The German campaign of conquering Britain

[Ollie Garchy]

The only thing Delboy does is swear and go bananas. That and quote Churchill. Have you ever been convicted of assault? It wouldn't surprise me....Delboy, you are one aggressive individual. Your language reminds of the old Sex Pistols song entitled "Bodies".

 

[Del Boy]

Ollie - how could you ? Aggressive ? Moi? I'm a pussy-cat. No criminal record to report. I do like to correct any lies I spot re Churchill's attitudes, but then I quote FACTS and produce them. Unfortunately for political opponents, I have a very good memory indeed. What you have spotted is that I re-act accordingly. So the more polite you are, the more I purr. Don't take my attitudes personally. I oppose views you post, not you. I oppose Hitler and the Nazi regime, not Germany or Germans. I can't sit back listen to apologists for Hitler, but I don't raise the issue, only re-act to propoganda. I do not campaign against Germany, all that is now in the past. Where you should leave it. By all means laud the German armies' military feats- you would not hear a peep from me. Just don't try to re-write the history of my time in my presence. On that score I have much to present and on this forum I have only scratched the surface so far.

As you show interest, I confess to being a Christian poet, a Fine Arts professional. I am a dedicated sportsman.

Why don't you campaign for the greatest German, my hero Jurgen Klinsman? There you would have my complete support. He was definitely NOT a diver, whatever the world says, and anyone who says otherwise has me to climb over.


COMMAND THE CARPET IN FRONT OF THE FIRE, STAY COSY AND PURR.

 

[Doppleganger]

WHY SHOULD I QUOTE HISTORIANS WHO SUPPORT THIS VIEW, WHEN I ABSOLUTELY REJECT IT??

ARE YOU WELL AND TRULY OVER THE TOP? THEY ARE THE VIEWS OF YOU AND YOUR VENTRILOQUIST'S DUMMY, REMEMBER.

GET OFF YOUR HORSE AND STOP TALKING TO YOURSELF.

WHEN I HAVE TIME I WILL CONTINUE TO DECIMATE YOUR IDIOCY.



COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

The trouble is Del Boy, the only person you have ever quoted is Churchill. You haven't provided any valid counter-arguments at all in this thread. Quoting someone does not count as valid counter-argument. Others such as MontyB have provided illuminating comments but you yourself quote Churchill parrot-like and then start raving and shouting when others don't agree with you. If anything you come across more Hitler-like than anyone else in this thread. That's irony for ya!

I'm sure you know that posting in capitals is considered rude. You are also coming across as a very arrogant person. I sincerely hope you are not like this in person, not that I ever see such an event taking place. In many ways Churchill was indeed a great man but he also was racist, had a drink problem and made some big mistakes. You seem not to accept any of these facts, for facts they are. Why don't you grow-up and realize that Churchill was not a demigod but a man like any of us, prone to have the vices of men and to make the mistakes of men. Grow up and accept it.

 

[Del Boy]

The trouble is Del Boy, the only person you have ever quoted is Churchill. You haven't provided any valid counter-arguments at all in this thread.

ABSOLUTE ROT.I QUOTE CHURCHILL WHERE RELEVANT AND THE RELEVANCE OF HIS INPUT CONFOUNDS YOU AND BRINGS OUT THE SQEALS.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Quoting someone does not count as valid counter-argument.


NONSENSE - WAKE UP AT THE BACK.

---------------------------------------------------------------------




you yourself quote Churchill parrot-like and then start raving and shouting when others don't agree with you.

I QUOTE RELEVANT MATERIAL WHICH IS IRREFUTABLE AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. IT ISS LIKELY THAT I WILL INTRODUCE OTHER RELEVANT IRREFUTABLE AS I WISH. I HAVE ONLY JUST STARTED. I NEVER RAVE AND SHOUTBUT ALWAYS RE-ACT AS REQUIRED.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


If anything you come across more Hitler-like than anyone else in this thread. That's irony for ya!



THAT SHOULD MAKE ME A GREAT FAVOURITE OF YOURS .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure you know that posting in capitals is considered rude.


NO - BUT I AM NOT MASTER OF MY COMPUTOR YET.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------



You are also coming across as a very arrogant person.


PERFECT HITLER YOUTH MATERIAL SO THEY SAID.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


I sincerely hope you are not like this in person, not that I ever see such an event taking place. In many ways Churchill was indeed a great man but he also was racist, had a drink problem and made some big mistakes.

RACIST - WHY, THAT'S MOST RICH, COMING FROM HITLER'S NAZI APOLOGISTS. I CAN LIVE WITH THE REST.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


You seem not to accept any of these facts, for facts they are.

FACTS ARE NOT YOUR STRONG POINT CHUM, OR OLLIE'S.


-------------------------------------------------------------------


Why don't you grow-up


THANK YOU - I LOOK FORWARD TO IT.


and realize that Churchill was not a demigod but a man like any of us, prone to have the vices of men and to make the mistakes of men. Grow up and accept it.

HELLO - DEMIGOD ?? THIS ISN'T THE THIRD REICH ,REMEMBER.

HELLO - NOT A MAN?? WHO SAID SO?

HELLO? DIDN'T MAKE MISTAKES ?? WHO SAID SO??

I AM ALWAYS PREPARED TO LET THE GREAT MAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF IN TIME AND PLACE, IN TRUTH AND CERTAINTY.

THIS IS WHAT YOU CANNOT ACCEPT ALTHOUGH IT IS AS PLAIN AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Doppleganger]

Del Boy, you are nothing short of hilarious.

 

[Del Boy]

Delboy, ad hominem attacks are fun. Do you want to go to phase two?

But, before we have more fun, be so kind and answer these two questions:

1. Why should Germany have done what Churchill demanded? Were they obligated?

2. Why are German peace proposals automatically rubbish while British peace proposals are automatically genuine?

1. To what do you refer?


2. Timing.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Del Boy]

Del Boy, you are nothing short of hilarious.

Thank you kindly, Sir.



COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[MontyB]

Now for a slight change in direction, September 1 1939 Hitler made a speech which contained several interesting comments such as:

- "I have offered England friendship and, if necessary, close cooperation. Germany has no interests in the West. The Westwall is and remains our border on the west."

- Neutral powers have assured us of their neutrality and we have assured them they will be respected. We mean this."

- "Germany and Russia fought against each other in the World War, and that shall not occur again."

Now two out of these three comments he clearly had no intention of honouring as within a year he had violated the neutrality of much of europe and was well on the way to invading Russia therefore how can we accept that he had no designs on Britain?

 

[Ted]

Finally we are back on topic, thank you for that MonteyB! With regard to your post; it is a good question with has no answer. Personnally I reckon he'd have invaded England. Hitler isn't really know for sharing power in Europe, so England for a sore which had to be removed.

Off course I haven't any source to prove this so I said "personally" which means something like: in my opinion.

p.s. Do you notice how many people have a quote of Churchill in their signature.... me included

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Now for a slight change in direction, September 1 1939 Hitler made a speech which contained several interest comments such as:

- "I have offered England friendship and, if necessary, close cooperation. Germany has no interests in the West. The Westwall is and remains our border on the west."

- Neutral powers have assured us of their neutrality and we have assured them they will be respected. We mean this."

- "Germany and Russia fought against each other in the World War, and that shall not occur again."

Now two out of these three comments he clearly had no intention of honouring as within a year he had violated the neutrality of much of europe and was well on the way to invading Russia therefore how can we accept that he had no designs on Britain?

MontyB, you keep doing it...coming up with the quotes and questions that matter! Here is my answer:

1. Speeches & Policy: My comments concerning Churchill apply to Hitler and all other politicians. Speeches or press releases are propaganda statements made for private and/or foreign consumption. Half-truths and downright lies are mobilized to present a particular perspective for a particular reason. Think about George W. Bush for a moment. Here are two statements of his:

(a) President Bush Addresses the Nation (March 2003): "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger...Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities".

(b) Bush, August 21, 2006: "Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction...You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the "stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East..." / A Journalist then asks the question, "What did Iraq have to do with that?". Bush answers, "What did Iraq have to do with what?". The Journalist responds, "The attack on the World Trade Center". Bush answers, "Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken".

For this reason -- and Bush offers a fine example, we cannot really judge policy on the basis of speeches.

2. The "Ollie Method": In my opinion, it is better to judge individual cases and judge a politician's stated ideology or concepts (normally those made in private and released 20 to 100 years after the event) according to what he/she actually does. What about Hitler, then?:

(a) Hitler made and kept alliances/ and agreements: Nazi Germany was allied to Italy, Japan, Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, Rumania, Slovakia, Croatia. These treaties were honoured until some of these states broke the alliance and/or declared war on Germany. Hitler also offered Poland an alliance (join the "Anti-Comintern") and was frustrated when Poland declined.

(b) Wartime Developments & Neutrals: It is generally well known that Hitler was angered by the planned Allied move into Norway. The Allied operation forced Hitler to annex Denmark (airbases and communications) and land troops in Norway. In terms of the counterattack against France in 1940, it was quite obvious that Germany would move troops through Belgium and Luxembourg. The same thing was true of Italy's failed invasions of Greece and Egypt. Hitler was obligated to attack Yugoslavia to secure the lines of communication to Greece and help Italy out of a real mess. Now, other than Holland, what other neutrals did Hitler attack? [Poland, the Czech state and the USSR were not neutrals since the first two formed part of the "Little Entente" and Stalin was fair game].

The British, for their part, occupied Iceland, Iraq, and planned to move into Norway--all uninvited actions. In sum, the Allies did a lot of "occupying" during WWII.


As far as the other questions, I will try to deal with them later. Hope this helps a bit.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/257723.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Entente
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Comintern_Pact

 

[Ollie Garchy]

This Picture might help people visualize what happened to Poland:

 

[MontyB]

Finally we are back on topic, thank you for that MonteyB! With regard to your post; it is a good question with has no answer. Personnally I reckon he'd have invaded England. Hitler isn't really know for sharing power in Europe, so England for a sore which had to be removed.

Off course I haven't any source to prove this so I said "personally" which means something like: in my opinion.

p.s. Do you notice how many people have a quote of Churchill in their signature.... me included

Hehe I am doing all I can to keep us on topic and hopefully away of the childishness of the political forum but its not working that well.

As far as the Churchill quote goes I use it because I think it suits that particular forum the one I prefer is an Orson Welles quote from the movie The Third Man - "in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

MontyB, you keep doing it...coming up with the quotes and questions that matter! Here is my answer:

So are you saying Bismarck was correct when he said of politics "When you say you agree to a thing in principle you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice."

anyway I am sure I can wait for an answer although I already believe that Germany was pressured into the invasion of Norway by allied actions and intentions. One thing I am not so sure about is this theory that Hitler kept his word as it would appear that where alliances were made he certainly did keep it although he was a little less enthusiastic about keeping to non-aggression pacts.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Hehe I am doing all I can to keep us on topic and hopefully away of the childishness of the political forum but its not working that well.

As far as the Churchill quote goes I use it because I think it suits that particular forum the one I prefer is an Orson Welles quote from the movie The Third Man - "in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."



So are you saying Bismarck was correct when he said of politics "When you say you agree to a thing in principle you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice."

anyway I am sure I can wait for an answer although I already believe that Germany was pressured into the invasion of Norway by allied actions and intentions. One thing I am not so sure about is this theory that Hitler kept his word as it would appear that where alliances were made he certainly did keep it although he was a little less enthusiastic about keeping to non-aggression pacts.

How about Poland? What were their intentions? Longterm Polish policy aimed at the annexation of eastern Germany. The Poles did more than wage war against German irregulars after 1918. If you read about Pilsudski (early 1930s) you will notice that he constantly brought up the subject of invading Germany in discussions with France. France, in the middle of the Great Depression, rejected the idea. Poland then returned to the idea of encircling Germany with an anti-German alliance once Hitler started demanding control of Danzig -- a city under League of Nations and NOT direct Polish authority. The Poles could hardly point to the failure of Munich as a reason for doing so. They had participated in carving up the Czech state and took their own little region. Furthermore, starting pogroms against German-Poles in 1939 was not really a good idea.

Soviet-Polish relations were even worse. Poland had huge Ukrainian/Ruthenian/White Russian minorities who agitated for independence, and who were violently mistreated. The Soviets had also never forgotten the Polish invasion and the last ditch Red Army defense of Kiev.

All of this suggests that the British were aligning themselves with a state that was in serious, serious, serious trouble...primarily for reasons of its own making. Poland had abused its two world power neighbours while they were down, "mistreated" Germans and other non-Polish slavs, undermined British/French attempts to bring the Soviets on their side, helped Germany isolate Austria by signing a non-aggression pact, destroyed the French collective security system (Little Entente) by participating in the destruction of the Czech state, and then started to provoke Hitler using the threat of a Polish-British-French cordon. It was at that point that Hitler officially tossed the non-aggression pact and prepared for war.

Poland was not the innocent victim often portrayed. The Polish government, in my opinion, tried to act like a major power and basically committed suicide during the 1930s.

I am not trying to hold them responsible for WWII. But Poland should have joined the Anti-Comintern Pact, the British should have pressured the Poles to accept all German demands, and Hitler should not have invaded. Remember, Hitler was always very supportive of his allies...in the case of Italy, too supportive.

 

[Doppleganger]

Poland was not the innocent victim often portrayed. The Polish government, in my opinion, tried to act like a major power and basically committed suicide during the 1930s.

Poland was in the worst possible place, geographically speaking, in the 1930s, sandwiched between the Soviet Union and a resurgent Germany. Given Hitler's ambitions to move East and Stalin's ambitions to move Southwest, Poland's existence as a state was fragile at best. If Poland was anything, they were incredibly naive and stupid. Instead of aligning themselves with France and Britain who could practically do nothing, they should have aligned themselves with either Germany or the Soviet Union, as they were 'convinced' to do with the latter after the end of WWII. By doing neither it pretty much guaranteed that it would be carved up between Germany and Russia at some point.

The Western Allies cared nothing for Poland. Wasn't it the the allies, France and Britain included, that carved up the state of Poland at the Congress of Vienna that took place in 1814-1815? They were quite content then to give most of the Duchy of Warsaw to Russia with the rest to Prussia because it suited their purposes. Of course, Prussia, Russia and Austria had partitioned Poland three times previously so there were no innocent parties. The point I make is that the Western Allies declared war on Germany over Poland not for the Poles, but for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna

Finally, I give you this tidbit, which is sure to put the cat amongst the pigeons. :shock:

http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/HitlerNobelPrize.html

 

[Del Boy]

Now for a slight change in direction, September 1 1939 Hitler made a speech which contained several interesting comments such as:

" Germany has no interests in the West. The Westwall is and remains our border on the west."

Here's another MontyB :- Exactly - 'behind which we are able to make our move east, into Eastern Europe, just as predicted in 1936.'( my addition)


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Del Boy]

How about Poland?

..'.Poland committed suicide.'

O - nicely put Ollie!! Hard thing to do, that!

Just about sums up the Nazi ideology. End of argument I think.

'Oops - O look, Poland, you've gone and committed suicide there! Can we help, by razing Warsaw to the ground perhaps, to ensure it never rises again? There you go Poland.'


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

How about Poland?

..'.Poland committed suicide.'

O - nicely put Ollie!! Hard thing to do, that!

Just about sums up the Nazi ideology. End of argument I think.

'Oops - O look, Poland, you've gone and committed suicide there! Can we help, by razing Warsaw to the ground perhaps, to ensure it never rises again? There you go Poland.'


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

Look, I don't understand you. Could you please use proper sentences and attempt to frame some kind of argument. There have been Chinese forum members using translation software who wrote better English.

In any case, are you trying to argue that Polish policy was logical and rational? Hmmm...interesting perspective. With that type of decimated brain power, you would have made a fine member of Oskar Dirlewanger's SS-Sonderbataillon. Can't find a football for a game...no problems.

 

[senojekips]

After having read the learned words of some in this thread, I now realise that I, (along with most of the remainder of the world) am wrong in our judgement as to who precipitated the Second world war, and also that Adolph had absolutely no intentions of expansion to the east.

That is why in 1939,..... long before America was involved in the war, he got Willi Messerschmitt to go ahead with the design of the "Amerika" Bomber the Me-264. Why? To deliver free sauerkraut to New York I suppose. (West about of course).

Just another example of Adolph's good intentions and marvellous powers of self control.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

After having read the learned words of some in this thread, I now realise that I, (along with most of the remainder of the world) am wrong in our judgement as to who precipitated the Second world war, and also that Adolph had absolutely no intentions of expansion to the east.

That is why in 1939,..... long before America was involved in the war, he got Willi Messerschmitt to go ahead with the design of the "Amerika" Bomber the Me-264. Why? To deliver free sauerkraut to New York I suppose. (West about of course).

Just another example of Adolph's good intentions and marvellous powers of self control.

Using this logic, I guess the British designed the Halifax and the Americans designed the B-17 just for fun. In fact, while we are at it, I guess that Trenchard or Mitchell developed strategic bombing during the 1920s to strike Liechtenstein's mighty military-industrial complex or bomb Zulus or Canadians. Man, I thought this was a military forum. Ever hear about "contingency planning"? Or a general staff?

Actually, the British did use strategic bombing against all sorts of people. "Trenchard showed the effectiveness of strategic bombing for colonial counter-insurgency by 1920's operations in Somaliland and Iraq, when poison gas was used against the rebels. In early 1920, he wrote that the RAF could even suppress “industrial disturbances or risings” in Britain itself". WOW!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Trenchard

 

[Del Boy]

Look, I don't understand you. Could you please use proper sentences and attempt to frame some kind of argument. There have been Chinese forum members using translation software who wrote better English.

........................


Ah yes - more rants and insults. What don't you understand about sentences. What don't you understand about the English language? What don't you understand about truth?

I need no argument to make the point re Poland - your statement speaks for itself. And you understand my point exactly. You wriggle to try to get off the hook.

And Hey - a little Chinese target racism erupting there!

COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.