All-out aerial war between Germany and the Allies

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am dumbfounded, at thid revisionist thinking.

Lets change the hostory we teach our children. England and Francw are to blame for not allowing Germany to take over Europe in a war of aggression and kill millions of people in genocide.

Way to go England, you evil bastards. You apologize now for all you did Germany and Europe!

 

[Jenisch]

Just a curiosity for my last post: the Polish coast would be suitable for an amphibious assault?

 

[Jenisch]

Lets change the hostory we teach our children. England and Francw are to blame for not allowing Germany to take over Europe in a war of aggression and kill millions of people in genocide.

The Germans were fully aware of the high probably of war due to their actions. But Britain and France were also responsible for the war. It's how politics work. For example, if you went to the US in 1960 and asked to their politics "you will finance coups to install dictatorships that could kill thousands of people in South America?". They would say: "No, never, we are democratic!". In 10-15 years those dictatorships were there, and killing and torturing thousands of people (some were actually from Marxist guerrilhas and many leftists persecuted support them, but according to the official US policy, the dictatorships, deaths and tortures should not have been occuring).

History is not moralism. The students need to understand the processes that lead to those actions by countries. They are not "pure evil", they always have reasons. For example, the Great Purge occured because Stalin felt that a war was coming and so he concluded that the country needed to get rid of what he perceived to be "dangeours elements". There's no need of a moralist teacher saying "Stalin and Hitler were bad guys!". The teacher just need to present what they done, how they done and what they planned to achive with their actions. Then, in theory, the students would learn the lessons from those actions. What the students will think about such actions would depend of each person.

 

[Jenisch]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1X21-pUQsw

First 13 seconds.

 

[vinnye]

You can not blame Britain and France for WW2 just because they declared war on Germany.
Germany was the aggressor and pushed her luck after she got away with one or two little annexes or operations if you like!
I believe that Chamberlain is not given enough credit for the work done prior to hostilities with Germany and the extra time that was bought with the Peace in out time speech etc.
Whilst Germany was not as well prepared as she would have liked to be for taking on France, the French and British were very badly prepared. Had Germany attacked France 12 months earlier - France would have been defeated and maybe even Britain too?
Churchill was one of the best orators of his age. He could motivate people in ways others could not. He became something of a figurehead that represented Britain at home and abroad. Britain was better off with him leading than any alternative I can think of, but he did not win the war as some would have us believe.

 

[Jenisch]

You can not blame Britain and France for WW2 just because they declared war on Germany.

They are not totally "blammed", but together with Germany, they started a war between them. There's a popular saying here: "when one don't want, two don't fight". The Anglo-French didn't have to follow what Germany want them to do, but the Germans also didn't have to follow what the Anglo-French want them to do. This is not perceived popularily because history puts the Allied perspective of the war.

Germany was the aggressor and pushed her luck after she got away with one or two little annexes or operations if you like!

Germany was the agressor against Poland? Not only Germany. Actually Germany, the Soviet Union and Slovakia (and let's not forget the paralell Soviet agressions in Finland and the Baltic States). Anyway, you might say: "Ah, but Germany could not do an agression against other country". Yes, Germany "could" do an agression. The Western powers, particularily Britain, also did agressions all over their history, as well as the Soviets and everyone else. The Anglo-American coup against Iran in 1953 for example, was an agression, the British had interests there and didn't tolerated the nationalization of the iranian oil.

 

[gjs238]

This is much Churchillian propaganda - you know, the elderly lion coming to save Britain, and world of nazi danger when everyone else was blind and stuff. In reality, the man who has prepeared Britain for war was Chamberlain, who has started all the British rearmemant programmes in the 1930s. Churchill just took the credit for it. He was always good at it.

Reminds me of Reagon and Carter in the US. Carter was a lamb, yet most of the programs were started under his watch and Reagon took the credit.

 

[Jenisch]

Reminds me of Reagon and Carter in the US. Carter was a lamb, yet most of the programs were started under his watch and Reagon took the credit.

Here in Brazil Lula got a lot of credit from things implemented by the previous president as well.

 

[Readie]

They are not totally "blammed", but together with Germany, they started a war between them. There's a popular saying here: "when one don't want, two don't fight".

Utter bollocks.

 

[parsifal]

It was established who was responsible for starting the war, who waged the agreesive war from the start. Germany never declared war on anyone, except the US before actually starting the shooting. Neither did Japan. England and France gave blanket gurantees to Poland after Hitlers lies and actions relating to Czecholslovakia. It can be argued that these blanket gurantees were in the national intersts of Britian and france, but its beyond the pale to argue that Britian and france did it for territorial gains. They did do it to prevent Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe, and sure there is an element of self intreest ther. But whereas british self interests went to protecting the freedom of smaller European nations in Eastern Europe, German intersts went to not just establishing a "sphere of Interest, it west to the total occupation of the territory, the subjugation and murder of the current occupants so as to create "living space" for Germany. an abominable and despicable policy, one known to everybody prior to 1939, coutesy of Mein Kampf.

Britain in 1944 lacked the strength to curtail Soviet inroads into eastern europe. Churchill at the various interallied conferences worked as hard as he could to get free and fair elections for Poland in particular. Much is made of his near despairing back room deals he was forced to make with Stalin, but as i said, this was the politics of despair, not the politics of choice.

I agree that this thread is disgracefully rancid. it should really be closed because it is just so outrageous

 

[Marcel]

Guys, wars always start because of many causes. We once had a discussion about WWI and who started it. It was actually not as simple as everyone believes. So is the same with WW2. You could blame anyone if you want, America for not being stronger and more forceful before anything went out of hand (actually blaming them for being isolationists), GB and France for not stopping Hitler earlier and, declaring war on Germany (both thing are in contradiction, did you notice?). All three of them for Versailles... Russia for making a pact with the aggressor, and of course Hitler and Germany for being so aggressive in the first place. But what's the point? Mistakes are made, war starts, it's sad but true. Happens all the time and still today. Usually if you dig far enough you find that both parties share the blame, some more than the other but both none the same.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Guys, wars always start because of many causes. We once had a discussion about WWI and who started it. It was actually not as simple as everyone believes. So is the same with WW2. You could blame anyone if you want, America for not being stronger and more forceful before anything went out of hand (actually blaming them for being isolationists), GB and France for not stopping Hitler earlier and, declaring war on Germany (both thing are in contradiction, did you notice?). All three of them for Versailles... Russia for making a pact with the aggressor, and of course Hitler and Germany for being so aggressive in the first place. But what's the point? Mistakes are made, war starts, it's sad but true. Happens all the time and still today. Usually if you dig far enough you find that both parties share the blame, some more than the other but both none the same.

In those regards Marcel you are 100% correct. It is never as black and white as people make it out to be. The roots of WW2 lie in those of WW1, and many circumstances of the era (off all the nations) contributed to both wars happening.

Having said that though, to paint the picture that poor innocent Hitler was forced into war by the war mongering British, as some people here like to portray it, is wrong. I think that most people know and agree with that.

Having said that, I this thread is closed. It is horribly off topic, and has no chance of getting back on topic.