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

[Jabberwocky]

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]

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

 

[Gnomey]

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]

operation torch? dont know that sry

 

[KraziKanuK]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Hunter368]

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

I agree.

 

[Gnomey]

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

I agree.

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]

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]

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

I agree.

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.

100% agree and never have said anything but.

 

[Hunter368]

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!

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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