RAF Bomber Command....

[tail end charlie]

O RLY? Show me Czechoslovakia or Poland on the map please in say, 1850. Or in 1790. Or in 1914.
That's flattering. Then the British Empire declared war on them, and they all the sudden ceased to be such a fine developed and cultured nation, and become the barbaric Huns, right?

Show me a map of Germany before 1871 when it became a state.

The huns were a Germanic tribe and hun is a derogatory term for a german a bit like insel apfen in Germany.

The german states were traditionally allies of Britain and prior to the first world Germany was considered a friend. Germany became barbaric when Hitler siezed power. If you read any quote from Churchill he always refers to Nazi Germany, our fight was with the regime unfortunately the regime controlled the people. I have worked for a long time in Germany apart from a few idiots they are nice people, and the old people who were there at the end of the war spoke very highly of the British. To deny Germanys of history of art music science and culture is as bad as denying the holocaust.
British democracy and the English language has its main roots in Saxon culture not Norman.

 

[tail end charlie]

The owners started to flounder about, the Parrot fell of its perch onto a pike I think the poor mullet needs a sturgeon

Some of these fish jokes are really CARP

 

[Marcel]

O RLY? Show me Czechoslovakia or Poland on the map please in say, 1850. Or in 1798. Or in 1914.

On the map, sure:

(1619)

Could you tell me when the German being one state was ever formed? Oh right, that was in 1871. Before that it was a bunch of independent states. The existence of Poland dates back to 966, so which one was older?
You make strange statements for one claiming to use backed-up arguments.

That's flattering. Then the British Empire declared war on them, and they all the sudden ceased to be such a fine developed and cultured nation, and become the barbaric Huns, right?

Hmm, Kurfürst I would be very careful trying to defend the actions that the Germans did in 1939/1940. When were The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Denmark ever part of Germany? What right did they have to invade those countries? And barbaric? yes the Nazi's were barbaric, My own grandfather could tell you about it if he still lived. And the Nazi's ruled Germany in those times or did you forget?

 

[pbfoot]

.

. A policy planned by the RAF during the many years before the war. With the possible exception of Frampol nothing of what the LW did so far qualifiy as BC-style area bombing.

[I[/I]

Now that is pure Bullshit nowhere in British plans is bombing of cities mentioned check out Western Air Plans from Sept 1 39

 

[Kurfürst]

Oh, please.

To echo other posters, this wasn't re-integration because those countries were never part of the Third Reich to start with - and please do not go down the 'ethnic Germans' route, it will merely confirm me in Adler's belief that you are a sympathizer.

Why the distinction 'Third Reich'... now how about the Second Reich? Or the First Reich? I am not saying that the integration into the Reich was justifiable - every nation has the right to self-govern, at least in theory which interpreted with great flexibility in practice.

Now as for posters appearantly completely unfamiliar with the basic historical facts of Europe.. it reflects on them, not on me.

I am not particularly proud of my country's colonial past, but how dare you compare the British Empire to the Third Reich? We may not have treated native populations with the respect they deserved, but we never organised systematic and industrialised ethnic cleansing of occupied territories. That is the difference and do not try to pretend otherwise..

From where does the word 'concentration camp' comes from into English, if I may ask..? HINT: pre-dates Dolpho and his Gang.

As for Polish relations with their neighbours, and former membership of the HRE, what has that got to do with 1938-39? NOTHING. If Britain invaded Germany now because Germany fought Britain in 1945, would that be justified? Of course not.

Agreed but the point? Hitler was rebuilding the Reich from the ashes of Versailles. That was his stated political goal. And the Reich contained what we call today Germany, Austria, Czech Republic and Poland. This was the reason for it, not a moral justification for it. Do you understand the meaning of reason and moral, and their difference?

He did this because for one, he could do that, and secondly, because he had plenty of support for it, not only at home but also abroad. Simple fact was that these countries only enjoyed independence for less than 20 years after WW2.

And are you seriously suggesting that because the Czechs treated former Austro-Hungarians badly, what the Germans did to thier country was OK?

Nope. I am saying though that was one of the reasons, and a pretty good political excuse for Hitler to smash a part of the small-entente states that was hostile towards Germany. And everyone was very happy about it, the Poles, the Slovaks, the Hungarians, because everyone got what he wanted. The Czech, of course, were not happy about it, but I would hardly call interwar Czechoslovakia with its ethnic laws and Czech dominance over others a model state of democracy.

I suspect you are merely trying to cover for the actions of your favourite dictator...

We could go down on this path, sharing with everyone our mutual suspicions about the other, but I believe this was specifically asked by the moderators not to be done, so I guess you'll have to enjoy that part of the conversation all alone.

 

[Njaco]

This is getting to be too much and now derogatory words are being used. I suggest everyone realize that you are debating opinions and nobody will win against that. This thread is about to be closed if it doesn't cool down.

 

[tail end charlie]

So tell me, was the British Army at the gates of Hamburg? Had Monty his artillery trained at the Wehrmacht troops dug in inside the town? Again, the typical argument of an apologist, who deliberately misinterprets the relevant passages of the Hague Convention.
The simple fact is that BC began large scale area bombing of cities with attacks on Berlin in August 1940. A policy planned by the RAF during the many years before the war. With the possible exception of Frampol nothing of what the LW did so far qualifiy as BC-style area bombing.
The moral of the story is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

Indeed!

The British made plans to defeat an attack by air from the Luftwaffe mainly because Britain was attacked by Germany in the first world war by Zeppelin and Gotha Bombers. I dont remember a german army around London or Middlesbrough at those times either. Having seen the Germans in Spain everyone knew a war with Germany would mean bombing of cities. Germany started area bombing its not BCs fault that the LW wernt very good at it.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

This is getting to be too much and now derogatory words are being used. I suggest everyone realize that you are debating opinions and nobody will win against that. This thread is about to be closed if it doesn't cool down.

+1

 

[Marcel]

A cool beer, anyone?

 

[pbfoot]

here are the war plans for the RAF sept 1 39
please note the priority of oil and the bombing of forests

 

[Markus]

Now that is pure Bullshit nowhere in British plans is bombing of cities mentioned check out Western Air Plans from Sept 1 39

Charles Portal and Hugh Trenchard, they never wasted a thought on "moral bombing"? And a certain A. Harris didn´t already bomb civillians in the 1920´s? The RAF was waaaaay more into strategic bombing than the LW.

 

[BombTaxi]

Why the distinction 'Third Reich'... now how about the Second Reich? Or the First Reich? I am not saying that the integration into the Reich was justifiable - every nation has the right to self-govern, at least in theory which interpreted with great flexibility in practice.

Now as for posters appearantly completely unfamiliar with the basic historical facts of Europe.. it reflects on them, not on me.



From where does the word 'concentration camp' comes from into English, if I may ask..? HINT: pre-dates Dolpho and his Gang.



Agreed but the point? Hitler was rebuilding the Reich from the ashes of Versailles. That was his stated political goal. And the Reich contained what we call today Germany, Austria, Czech Republic and Poland. This was the reason for it, not a moral justification for it. Do you understand the meaning of reason and moral, and their difference?

He did this because for one, he could do that, and secondly, because he had plenty of support for it, not only at home but also abroad. Simple fact was that these countries only enjoyed independence for less than 20 years after WW2.



Nope. I am saying though that was one of the reasons, and a pretty good political excuse for Hitler to smash a part of the small-entente states that was hostile towards Germany. And everyone was very happy about it, the Poles, the Slovaks, the Hungarians, because everyone got what he wanted. The Czech, of course, were not happy about it, but I would hardly call interwar Czechoslovakia with its ethnic laws and Czech dominance over others a model state of democracy.



We could go down on this path, sharing with everyone our mutual suspicions about the other, but I believe this was specifically asked by the moderators not to be done, so I guess you'll have to enjoy that part of the conversation all alone.

OK, the distinction Third Reich is used because it was the Third Reich that invaded Poland and Czechslovakia on the back of a BS claim about 'ethnic German' populations, not the First or Second.

As for concentration camps..... I can't actually type what I want to type. Because I'll be banned. But let me just say this. Yes, Brits invented them. Did we use them for the industrialised slaughter of minorities? No. Did the Nazis take the idea and develop it into a means for massacring millions? Yes. The South African camps were nothing like Treblinka, Auschwitz etc, and you know it.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post because it's more of the same 'it was the Allies fault' BS that apologists usually peddle. Hitler started the war to complete his vision of the 'Thousand Year Reich'. No amount of whining about Versailles will hide the fact that this was about conquest, not redress.

 

[Marcel]

Charles Portal and Hugh Trenchard, they never wasted a thought on "moral bombing"? And a certain A. Harris didn´t already bomb civillians in the 1920´s? The RAF was waaaaay more into strategic bombing than the LW.

And the Germans bombed London in the first war, what are you saying?

 

[Marcel]

As for concentration camps..... I can't actually type what I want to type. Because I'll be banned. But let me just say this. Yes, Brits invented them. Did we use them for the industrialised slaughter of minorities? No. Did the Nazis take the idea and develop it into a means for massacring millions? Yes. The South African camps were nothing like Treblinka, Auschwitz etc, and you know it.

Eh bomb, you know quite a lot of Boeren died in those camps, you know that? The Nazi's just perfected them. Kurfurst has one point in which he's right. All countries have done their bad things, the Germans did that in WW2, the Dutch in the 17th century (slaves etc) and the English did their part. Nobody is innocent, even if we don't want to know about it.

 

[RCAFson]

So tell me, was the British Army at the gates of Hamburg? Had Monty his artillery trained at the Wehrmacht troops dug in inside the town? Again, the typical argument of an apologist, who deliberately misinterprets the relevant passages of the Hague Convention.

The simple fact is that BC began large scale area bombing of cities with attacks on Berlin in August 1940. A policy planned by the RAF during the many years before the war. With the possible exception of Frampol nothing of what the LW did so far qualifiy as BC-style area bombing.

The moral of the story is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

Indeed!

The Hague Convention (it is ironic that Germany broke the Hague convention, then attacked the neutral state in which it was located and actually occupied the Hague...)

Sieges, and bombardments
Art. 22.

The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.
Art. 23.

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

To declare that no quarter will be given;

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.
The Avalon Prject - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

The Hague Convention specifically declared the bombing of Warsaw to be a criminal act. Unlike some I don't accept Hitler's interpretation of the Hague Convention.

 

[tail end charlie]

The owners started to flounder about, the Parrot fell of its perch onto a pike I think the poor mullet needs a sturgeon

Anyway the home guard said to her dont be a sucker and listen to that oldtrout Eel get up your nase come here my litttle ray of sunshine.

 

[tail end charlie]

As for concentration camps..... I can't actually type what I want to type. Because I'll be banned. But let me just say this. Yes, Brits invented them. Did we use them for the industrialised slaughter of minorities? No. Did the Nazis take the idea and develop it into a means for massacring millions? Yes. The South African camps were nothing like Treblinka, Auschwitz etc, and you know it.

Bomb Taxi

Concentration camps were used in the Spanish American war which was before the boer war.

 

[Kurfürst]

Could you tell me when the German being one state was ever formed? Oh right, that was in 1871.

Oddly referred to between historians as the second Reich. I wonder why that is.

Before that it was a bunch of independent states.

Noope and yes. It became a bunch of independent states some time after the Treaty of Westphalia, or one can argue after Charles V. Legally it was still one state though, until a small Corsican artillery officer got bored of the whole stuff. And before Charles V, it was as much as of a 'one state' of a nation as any other in the same period. The King (Emperor) ruled over its vassals, more or less successfully.

The existence of Poland dates back to 966, so which one was older?

Which one was older is not really a question - the HRE dates back to 962, when Otto was crowned Emperor, the Eastern Frankish Empire, pretty much covering Germany after goes back to the Treaty of Verdun in 843.
As for Poland, its first King was a vassal of and paid tribute to the Emperor.

You make strange statements for one claiming to use backed-up arguments.

Suggested reading: Holy Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Holy Roman Empire (HRE; German: Heiliges Römisches Reich (HRR), Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum (IRS), Italian: Sacro Romano Impero (SRI)) was a realm that existed for about a millennium in Central Europe, ruled by a Holy Roman Emperor. Its character changed during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period, when the power of the emperor gradually weakened in favour of the princes. In its last centuries, its character became quite close to a union of territories.

The first Holy Roman Emperor (German: Römisch-Deutscher Kaiser) is generally considered to have been Otto I, King of Germany, crowned in 962; Otto was the first emperor of the realm that later became known as the Holy Roman Empire who was not a member of the earlier Carolingian dynasty.[2] The last Holy Roman Emperor was Francis II, who abdicated and dissolved the Empire in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars. In a decree following the 1512 Diet of Cologne, the name was officially changed to Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum Nationis Germanicæ). [3]

The multiethnic Empire's territorial extent varied over its history, but at its peak it encompassed the Kingdom of Germany, the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Burgundy; for much of its history the Empire consisted of hundreds of smaller sub-units, principalities, duchies, counties, Free Imperial Cities, as well as other domains. Despite its name, for most of its history the empire did not include Rome within its borders.
The territories and dominion of the Holy Roman Empire in terms of present-day states comprised Germany (except Southern Schleswig), Austria (except Burgenland), the Czech Republic, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Slovenia (except Prekmurje), besides significant parts of eastern France (mainly Artois, Alsace, Franche-Comté, Savoy and Lorraine), northern Italy (mainly Lombardy, Piedmont, Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, and South Tyrol), and western Poland (mainly Silesia, Pomerania, and Neumark).

Kurfürst I would be very careful trying to defend the actions that the Germans did in 1939/1940.

I am not defending them. I am telling how things were. Burn me at the stake for it.

When were The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Denmark ever part of Germany? What right did they have to invade those countries?

Err, they were, I believe (see above), and no, this didn't give right for Germans in the 20th century to invade them.

On the other hand, they were invaded by military neccessity: the British and French were planning to invade Norway to cut off Germany from Swedish ore shipments; Denmark was occupied because it was, well, in the way of German counter plans to prevent this. No, it was not nice from Hitler to do so but I guess it wasn't nice from the Brits and the French to plan the same (see Operation Wilfred) for Norway under the pretext of 'helping out the Finns against the Soviets'. Their incompetency to succeed in it does not give them a moral absolution.

Belgium announced itself neutral, in practice it wasn't, though it tried desperately to become again the battleground of French and German armies. Unfurtuntely for Belgium, she was created originally just for that purpose (see: Belgian Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

I guess the Netherlands got in the way of things again, but frankly I have no idea why operations were extented to the NL. Perhaps the Navy wanted bases for its subs, perhaps it was irritating that the NL allowed Brit planes to fly over, or that Dutch intelligence conspired with the British to kill Hitler a few years before, a plan that gone bad when the German intel found it out (see Venlo incident), perhaps the Army simply wanted room the manouver. No, it was not nice from Hitler either, especially as he succeeded in it, but I guess Germany wanted to win the war in the West just as badly as France and Britain that initiated it and wouldn't come terms with the new status quo Germany has created.

BTW I wonder if you were the Germans in 1940, what would you have done?

And barbaric? yes the Nazi's were barbaric

Agreed. Now, how about all Germans? Because I see a distinction between ordinary Germans and Nazi party functionaries. And you?

 

[Kurfürst]

The Hague Convention specifically declared the bombing of Warsaw to be a criminal act.

Oh, what a foresight they had in 1907...!

 

[RCAFson]

I guess the Netherlands got in the way of things again, but frankly I have no idea why operations were extented to the NL. Perhaps the Navy wanted bases for its subs, perhaps it was irritating that the NL allowed Brit planes to fly over, or that Dutch intelligence conspired with the British to kill Hitler a few years before, a plan that gone bad when the German intel found it out (see Venlo incident), perhaps the Army simply wanted room the manouver. No, it was not nice from Hitler either, especially as he succeeded in it, but I guess Germany wanted to win the war in the West just as badly as France and Britain that initiated it and wouldn't come terms with the new status quo Germany has created.
?

Again you act as an apologist to justify the German invasion of the Netherlands...

Right, so now Britain and France started the war? Funny, the history books that I've read stated that Germany invaded Poland and the Allies declared war after giving Germany an ultimatum to withdraw from Poland. You reveal yourself more and more...