hop, do you know what the bolsheviks would have done to the British people if they had come close to the chance of implementing their regime in England?



Nothing to compare with what the Germans planned (deportation of all males of working age, liquidation of large numbers of people)



> May I know of your standard to define which regime was the so called "lesser evil"?



Common sense?



> So very bully against one bad regime, but very friendly towards another which was by far more brutal?



Communism was far more brutal than Nazism? Again, only by your viewpoint. 

Britain was "friendly" to communism out of necessity, to defeat Nazism. Not before, and not after. And it was Nazi Germany that enabled the great expansion of communism, with their deals before the war, and their attacks on the non-communist countries of Europe during the war.



> Mers-el-Kebir...giving them notice of some terms which include the threat to destroy the fleet? Same thing against the Richelieu in Dakar by the way.
> 
> No Mr. Hop, no. That was a vulgar ambush.



An ambush doesn't usually gives terms to avoid it, and 10 hours notice.

The problem at Mers el Kebir is that the French Admiral, Gensoul, didn't report all the options he was given back to the French government. He was given 3 options by the British, join the British fleet, sail with reduced crews to a British port where his ships would be interned, or sail with reduced crews to a French port in the Caribbean or to the US. He certainly didn't report the last option, and told the French government he'd been told to join the British or scuttle his ships.



> Or maybe, repeat maybe, it was one Great Britain´s latest displays of raw and flat gunship diplomacy:
> 
> "See Mister, I am here to deliver the terms of my government to which you are to abide by. In case of refusal, I have to inform you my battleships are visible from your window to ensure performance of these terms."



Perhaps. But the British and French governments had a treaty, that neither would seek a seperate peace with Germany. Britain agreed to release France from that treaty if the French fleet was sent to British ports. When the French went ahead and broke that treaty, and installed a pro German government, it put Britain in a very risky position. 



> This "superb out of this planet" British intelligence which cracked enigma codes, Luftwaffe plans, U-boat deployments, Heer preparations in the eastern front eh?
> 
> Could not they know of a German intention to grab the French powerful battleships and battlecruisers?



It's hard, often impossible, to prove a negative. If you find orders to sieze the ships, you can know it's going to happen. If you don't find such orders, is it because they don't exist, or because you haven't found them? And if they don't exist, does that mean they will not exist next week, or the week after?



> They knew Hitler made no claims at all to the French fleet and colonial territories in Africa.



And they were supposed to trust the Germans not to try to sieze the fleet later? You might have trusted the Germans, you might believe Hitler was just another politician, the British did not.



> So when it serves your interest British intelligence was the ultimate cookie, but when it does not it is amusing to realize British intelligence is not even mentioned.



British intelligence was very good, probably about the best during the war years, but it was far from perfect.



> Go ahead. Quote the crimes you think they committed, and we'll see.
> The death by fire of thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent German women and children throughout the cities firebombed by the Allies....



And those violate what law?


----------



## gaussianum (Mar 16, 2006)

Atrocities were commited by all sides. Fire-bombing, in my opinion qualifies as such. Just as the A-bomb.

The difference between nazi and allied atrocities, is that the nazi ones were subject to prosecution and trial, whereas the allied one aren't even recognized as such.

Of course, they are outside the scope of any law (such a law would be atrocious)

I think this the crucial imbalance of justice, that still needs to be addressed. But it will take a long time before things are settled.

Sorry for straying this a bit off-topic.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 17, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Yep and he had been since 1936 and the Rhineland which where followed by Austria and the Sudentenland in 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939 by which point Britain and France had enough of Hitler's dealings and the war started as a result of Hitler's aggressions not of Britain and France (theirs was a reactionary move not and aggressive move).



Nope disagree somewhat with what you just said.

The Rheinland was, has been and allways will be German land. Germany had a right to take it back. The Sudetenland was Germany land and Germany had a right to take it back. My wifes Grandmother is from the Sudetenland. She allways will look at it as German land. 

As for Poland, there were lands in Poland that belonged to Germany and should have been given back, however invading Poland was wrong and an act of war.

Now I completly agree with you on the rest of Czechoslovakia. That was an act of war.



Udet said:


> The purpose here could in fact be one more illustrative, and I believe there will be some who will agree on this:
> 
> (1) Germany was not the sole aggressor in the continent from the offset.
> 
> ...



1) Your right the Soviets were an aggressor also, however Hitler was the leading aggressor.

2) Who cares if he did not intend to, he started WW2 and intended on invading eneogh other countries.

4) Does not change the fact that Hitler wanted to extermenate whole races of people. That can not covered up and never will be. Period!

5) How was Churchill worse. Did he gas people in chambers? Did he starve them in camps? Think about it.



gausainum said:


> Atrocities were commited by all sides. Fire-bombing, in my opinion qualifies as such. Just as the A-bomb.
> 
> The difference between nazi and allied atrocities, is that the nazi ones were subject to prosecution and trial, whereas the allied one aren't even recognized as such.
> 
> ...



Yes autrocities were committed by both sides. The difference is the allies did not try and wipe whole races off the planet!

How can you consider the fire bombings as attrocities when the Germans were firebombing London as well? Is it okay for the Germans to firebomb cities and not for the allies to do so? Think about what you said.

The A-Bomb as an attrocities? Give me a break. The bombing actually saved lives. Besides if Germany or Japan had gotten the bomb first, what makes you think they would not have used it?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 18, 2006)

My opinion is that the mass bombing, on either side, were atrocious, but most were not considered 'atrocities' in the legal sense of the word at the time. The Hauge convention only prohibited bombardmens against undefended targets. Under current internation law, all the mass bombings of WW2 would be considered international war crimes.

I think its really a case of the Allies giving better than they got. Germany certainly lead the way though, even before the nominal start of WW2 with the bombing of Guernecia in 1937. Mass bombing was a standard German tactic, even in the opening Blitzkrieg of 1939-1940. The bombng of Wielun was the first offensive German move against Poland, followed up by later bombing of Frampol and Warsaw. The bombing of Rotterdam and the Blitz against England show that Germany had no compunctions against area bombing and/or terror bombing. 

For the West, strategic airpower was their dominant striking arm against Germany for 4 years. The RAF and USAAF assembled the largest strategic air fleets in history. It was the MASS bombing, the size and effect of it, that shocks us so much today. Any bombing of that type is horrifying, the Allies could just do it bigger and better than their German counterparts.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 18, 2006)

*DerAdler:*



> The Rheinland was, has been and allways will be German land. Germany had a right to take it back. The Sudetenland was Germany land and Germany had a right to take it back. My wifes Grandmother is from the Sudetenland. She allways will look at it as German land.
> 
> As for Poland, there were lands in Poland that belonged to Germany and should have been given back, however invading Poland was wrong and an act of war.
> 
> Now I completly agree with you on the rest of Czechoslovakia. That was an act of war.



I completely agree. Apart from the bit about Poland - only I'd have waited 'till Stalin invaded.



> 1) Your right the Soviets were an aggressor also, however Hitler was the leading aggressor.
> 
> 2) Who cares if he did not intend to, he started WW2 and intended on invading eneogh other countries.
> 
> 4) Does not change the fact that Hitler wanted to extermenate whole races of people. That can not covered up and never will be. Period!



I'm in agreement again.



> 5) How was Churchill worse. Did he gas people in chambers? Did he starve them in camps? Think about it.



He actually ordered the gassing of British Sailors. Also he may have had something to do with concentration camps? - but I doubt it.

Agree with everything else DerAdler, well said.


*Jabberwocky:*



> the Blitz against England show that Germany had no compunctions against area bombing and/or terror bombing.



That and the British bombing Germany was accidental IMHO, fate eh?



> Germany had no compunctions against area bombing and/or terror bombing.



That is true. Why take the chance.



> the Allies could just do it bigger and better than their German counterparts.



Germany had no heavy bombers, or the numbers.

A big part for my gran who was bombed was that the war front was effectively in her ( the enemies) sky, not in North Africa etc.


----------



## Hop (Mar 18, 2006)

> That and the British bombing Germany was accidental IMHO, fate eh?



There was nothing accidental about British bombing of Germany, any more than German bombing of Britain was accidental. Both sides refrained from attacking each other early in the war, after the German invasion of the west in May 1940 (and heavy bombing attacks in France, Belgium and Holland) the British began bombing what they thought were strictly military targets in Germany with small numbers of aircraft, and the Germans, after finishing bombing France, Belgium and Holland, did the same to Britain.

(because of the inaccuracy of bombing, the strict military targets each side thought they were bombing were rarely hit, and small numbers of bombs fell fairly randomly)

However, Germany took a deliberate decision in September 1940 to try to break British will to resist by mass bombing, and that's what started the city bombing between Britain and Germany. Not an accident, not a mistake, but a change in policy brought about because the Luftwaffe was failing in it's strategy of defeating the RAF in a head on battle.



> The Rheinland was, has been and allways will be German land. Germany had a right to take it back. The Sudetenland was Germany land and Germany had a right to take it back. My wifes Grandmother is from the Sudetenland. She allways will look at it as German land.



Yes. That's what Chamberlain was refering to when he said:

"The Rhineland, the Austrian Anschluss, the severance of Sudetenland-all these things shocked and affronted public opinion throughout the world. Yet, however much we might take exception to the methods which were adopted in each of those cases, there was something to be said, whether on account of racial affinity or of just claims too long resisted-there was something to be said for the necessity of a change in the existing situation. "

What Udet doesn't seem to understand is that not opposing those German moves, but opposing German moves to take over the non German areas of Czechoslovakia and Poland, is not a change in policy. It's the continuation of the same policy, that German areas should be allowed to join Germany, but Germany has no right to try to take non German areas. The seizure of the remnants of Czechoslovakia was the first German step beyond taking back what rightfully belonged to Germany, and so it was opposed. 



> Atrocities were commited by all sides. Fire-bombing, in my opinion qualifies as such. Just as the A-bomb.



War is an atrocity. About 1% of the casualties of WW2 were German civilians killed by allied bombing. Possibly another 1% were Japanese civilians killed by allied bombing. 

In fact, about 1 in 4 German civilians who died was killed by allied bombing, meaning far more were killed by conventional warfare. I suspect more German civilians would have died if the allies had fought their way through an intact Germany, against a largely intact German army, than in the bombing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2006)

Hop said:


> The seizure of the remnants of Czechoslovakia was the first German step beyond taking back what rightfully belonged to Germany, and so it was opposed.



I agree.


----------



## gaussianum (Mar 18, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes atrocities were committed by both sides. The difference is the allies did not try and wipe whole races off the planet!



That's laughable. You should consider talking to some Native Americans, to see how common genocides really are.



> How can you consider the fire bombings as atrocities when the Germans were firebombing London as well? Is it okay for the Germans to firebomb cities and not for the allies to do so? Think about what you said.



Perhaps you should read my post again. Where did I write that it was OK for the germans to fiebomb cities?



> The A-Bomb as an attrocities? Give me a break. The bombing actually saved lives. Besides if Germany or Japan had gotten the bomb first, what makes you think they would not have used it?



LOL  

It saved american troops' lives, and destroyed innocent civilians' lives. I guess one innocent japanese's life (or even 10 japanese ones) isn't worth as much as one american soldier's life, right?

Not that it's the soldier's job to engage the enemy in combat, or is it?

If we're going to spare soldiers from combat, what the hell is the point in having them in the first place?

What's the point of being a civilian then?

You should really check out some pics. of dead japanese from the A-bomb. Do you know what radiation and the blast itself do to people? Do you have any idea?

This article has just one photograph. I have seen much worse.

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/st/~lovenson/Theeffects.html

One of the nasty effects of 60 years of allied propaganda, is that there are still people who believe in it.

But it's not too late to see the truth about it.

Best Regards


----------



## gaussianum (Mar 18, 2006)

Hop said:


> However, Germany took a deliberate decision in September 1940 to try to break British will to resist by mass bombing, and that's what started the city bombing between Britain and Germany. Not an accident, not a mistake, but a change in policy brought about because the Luftwaffe was failing in it's strategy of defeating the RAF in a head on battle.



That's not at all what I've read. The bombing of London was a direct retaliation to the bombing of Berlin, which was a British initiative. Don't know about the other cities, though.



> In fact, about 1 in 4 German civilians who died was killed by allied bombing, meaning far more were killed by conventional warfare. I suspect more German civilians would have died if the allies had fought their way through an intact Germany, against a largely intact German army, than in the bombing.



I think it's rather hypothetical. I find it difficult to extrapolate, and reach the same conclusion.

Best regards


----------



## Twitch (Mar 18, 2006)

While Mr. Hitler was a really bad, bad man he didn't exist in vacuum and there was enough sabre rattling from the likes of GB and her imperialist attitude along with Russia and their commie crapola. In the Pacific the US was just about poking the Japs with a stick and then wondered why they attacked Pearl Harbor.

Nothing that contributed to the commencement of hostilities was clear cut or simple. We can't say it was all Hitler's fault or all Hirohito's fault. The atmosphere in which they existed and reacted was propagated by many other players with their own goals and agendas. This has nothing to do with genocide which was a separate issue apart from expansionism to improve economic standards.

All the other countries had sometimes less than innocent reasons for foreign policy actions that benifitted them in the long run. It was too complex to categorically state that only Hitler is to blame for all things leading to war.


----------



## gaussianum (Mar 18, 2006)

Well said, Twitch.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 18, 2006)

gaussianum said:


> Hop said:
> 
> 
> > However, Germany took a deliberate decision in September 1940 to try to break British will to resist by mass bombing, and that's what started the city bombing between Britain and Germany. Not an accident, not a mistake, but a change in policy brought about because the Luftwaffe was failing in it's strategy of defeating the RAF in a head on battle.
> ...



No, the German airforce pursued an intentional and deliberate campaign of night-time area and fire bombing British cities from Septemeber 1940 through May 1941 which was specifically designed to interupt the British war effort by destroying its civilian morale through dehousing and inflicting maximum damage on industrial targets.

The bombing of London was indeed retaliation for British bombing of Berlin, which was in turn a retaliation for accidental German bombing of London. The order for the attacks was aimed at 'disruptive attacks on the population and air defences of major English cities'. It wasn't so much retaliation raids as a deliberate switch from daylight bombing of military facilities, to area bombing of military/industrial and population centres. It was a tacit admission that the daylight bombing campaign had failed, much like the British switch to night bombing was.

The Luftwaffe sent more than 200 bombers over London every night for 66 nights straight, with a single pause of one night in November. London suffered raids of over 400 bombers, Bristol and Birmingham from raids of over 200 bombers. The raids were expanded to other British cities; Manchester, Livepool, Coventry, Cardiff, Southampton and over 20 others up to May, 1941 when German attention focused on the Balkans and then Russia.


----------



## gaussianum (Mar 18, 2006)

Jabberwocky,

Did the british know that the first german bombing of London was accidental?

Best regards


----------



## Hop (Mar 18, 2006)

> That's not at all what I've read. The bombing of London was a direct retaliation to the bombing of Berlin, which was a British initiative. Don't know about the other cities, though.



Until May 940 there was no bombing in Western Europe. From that date, both sides bombed each other. However, the vast majority of those raids were small and targeted at precise targets. For example, the British would send 6 bombers to attack a German oil refinery, the Germans would send 10 to attack a British port. (the only real exception to this was Rotterdam, where the Germans sent a fairly large number of aircraft, but it was still largely a military target)

Of course, bombing was inaccurate, and many of the bombs intended for oil refineries and ports and other military targets ended up hitting residential areas, but at that time, that was not the intent.

The accidental bombing of London was part of the same pattern, althought the Germans had already increased the number of attacks greatly. The aircraft that bombed London were supposed to be bombing the oil terminal at Thameshaven, on the outskirts of London. London had already been hit by bombers targetting the RAF base at Croydon, which is a London suburb.

The RAF responded, but not with mass atacks on Berlin. They responded with atacks on military targets in and around Berlin. Of the 80 or so aircraft sent, most were allocated to Tempelhof airfield, some to Siemens, some to Bucker, in fact there were about a dozen seperate military target for them to hit. They were not ordered to bomb residential areas, and indeed they were ordered not to bomb anything unless they could identify their particular military target. Few actually bombed, many did not find Berlin, a large number found Berlin but coul not identify their targets, and brought their bombs back.

The German strategy of mass raids had been detailed by Jodl as early as June:

"Together with propaganda and periodic terror attacks, announced as reprisals, this increasing weakening of the basis of food supply will paralyze and finally break the will of the people to resist, and thereby force its government to capitulate."

That the Germans claimed thei huge escalation of bombing, from attacking military targets to area bombing cities, was as a reprisal for British bombing is not suprising. But the reality is, throughout August the Luftwaffe had been doing far more bombing than the British already, before the "reprisals" started. In August, just over 1,000 British civilians were killed, the RAF killed about 1,000 German civilians in the whole of 1940 (and 1939, as they didn't drop any bombs on Germany in 1939)

This policy of small scale attacks, aimed at, though not often hitting, precise militiary targets, continued until September, when the Luftwaffe began an all out attack, using hundreds of bombers a day, against London. That moved on to other British cities. The aim was to defeat Britain by pressure on civilian morale. 

The first British raid that adopted similar methods, of attacking a city with large numbers of bombers, rather than a precise target with a small number of bombers, was operation Abigail against Mannheim on December 16, 1940. By that time, the Luftwaffe had already killed about 20,000 civilians in Britain.


----------



## Hop (Mar 18, 2006)

> Did the british know that the first german bombing of London was accidental?



Part of the problem is that both sides thought their own bombers were hitting the target, and that the enemy was deliberately bombing at random. Neither side appreciated that most of their own bombs were going astray.

But the point is, the British response to the bombing of London was to do exactly what the aircraft that bombed London had been _trying_ to do; attack precise military targets in and around the enemy capital.

The Germans had been trying to hit Thames Haven (and Croydon), the British tried to hit Tempelhof.


----------



## gaussianum (Mar 18, 2006)

Thanks Hop, very good information.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2006)

gaussianum said:


> That's laughable. You should consider talking to some Native Americans, to see how common genocides really are.



We are talking about WW2 here not the 1800s. Neither British nor US policy during WW2 was the mass genocide of people, nor was it the law. Dont change the subject.




gaussianum said:


> Perhaps you should read my post again. Where did I write that it was OK for the germans to fiebomb cities?



Maybe you should make your post more understandable then and say that firebombings of all sides was were attrocities because the Germans firebombed England, the British and the US firebombed Germany. It happened on both sides. Its war!




gaussianum said:


> LOL
> 
> It saved american troops' lives, and destroyed innocent civilians' lives. I guess one innocent japanese's life (or even 10 japanese ones) isn't worth as much as one american soldier's life, right?



If I were a US soldier in WW2 hell yes my life would have been worth more. Do you know how many Japanese lives it spared also? Probabably Millions, they would have fought to the last, the women and children as well.



gaussianum said:


> Not that it's the soldier's job to engage the enemy in combat, or is it?



Dont tell me what the job of a soldier is. I am a soldier and have been to combat.





gaussainum said:


> You should really check out some pics. of dead japanese from the A-bomb. Do you know what radiation and the blast itself do to people? Do you have any idea?



Ive seen many pics, I am not an uneducated fool.



gaussianum said:


> This article has just one photograph. I have seen much worse.



I have seen death up close and personal, I think I have seen worse than that picture.



gaussianum said:


> One of the nasty effects of 60 years of allied propaganda, is that there are still people who believe in it.



And let me take you are Fascist Propaganda spreader huh. This forum is starting to fill with much of it.

I dont listen to propaganda, I learn history and facts!



gaussianum said:


> But it's not too late to see the truth about it.
> 
> Best Regards



And it is not too late for you to find your way out the door. Just because someone disagrees with you, you dont have to talk down to them. I am not a 15 year old kid with a high school education!


----------



## evangilder (Mar 20, 2006)

Anyone who thinks the A-bomb did not save a lot of Japanese lives needs to brush up on their history. Sure, it killed a lot of people, but there would have been much more had the allies had to invade. It has been stated that it could have been the end of the Japanese people and culture. The estimates of dead on the first part of the invasion alone was a half a million allied troops and over 3 million Japanese!


----------



## gaussianum (Mar 20, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> We are talking about WW2 here not the 1800s. Neither British nor US policy during WW2 was the mass genocide of people, nor was it the law. Dont change the subject.



I've shown you that genocides have happened throughout history. You said that Germany was the only country that tried to exterminate another race/culture. I've shown you a clear historic example that it simply isn't so.

Genocides do not have an expiration date. The ones committed in the 19th/20th century are as appalling today as they were then (perhaps even more so now).



> Maybe you should make your post more understandable then and say that firebombings of all sides was were attrocities because the Germans firebombed England, the British and the US firebombed Germany. It happened on both sides. Its war!



That is so obvious to anyone, that I didn't feel the need to put it in words. It was understandable to some other posters here. If you didn't interpret correctly something that I've written in plain English, is it my fault?



> If I were a US soldier in WW2 hell yes my life would have been worth more. Do you know how many Japanese lives it spared also? Probabably Millions, they would have fought to the last, the women and children as well.



Yes, probably. Probably UFO's have already visited the Earth. Probably Kennedy should have taken a detour from Dallas.

It's very nice to justify atrocities with hypothetical scenarios. You can justify anything with them actually.

I don't know if I could live with my conscience, if I had killed an innocent civilian.

Yes, japanese women and children have always been known for their ferocity in combat. I'm glad that well-armed soldiers didn't have to tackle them.



> Dont tell me what the job of a soldier is. I am a soldier and have been to combat.



I respect that. You're not going to tell me that you fear engaging innocent civilians, are you? I don't think you do. 



> I have seen death up close and personal, I think I have seen worse than that picture.



I haven't, and I hope I never will.



> And let me take you are Fascist Propaganda spreader huh. This forum is starting to fill with much of it.



Such a gratuitous and aggressive statement warrants no comment from me.



> And it is not too late for you to find your way out the door. Just because someone disagrees with you, you dont have to talk down to them. I am not a 15 year old kid with a high school education!



Anyone one can see, by reading the posts in chronological order, who started talking down.

I've been polite in all my postings. I have not made any racist / bigoted remarks. 

I have defended the value of human life, and the absurdity of crediting only the defeated nations with being the only evil-doers in war.

Is it fascist to defend human life?

Is it racist to be against all atrocities? (not just the ones committed by the germans)

I don't think so.

Buy the way, the japanese were trying to surrender, before the bomb was dropped.



> What are the facts? This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica (1959 edition) has to say: After the fall of Okinawa [on June 21, 1945], [Japanese Prime Minister] Suzuki's main objective was to get Japan out of the war on the best possible terms, though that could not be announced to the general public... Unofficial peace feelers were transmitted through Switzerland and Sweden... Later the Japanese made a formal request to Russia to aid in bringing hostilities to an end.
> 
> The Britannica then completes its coverage by saying that Russia rebuffed the Japanese overtures because it didn't want the war to end before it was scheduled to invade the northern areas occupied by Japan. What the Britannica fails to mention is that these Japanese overtures were known to Washington because the dispatches between Foreign Minister Togo in Tokyo and Japanese Ambassador Sato in Moscow were intercepted by the United States.
> 
> ...



http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/043.html 

There are so many other sources for this. Just do a quick google search.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2006)

gaussianum said:


> I've shown you that genocides have happened throughout history. You said that Germany was the only country that tried to exterminate another race/culture. I've shown you a clear historic example that it simply isn't so.
> 
> Genocides do not have an expiration date. The ones committed in the 19th/20th century are as appalling today as they were then (perhaps even more so now).



No we are talking about WW2 here not the Indian Wars or what not. Did the US or England committ mass genocide in WW2. I believe the only countries who did and had a policy for it were Germany, Japan, and Russia.









gaussainum said:


> I respect that. You're not going to tell me that you fear engaging innocent civilians, are you? I don't think you do.



No I would not kill and innocent civilian and have never done so, however it is real easy to judge something when you were not there, is it not? 




gaussainum said:


> I haven't, and I hope I never will.



I hope you never do either.




gaussainum said:


> Such a gratuitous and aggressive statement warrants no comment from me.



I will apologize for that comment, however I also did not like being told that basically I believe in allied propoganda.





gaussainum said:


> I have defended the value of human life, and the absurdity of crediting only the defeated nations with being the only evil-doers in war.
> 
> Is it fascist to defend human life?
> 
> ...



I agreed with you that attrocities were committed on both sides, however I do not try and compare Allied firebombings to the killing of millions of people just because they were of a certain race, or religion.

Also nowhere did I say you were a rascist or anything like that. I said let me guess you spread fascist propoganda, I did not say you were rascist. I will explain myself because there are plenty of people on here who seem to forget the attrocities committed by the Nazis and talk only about how bad the allies were in what they did. It goes both ways. I here things like this all the time from ignorant Neo Nazis and shit and the NDP party over here in Germany. Now having said that, dont go and accuse me of calling you a Neo Nazi or what not.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 20, 2006)

They don't have to die fighting.



> Yes, japanese women and children have always been known for their ferocity in combat. I'm glad that well-armed soldiers didn't have to tackle them.


 A certain Pacific island had them throwing themselves off cliffs.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 20, 2006)

gaussianum said:


> Atrocities were commited by all sides. Fire-bombing, in my opinion qualifies as such. Just as the A-bomb.
> 
> The difference between nazi and allied atrocities, is that the nazi ones were subject to prosecution and trial, whereas the allied one aren't even recognized as such.
> 
> ...




I agree with what you say here gauss, very true. The winner always writes the rules and history, not fair but true.

Then Adler said:

"Yes autrocities were committed by both sides. The difference is the allies did not try and wipe whole races off the planet! 

How can you consider the fire bombings as attrocities when the Germans were firebombing London as well? Is it okay for the Germans to firebomb cities and not for the allies to do so? Think about what you said. 

The A-Bomb as an attrocities? Give me a break. The bombing actually saved lives. Besides if Germany or Japan had gotten the bomb first, what makes you think they would not have used it?"

I do not think he was trying to talk down to you, he is not like that. He is a good guy and fair. He was disagreeing with you which is fine. Then you responded in a very defensive manner and that ticked him off alittle. 

You sound like a decent guy and I see you are new here, welcome. But you will find that a good debate is welcomed and that Chris (aka Adler is a good guy) just be alittle patient in debates. Posting and emails are very hard to read a person's intent or mood when they post it and mistakes can be made. Unless a person is being very rude just be patient, most of these guys have much to teach us. Most of all vets, aka Les, Eric, Erich and Chris (adler). You seem to just have gotten of on the wrong foot alittle. 

Anyways nice to meet you and welcome.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> I do not think he was trying to talk down to you, he is not like that. He is a good guy and fair. He was disagreeing with you which is fine. Then you responded in a very defensive manner and that ticked him off alittle.



Thankyou you hit the nail.


----------



## gaussianum (Mar 20, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> I do not think he was trying to talk down to you, he is not like that. He is a good guy and fair. He was disagreeing with you which is fine. Then you responded in a very defensive manner and that ticked him off alittle.
> 
> You sound like a decent guy and I see you are new here, welcome. But you will find that a good debate is welcomed and that Chris (aka Adler is a good guy) just be alittle patient in debates. Posting and emails are very hard to read a person's intent or mood when they post it and mistakes can be made. Unless a person is being very rude just be patient, most of these guys have much to teach us. Most of all vets, aka Les, Eric, Erich and Chris (adler). You seem to just have gotten of on the wrong foot alittle.
> 
> Anyways nice to meet you and welcome.



Thanks Hunter368,

I appreciate your welcome. It is my pleasure to be able to talk to you. I'm an enthusiast of aviation, and I come here mainly to learn new things from people who know more than I do.

In fact, right on my second post, I expressed my admiration for the people who flew/fought in the war. Naturally, that admiration extends to Adler, even though I didn't know he was one of the vets. 

I definitely misinterpreted the tone of his post. I apologize.

I'll be more patient in the future.

Sincerely, Best Regards

Gaussianum


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2006)

gaussianum said:


> I appreciate your welcome. It is my pleasure to be able to talk to you. I'm an enthusiast of aviation, and I come here mainly to learn new things from people who know more than I do.



And I am sure you will be able to do that here.



gaussianum said:


> Naturally, that admiration extends to Adler, even though I didn't know he was one of the vets.



 I am not a veteran of WW2. I am soldier at the present and am a veteran of the Iraq war. 



gaussianum said:


> I definitely misinterpreted the tone of his post. I apologize.



And I extend one to you as well.


----------



## gaussianum (Mar 20, 2006)

DerAdleristGelandet,

I apologize for my tone.

No personal offense was intended.

It is a pleasure to be able to exchange views with you, and to learn from your experience.

I hope you will accept my friendly gesture. I do it in good faith.

Sincere Regards

Gaussianum


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2006)

Accepted and from myself aswell.


----------



## Udet (Mar 21, 2006)

Mr. Hop:

Your response to my previous posting pretty much says it all.

You can not make a case, because what you did there is to just paraphrase the tales told by the allied propaganda.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 22, 2006)

Udet said:


> Mr. Hop:
> 
> Your response to my previous posting pretty much says it all.
> 
> You can not make a case, because what you did there is to just paraphrase the tales told by the allied propaganda.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2006)

Oh Boy


----------



## Maestro (Mar 22, 2006)

Okay... I'll probably get a yellow card for saying that but I'll say it anyway...

I didn't follow that thread very closely, but I read several posts and I came up with a weird conclusion. Udet sounds like a guy who was brainwashed by some kind of Nazi history teacher. I mean, from what he said Germans were perfect : they had the best army, the best navy, the best air force, the best gouvernment... I came to wonder how in the hell Germany lost the war.

Enough bullsh*t, Udet. Show us the Swastika tatooed on your chest.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 22, 2006)

best government aye? they kept killing Jews!
their navy wasn't that good, just some U-boats and crappy surface vessels
they had a great air force, only not really the best
best army, yeah i agree with that


----------



## evangilder (Mar 23, 2006)

Ugh. Maestro, I won't give you a yellow card for that, but we should try to keep it civil here. The problem I have with some of Udet's arguments is that when someone has a difference of opinion, he declares it as "allied propaganda" with a sweep of his hand. If the argument you are trying to make is not strong, then perhaps it might be a good reason to look further into it, or come up with more verifiable information, not dismiss the other's viewpoint as propaganda.


----------



## Udet (Mar 23, 2006)

I´ll begin this by saying to Mr. Hop, also to Mr. Jabberwocky what I already typed here: I have issues with deliberate premeditated blindness.

Jabberwocky, your last posting tell me you feel confused and that your head is dizzy -did you try an aspirin? I recommend yoga better though-, do you have any questions or doubts where you feel I might be of help? 

The problem here jabberwocky, is that even if you would proceed further and have your questions made, your deliberate and happily accepted blindness will function as an obstacle you will not be able to overcome.


Now, my response to you Hop:

*(1)* I am learning a bit further as to how your mind works: Mers-el-Kebir was not a dirty move of Churchill -much less an illegal one- for there were other -countless?- incidents during the war when far more individuals were killed.

Also I see you try to put the number of French sailors killed in the harbour in front of the approximate number of human beings that lost their lives during the entire war.

What an insane attempt to paliate the dimension of the British felony committed against the French.

Also bad response regarding British intelligence. The make no mention of it within this incident for the sole reason there was no German plan to seize the ships. There were no messages to decipher. Again, other than implementing measures to assure they would not end in British hands, Hitler did not care about those ships.


*(2) * _Not at all. I just object to the legitimisation of the Nazis by glibly saying all politicians are dirty. _

From reading this particular part, I can conclude you did not understand what I said.

You know, I´d like to debate this further with you, only if you had an authentic interest about it. You are not interested though, and that is the problem.

Read more, learn more Hop. Go and get acquainted with the laws of power.

It is clear you do not understand how power functions on this planet. 
If you could understand the core of power, it is most likely you would not have that vision of world war two, as the vast majority of people have.

Reality is quite more complex than the "bright white immaculate archangels of good and liberation vs. dark sulphurouws demons" story you are trying to defend. 

It would also help you to be less shocked about the way world powers proceed. It takes time and commitment to do this Mr. Hop.

The words you use tell me you are an unripe fruit: "I object the legitimization of the Nazis...". Understand world powers.

The indo-pacific crocodile which grabs a fool who was swimming in the pond, first drowning him then tearing him apart to have lunch does not need any legitimization. The creature is simply taking care of being what it is.

If you think world powers lack the ability to position themselves above the established order, and are subjected to scrutiny as if they were individuals, then you live in utopia.

Things come to my mind: the Greek state-city of the moment -Athens, or Thebes or Sparta-, Persian Empire, Macedonia, the kings of the hellenistic periods, the Roman empire...and the list could go on and on to place yourself in the present-day world with the United States of America. 


*(3) * Quote: _Of course I do. However, the British, French, Belgians, Dutch, Norwegians, Danes etc had far more to fear from Germany than Russia. You might not think Germany was that bad, they knew it was. _

So you knew who the other aggressor was eh?

I can tell you: the people of Germany and England are related peoples. It would have been better for you to say it was the government of those nations who "feared" Germany more than they did the Soviet Union. It puts a clearer view of the whole thing.

Your attempt to explain why England "chose" the Soviet Union as an ally is futile.

I will summarize my response to you on this as follows:

After World War Two, there was a new world power in Europe, which to a very good extent got geared up by both the USA and England. This new world power infact posed a direct and totally explicit threat to the existance of England, to the liberties and lifestyle of the people of Britain: the Soviet Union.

If I recall correctly, there are two or three gentlemen from Poland here. Perhaps they can make a contribution here. I have been to Poland several times, and this might surprise you: many many elder people told me they preferred the Germans over the soviets.
A fact also confirmed by a retired seaman of the U.S. Merchant Marine who spent a few months in Poland after the war that I met here in Mexico, where he lives.

Once I read your words when you describe what Germany would have done to the British people, makes me wonder if you even know what the Soviet Union was.


*(4) *Here comes the sole part of your comment when you make a strong point:

Germany had a far more powerful army than that of England, while England had a far more powerful navy.

This conditions could certainly bring a balance: a stalemate.

Still, having that powerful -but increasingly aging fleet- Royal Navy, I believe the performance of the Kriegsmarine posed a greater threat to the Royal Navy, than the British army ever came close to achieve against the Wehrmacht.

The British army proved no match for the Wehrmacht. I am not saying the Wehrmacht was perfect for there were some local setbacks. But it was very close to being so.

Without the help of the U.S. Army, England´s army was going nowhere.

France in 1940. Norway. Balkans. Crete. First months of Rommel´s AfrikaKorps.

The RAF...well, not the place to elaborate further on this, but with the sole exception of the noted Battle of Britain, and even with that magnificent Spitfire, which had a perfect evolution, free of flaws, throughout its several versions in accordance with Jabberwocky, beg your pardon but I do not think the RAF makes the grade to tangle with the Luftwaffe.

There must be something very rotten going on in England if you believe the RAF was capable of dealing with the Luftwaffe when you see the losses of the RAF from 1942-1945, a period when the German force was fighting the air forces of three nations: UK, USA and USSR, meaning I am not including the high losses it incurred, especially during the BoB when the USSR and the USA still did not join the game.

Just do not forget this: England was not Hitler´s target. Had England been the main target in Hitler´s plans, then the entire effort of Germany is effectively deployed against England. Then Mr. Hop, I am not so sure if the size -and decaying power- of the Royal Navy, which was Britain´s fundamental asset, would be of any help.

Ooops...I forgot the Soviet Union, a massive threat in the east. No. Hitler would have never thought of England as the main target.


Maestro: I will not waste my time with you. My response to you: *SMOOCHIE*.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 23, 2006)

Udet, I will give you this, you have more energy then I do. You have and hold a stance that you know in not popular, but you do not waiver. I respect that. Well done.

By me saying this it does not mean that a agree with 100% of your views, it just means that I respect the fight / fire that you have.

Mark


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2006)

> France in 1940



i hardly think most of the german army up against no more than 500,000 british troops is a fair match up, plus it was the british that caused the germans their only defeat in that campain, at arras i believe................



> First months of Rommel´s AfrikaKorps



what about all the other months?


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 23, 2006)

Udet perhaps this might give you a little smile. Even if no one here will agree with you 100% ever..... I think you have made them think about their views alittle more than ever before. Maybe even question what they have read or been taught growing up. 

From my point of view (even if I do agree with you already more than most people here) you have made me think even deeper about things that I always just taken for granted about WW2. I have learned a few things from you (as well as offers in my time here).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2006)

i've learn nothing from him, but that's just me being british more than anything


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 23, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i've learn nothing from him, but that's just me being british more than anything



Thats allowed.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 23, 2006)

It is?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2006)

I too have learned nothing from him because of one simple fact and I think this is something that everyone else in this forum minus a few will agree 100% with and that is the reason I choose not to listen to what he says is because of the way he talks to people. He talks down to them as if he is on a pedistal. I really dont like stuck up people. Take it for what it is worth.

Basically I enjoy talking to people on a human level, and that does not happen with Udet. He thinks he is better than everyone. Its easy to do over the internet.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 23, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> It is?




Nonskimmer welcome back, long time no see. Hope your trip went well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > i've learn nothing from him, but that's just me being british more than anything
> ...



cool, what else is it an excuse for? and no dental jokes


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 23, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > the lancaster kicks ass said:
> ...




Wel I know you are not a ugly girl, you are a guy, otherwise you could of gotten away with that to. With that British accent are you also alittle light in the loafers.   

just kidding with you man

Udet does make you think, might not agree with him, but he does make you think.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2006)

yes and through fear of a warning i can't say what he makes me think........


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 23, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes and through fear of a warning i can't say what he makes me think........



 Again thats allowed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2006)

It does not matter whether he makes you think or not, its the way he talks to you. I have told him over and over again that I think that many of his posts (not all of them) were good posts that do get the convo going and get you thinking, but it does not matter when he talks down to everyone. That is the main reason why most people do not like talking to him.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 23, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It does not matter whether he makes you think or not, its the way he talks to you. I have told him over and over again that I think that many of his posts (not all of them) were good posts that do get the convo going and get you thinking, but it does not matter when he talks down to everyone. That is the main reason why most people do not like talking to him.




I think that admitting that he does have some good ideas and good points if half the battle. If a person just discounts everything he says then yes he will get annoyed (as I would also) and maybe his tone might digress. But if a person would give him alittle credit (like I have before) and admit that some of his points are valid then he seems fine to me. I have disagreed many times with him and he and I talk / debate points back and forth and he never talks to me that way, I have respect for him and I think he has respect for me. We disagree some but thats cool. 

But I see people being disrespectful to each other all the time here, it seems to be important who likes you here. If certain people don't like you here..... well lets just say its my opinion that you don't get as much slack given to you as some get around here.

Chris you seem like a good guy, we have talked before in PM and I think you know me alittle better than everyone else here. I think you should realize that I am not trying to be disrespectful of you or any-other Moderator here, but I am just saying what I see around here. Some people say outrageous things and get nothing, no warning nothing. Just seems alittle clicky sometimes, either you carry the line so to speak here or you get treated like a second class person, people are allowed to abuse you and get away with it. If Udet said the things to other people that they say to him, damn he would have 2 or 3 warnings right now.

Again I am not trying to be disrespectful or rude or anything else just speaking my mind. You can tell me I am full of it or whatever else, give me warning if you want, but I feel I speak the truth as i see it.

But I ask this to you and any or all other Moderators here. Is this a forum where we all can speak our minds (in a respectful way) whatever we feel and believe so we all can learn hopefully something new (we don't have to all agree) or is this a forum where it is expected that you agree with the norm or get chased out of here?

You seem very fair person, i think you like different peoples opinions but if we treat people with different opinions like second class people we will chase them all out of here. Then all we are going to have is a bunch of people with the same outlooks, same ideas, same opinions and that would be very boring.

If people think Udet is being rude then just ignore him until he changes his tone. But lets not chance him away just b/c we (not including me here) don't like him. I feel he has great points, he more than any other person here has made me do more research on the subjects we have chatted about. Thats a good thing, he is making me learn more, I say we need more people like him on this forum.

But like I say I am just one person, so burn me, warn me, do whatever you want to me as Moderators (or anyone else) but everything here I have said I want everyone to know, I say it with respect, with the intent only to make this forum (that we all belong to) a better place to chat and learn. 

Sincerly Mark


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2006)

The problem is he comes off from that from the beginning of a conversation. He has been here awhile, I know.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 23, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The problem is he comes off from that from the beginning of a conversation. He has been here awhile, I know.



Not sure what to say, yes I have seen him that way to but most times that I have seen it, people have first egged him on with their insulting tone with him. You can't be surprised when I person responds to being egged on. He has never talked to me rudely, but I listen to his points, challenge them, but I never just discount them off handedly.

I am not saying you are like that but some here are, maybe its the whole thing about some people just rub a person the wrong way. Maybe thats why you don't really like him that much. Not sure.

But thank-you for not responding to me with anger over my last post, I am and was just trying to make this forum better place to chat and exchange knowledge on a subject that we all love even if we don't all agree or see everything the same way.

Again, sincerly, Mark


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2006)

You see, when he first got to this website, people did not respond to him that way. But after 20 or so posts of him coming off that way, people started doing the same and in now it is just normal.

Nobody comes to this forum and is outright rejected from the beginning unless they come right in on there first post and say something really really really dumb.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 23, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You see, when he first got to this website, people did not respond to him that way. But after 20 or so posts of him coming off that way, people started doing the same and in now it is just normal.
> 
> Nobody comes to this forum and is outright rejected from the beginning unless they come right in on there first post and say something really really really dumb.



It seems as soon as some people see a post from Udet that they just roll their eyes (with even thinking, I mean really thinking about what he has said) and try and pick apart and disprove every thing he has to say.

When I read what people post I do the opposite, I try to see the truth or validity in what they are saying, if I see none then I respond and try and make them see what I believe. Sometimes I am right and sometimes I am wrong but I try and be open minded. I feel most here are close minded to his posts and any ideas that are not the norm. 

But I am sure you are getting tired of this subject so I will stop, I just wanted to say my thoughts and you have listened. Thank you for your time. I hope I have not offended anyone here, that was not my intent.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2006)

And everyone is entitled to there opinion. If they do not agree with you, do you talk down to them?


----------



## plan_D (Mar 24, 2006)

350,000 were in the BEF, lanc. And Germany invaded France with 3.3 million.


----------



## gaussianum (Mar 24, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> When I read what people post I do the opposite, I try to see the truth or validity in what they are saying, if I see none then I respond and try and make them see what I believe. Sometimes I am right and sometimes I am wrong but I try and be open minded. I feel most here are close minded to his posts and any ideas that are not the norm.



You seem to be a very fair and conciliatory person. I am just like that, when exchanging posts with people, I try to see the reasoning in the post, and not dismiss the post out-of-hand, because of my personal opinion (if I have one) on the poster (not that I'm saying that it's happening here).

Have you considered moderating a forum? I'm sure you would excel at it.

Do you know of any forum (from official agencies or somewhere else) where moderators get paid? Lord knows they deserve it.

Best Regards


----------



## evangilder (Mar 24, 2006)

Hey, we just got a 10% raise as moderators. 

But then 10% of nothing is...


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 24, 2006)

gaussianum said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > When I read what people post I do the opposite, I try to see the truth or validity in what they are saying, if I see none then I respond and try and make them see what I believe. Sometimes I am right and sometimes I am wrong but I try and be open minded. I feel most here are close minded to his posts and any ideas that are not the norm.
> ...



thank you for the complient. No I never have before been a Mod, just many many years of Management in business and dealing with people and their personal problems. I rarely am a person that is one extreme on a subject, I walk the line (As Johnny Cash would say).

In life, I have found, rarely is anything black and white just many shades of grey.

thank you again, Mark


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 24, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Hey, we just got a 10% raise as moderators.
> 
> But then 10% of nothing is...



  Nice fine print there Eric. You deserve a big raise. 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2006)

LOL


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 25, 2006)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2006)

> 350,000 were in the BEF



sorry, i'd just assumed as that's not much more than were evacuated that a lot more would've been killed before evacuation........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2006)

Have you ever read any of the stories about the boats going back to England with the soldiers on them. Overloaded passed there max safetly allowance. Fishing boats and what not, and the Stukas diving on them. That must have been crazy.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 25, 2006)

Not all those evacuated were British , the Royal Navy pulled out French and Belgian soldiers too. One for one against British troops ...


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 1, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Have you ever read any of the stories about the boats going back to England with the soldiers on them. Overloaded passed there max safetly allowance. Fishing boats and what not, and the Stukas diving on them. That must have been crazy.




It would of been a site to see for sure. Yachts, fishing boats, Navy ships all loaded to the tits with troops. I am sure it was total Chaos at times.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2006)

> Have you ever read any of the stories about the boats going back to England with the soldiers on them. Overloaded passed there max safetly allowance. Fishing boats and what not, and the Stukas diving on them. That must have been crazy.



if you're addressing me then yes, several, they're quite common over here



> Not all those evacuated were British , the Royal Navy pulled out French and Belgian soldiers too. One for one against British troops ...



i am aware of that also, although that wasn't the policy from the beggining, it was only really after the french prime minister asked for it, the RN hated it but churchill said they must as they had to keep favour with the french and remaining belgians



> Yachts, fishing boats, Navy ships all loaded to the tits with troops. I am sure it was total Chaos at times.



suprisingly the RN managed to keep pretty good tabs on it all, and remember not all the small ships loaded up and went all the way back to england, most just took men off the beaches out the larger royal naval ships further out to sea............


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 8, 2006)

Didn't most, if not all, the 'saved' French soldiers return to France only to surrender later?


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 13, 2006)

I thought the 'Free French' contained some French Troops that had escaped Dunkirk...


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2006)

I have been reading an article about the Japanese view of the BOB as reported by the Jap Military attaches based in the German and British embassies. In it they touched on the German landing preparations. 

The Japanese embassy pointed out to the Germans that they had a fair amount of experience of landings. The Germans for once were quick to take the hint, invited them to watch the preparations and make comments. I don't know what they told the Germans, but the Japanese Delagation headed by a Major Sakurai and including a number of naval and army officers reported that the Germans were totally ill equipped and the units involved showed no eagerness for the operation.

They also touch on Dunkirk. The Japanese reported that the soldiers arriving back were in a pathetic state, at best only with small arms normally only in uniform and clearly glad to be alive. However the morale of the men and crowd was clearly high and this impressed the Japanese.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 14, 2006)

Glider said:


> I have been reading an article about the Japanese view of the BOB as reported by the Jap Military attaches based in the German and British embassies. In it they touched on the German landing preparations.
> 
> The Japanese embassy pointed out to the Germans that they had a fair amount of experience of landings. The Germans for once were quick to take the hint, invited them to watch the preparations and make comments. I don't know what they told the Germans, but the Japanese Delagation headed by a Major Sakurai and including a number of naval and army officers reported that the Germans were totally ill equipped and the units involved showed no eagerness for the operation.
> 
> They also touch on Dunkirk. The Japanese reported that the soldiers arriving back were in a pathetic state, at best only with small arms normally only in uniform and clearly glad to be alive. However the morale of the men and crowd was clearly high and this impressed the Japanese.




Good stuff Glider, I like the whole Japanese point of view of the landings. Nice


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2006)

One of the best bits was that the Japanese High Command were very displeased by the report, as it appeared as if they had encouraged Japan to side itself to a country that was going to lose. Major Sakurai was asked to amend his report but such was his feeling, he refused to do so. 

Considering the power of Japans High Command, this was a gutsy thing to do.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 14, 2006)

Glider, do you have a link to that info about the Japanese views?

That sounds mighty interesting!


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2006)

Its in a book that I am reading not a link. When I get time over the weekend I will start a new thread summerising the Japanese view. It is quite interesting and had the Japanese listened to their people in Europe things may well have turned out differently. The book also has chapters on the American and Russian view of the battle which I will also summerise.
It wasn't just the Japanese who didn't learn all they could about air combat.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 15, 2006)

Also one wonders whether Hitler was intending on using Britain to test what little amphibious equipment they had... Then his next move might have been if all went well to refine his equipment, mop up the last resistance in Europe and then perhaps go after the US... Personally though, I doubt that would have been successful as it seems there is at least 1 gun for every person in the US. Practically everybody owns one, unlike England at the time and therefore the German troops would be fighting a war of attrition in which they only have their training and little to no knowledge of the terrain and villages they are fighting in. Thus it will be a meat-grinder for the Germans. Also this scenario relies on them building the Graf Zeppelin Aircraft Carrier plus a sister ship and loading them with aircraft... It also relies on Japan winning in the Pacific which wouldn't give Germany much time to prepare really because Japan starts losing the Pacific War in 1942 so no it is questionable that Germany could have crossed the waves to the United States and brought enough troops over to survive the war of attrition that would have taken place... Also nothing less than a fatal blow will really do as unless the blow is fatal to the US it will come back swinging and invade Germany. Also this is assuming a War where Russia is still in its neutrality and so Germany is free to devote the weight of its troops to the United States. Personally though, once Germany gets devoted to conquering the US, in this scenario, Russia is likely to bring out the big guns and engage what troops are left behind in Germany and thus the war ends quicker than it really did.
Keep in mind that this is my guess on what success in the BOB might have led to and thus it could be debated as it is unknown for sure. All we can do is surmise based on what we know what Hitler's next move might have been...


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2006)

To all intents and purposes compared to the task in hand, the Germans didn't have any specialised landing equipment.
It was one huge bodge.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 16, 2006)

It is a fact though, that Graf Zeppelin wouldn't be finished in time and without air cover the fleet is exposed to the long-range aircraft that target submarines as well as a full-strength US if they wait until Graf Zeppelin and a sister ship are built. You have to remember that if things stay largely on the basis of probability the same for Hitler's mental state, that he would be going a bit crazy towards 1944 and starting to overrule his generals and doing some other foolish things...


----------



## Twitch (Dec 20, 2006)

Hitler never intended to invade Britain during the war, period. He felt blockading it with U-boats and ravaging the Continent would make GB sue for peace.

IF he had decided to invade GB in 1935 he would have had Speer develop the appropriate vehiclles and equipment to do so by 1940. Regardless of any fictional scenario that may have played out, make no mistake, the Germans would have been equipped with appropriately IF that was a an earlier goal of the Fuhrer. To imagine that German industry was incapable of designing and manufacturing functional vehicles and equipment to do so is just wrong.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 20, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Hitler never intended to invade Britain during the war, period. He felt blockading it with U-boats and ravaging the Continent would make GB sue for peace.
> 
> IF he had decided to invade GB in 1935 he would have had Speer develop the appropriate vehiclles and equipment to do so by 1940. Regardless of any fictional scenario that may have played out, make no mistake, the Germans would have been equipped with appropriately IF that was a an earlier goal of the Fuhrer. To imagine that German industry was incapable of designing and manufacturing functional vehicles and equipment to do so is just wrong.



Hitler was not one that you could call a Masterful planner. He did alot of things with short notice to the down fall of his Generals, soldiers, navy and AF. The question was never "if" they could make the machines to do it. It was if he intended to really plan to invade after UK said it would never surender. Once BoB started he declared he was going to invade UK. Was that true (if it was true, could he actually have done it or not) or only a bluff on his part? Thats what the thread was about.

Germany did amazing things in WW2, if given time (thats the key word) it could of done even greater things. ("greater" meaning only amazing things with inventing technolegy)


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2006)

Hunter remember that Hitler's health steadily decreased as the war went on, which is part of why he made so many blunders later on. Early on he was more willing to listen and didn't live as much in a fantasy world as later.

I'm with Twitch 100%.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 20, 2006)

Soren said:


> Hunter remember that Hitler's health steadily decreased as the war went on, which is part of why he made so many blunders later on. Early on he was more willing to listen and didn't live as much in a fantasy world as later.
> 
> I'm with Twitch 100%.



Totally agree with you about Hitler and his health.

Don't agree with either of you as far as Germany being able to produce entire navy capable of invading UK successfully.

B/c France (depending on when you are talking) and UK would not allow it. UK alone had a huge huge huge advantage in its navy over Germany. UK would build ship per ship to match and keep its domience in naval power over Germany. UK knew she would not want to fight Germany toe to toe, she didn't have to, she had the channel to make sure that would not happen. The UK navy made sure no one and I mean no one would get threw the channel to mount an invasion of her island. It wouldn't happen. For Germany to be able to get a navy that even compared (never mind exceeded UK's) she would have to out produce UK at a 2-1 ratio for many years.

We have not even mentioned UK AF which stopped any invasion all by itself with out help from the navy. Germany would of have to of beaten it also, which it did not do either in BoB. No invasion of UK was going to happen whether Hitler wanted it or not in 1939-40.

But this is little off subject with the thread.....so who cares right?


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2006)

If Hitler really wanted Britain he could've had it, however Russia posed a bigger threat and therefore an actual attempt of an invasion of Britain never occured - and if it had occured I'm sure it would've in 1941.

But you're right that in terms of Navy strength the the KM couldn't compete with the RN.


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2006)

Just a thought, but if the RAF stopped the Germans having control of the air and the KM couldn't compete with the RN. How could Hitler have had Britain if he really wanted it?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 21, 2006)

Soren, we went through many posts showing how ill prepared the Germans were in invading Britain even under the best of scenario's.

In 1941, the RAF, RN and BA had recovered to the point where any German invasion would have been a disaster. They simply didnt have the shipping, specialized amphib units and logistical support to make it happen.


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2006)

Hitler didn't want Britain, hence why no invasion occured. Had Hitler wanted Britain a preperation long before would've been made - it wasn't however as he had his eyes on Russia.

That Sea Lion wouldn't have been succesful is another matter.


----------



## Glider (Dec 24, 2006)

Soren said:


> Hitler didn't want Britain, hence why no invasion occured. Had Hitler wanted Britain a preperation long before would've been made - it wasn't however as he had his eyes on Russia.



In your wildest dreams.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2006)

Nope. Had Hitler thought about invading Britain as early 1939, instead of concentrating on the bolshevik's in the east, a preperation would've been initiated - And you can be more than sure that Germany could've and would've build the necessary equipment for a successful amphibious airborne invasion of Britain. However an invasion of Britain at the time would seem abit illogical as Hitlers prime enemy lay right beside him and was on the way to re-arm itself, and so therefore also posed a far greater threat than Britain ever would.

Fact is Hitler had the manpower, he just choose to disperse it too widely.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 24, 2006)

Soren said:


> If Hitler really wanted Britain he could've had it, however Russia posed a bigger threat and therefore an actual attempt of an invasion of Britain never occured - and if it had occured I'm sure it would've in 1941.
> 
> But you're right that in terms of Navy strength the the KM couldn't compete with the RN.



I partially agree with you on this...



syscom3 said:


> Soren, we went through many posts showing how ill prepared the Germans were in invading Britain even under the best of scenario's.
> 
> In 1941, the RAF, RN and BA had recovered to the point where any German invasion would have been a disaster. They simply didnt have the shipping, specialized amphib units and logistical support to make it happen.



Yes - The general consensus of the board was that, but that doesn't mean it's certified fact. I never read anything particularly convincing to "prove" that a German invasion was absolutely doomed to failure - especially the part regarding lack of amphibs. Autumn 1940 would've been the time to strike, not 1941. I wouldn't go as far as to say that Germany definitely could've taken Britain, but it was a possibility... and chances of success of such an operation continued to decrease as time went on. It is a good debate...


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 28, 2006)

The fact though was that Hitler could never have occupied the whole of Europe and left Britain intact. That was ultimately why he was defeated, that and going up against Russia. If Hitler had capitalized and followed up on the damage he had caused to English Air Defenses, he could have created a breach to base forces and then squeezed the British back, sector by sector. In this case the Bf109s would be at their most effective because with a British Airfield secured not all of them would have to fly so far and thus they would have an effective amount of fuel. Therefore a bomber escort could be made up of German fighters from British Airfields and German fighters from German Airfields in France... That would have been how I would have taken England. Secure an airfield and then do relentless sweeps over the channel near it. Preferably from the Pas de Calais so that the transport ships would have the shortest distance to go. Oh and this targets all air and ground resources available on defending and increasing the German area. But Britain would have had to have been dealt with to get rid of a potential US Base and to also deny the resistance funding and equipment. Also this would have an impact on the British units fighting the Japanese...

In a way the US saw this as a danger as the B-36 Peacemaker was originally intended to be able to target Europe and the UK from bases in the US. Britain was nicknamed the floating aircraft carrier and played a massive role in enabling D-Day...


----------

