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

[gaussianum]

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.

The entire affair is documented in the Hoover Library volume Japan's Decision to Surrender, by Robert J.C. Butlow (Stanford University, 1954). Butlow quotes the dispatch that was received and decoded in Washington on July 13, 1945:Togo to Sato...Convey His Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war...Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. These requests continued through July.

Butlow documents that Washington knew the one condition insisted upon by the Japanese government was the continuation of the emperor on his throne and the symbolic recognition this implied of the Japanese home islands as a political entity. As it turned out this was exactly the condition that was granted when the peace was finally signed after the A-bombings August 6 and 9.

If the U.S. government knew as early as July 13 that the leading circles in Japan were seeking peace on those terms, why didn't it pursue this possibility for peace instead of ignoring it and proceeding with the A-bombings? There is simply no satisfactory answer to this question from the point of view of the military demands of ending the war—even on U.S. imperialist terms—and saving soldiers' lives.

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

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

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?

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

I hope you never do either.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

And I extend one to you as well.

 

[gaussianum]

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]

Accepted and from myself aswell.

 

[Udet]

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]

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]

Oh Boy

 

[Maestro]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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