The German campaign of conquering Britain

[Ollie Garchy]

If the UK was a "Minor factor" in the defeat of Germany, then tell me this.

1. How far would the forces of freedom have had to travel to get to mainland France to invade? If the UK had been successfully invaded?
2. Who gave technology to those forces (Asdic, Radar) to defend and attack U-Boats?
3. Whose nation's Ambassador gave the UK only 2 weeks to hold out against Germany? and and was laughed at by the UK population?
4. Who fough alone against Germany when the US was only interested in selling us "lend lease" (thank god for it though)!
5. Who supplied the USSR with aircraft, supplies & knowhow & lost more men and merchant ships on the run to Murmansk? when the "Forces of Freedom" promised not to get involved?
6. Who took delevery of the first Mustang variant and returned it to it's designers with engine improved & flight performance which they did not believe possible, which you now know as the P-51?

And lastly if we played only a "Minor Part" in the War....Why am I typing in English and not German? BECAUSE we fought em,1939-1942 (alone) we held em and we helped to make it possible, with the help of our friends the US to beat them to perdition!
:tank:

These questions bring up an interesting point about WWII. Prior to WWII, European scientists -- British and most obviously German -- were the world leaders. After 1945, the United States took the world by storm. While I am aware of the American plundering of German patents, equipment and scientists, I have never really thought about how much Britain actually lost via the transatlantic alliance. And the same arguments hold for the USSR. It seems that Europe's self-destruction actually created the technological basis for the Cold War arms race. Without Europe, the superpowers would have been rather less than super. Good points.

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

 

[Del Boy]

These questions bring up an interesting point about WWII. Prior to WWII, European scientists -- British and most obviously German -- were the world leaders. After 1945, the United States took the world by storm. While I am aware of the American plundering of German patents, equipment and scientists, I have never really thought about how much Britain actually lost via the transatlantic alliance. And the same arguments hold for the USSR. It seems that Europe's self-destruction actually created the technological basis for the Cold War arms race. Without Europe, the superpowers would have been rather less than super. Good points.

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

**
Surely just question of whether the German JEWISH scientists were ahead of the Russian JEWISH scientists or not.

 

[Del Boy]

a)

'Ok Dr. Bubbles, your whole argument in support of Britain's preventive war rests on the moral classification of Hitler as evil.'

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



Another demonstration of Lord Haw-Haw's lying propaganda strategy here..... Lord Haw-Haw has no knowledge of my 'whole argument,' because I have never yet presented it.

So far, I have merely countered his lies as I see them surface. Nowhere have I described WW11 as a 'preventative' war.
The question of the evil of Hitler arises simple from his claim that Hitler was NOT evil, or ONLY A LITTLE evil , or no more evil than Stalin. I have spent my time here refuting his ridiculous conclusions, and demonstrating why I hold them as propaganda lies carefully placed to assist the white-wash of Hitler's regime.

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


.............. 'it rests on the fact that Hitler killed 11 to 20 million civilians. '

This, of course, is Lord Haw-Haw's conclusion, not mine. The horrific murders of millions and millions of innocent civilians is paticularly repulsive to civilised people because it was deliberately targetted, institutionalised, enthusiastically embraced and proudly applauded by the perpetrators. The numbers game has been Lord Haw-Haw's favoured approach all along, so that he can shelter behind the notoriety of Stalin.

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


'It was a bizarre fact of history that the Allies (ie. USSR) actually sat and judged Germans for war crimes after WWII.'


No, Lord Haw-Haw, your conclusion misses once again. This is merely a fact of history. Nothing 'bizarre' about it whatsoever. The Nazi's were judged and very proud of themselves indeed, they were. Yes Sirree!



I am sure that they would have kicked you out had you been at the defense.

Another giant whopper - how can he possibly claim that I would have been thrown out! As it happens, they did not throw me out, fact.




(In other words, stop being a prat. Your use of Rummel, although totally inappropriate in a discussion of WWII origins, was at least a start).

Do you refer to the information of my following post? Thank you kindly,
it was a good place to start, wasn't it. And the first time you reach a reasonable conclusion, it was indeed my starting point. And I realised that you would find it inappropriate . Accurate and direct though, don't you think my fine apologist.



COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Del Boy]

this is the post to which Ollie was responding,by the way,and it is perfectly legitimate. if anyone feels it is off-topic, I am quite prepared to defend it and my other strategies on this thread.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

This is the 'inappropriate' information to which Lord Haw-Haw refers.

 

[AlphaHound]

Ollie, "Europe self destruction" was caused by the German people of that time alowing their leaders to try to over-run Europe! And people years later blaming everyone but your own kind by trying to rationalise everything by debate!!

:m16shoot:

 

[Del Boy]

Leaving his post as American commander in Germany, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower told his staff in October 1945, "The success of this occupation can only be judged 50 years from now. If the Germans at that time have a stable, prosperous democracy, then we shall have succeeded."




By that standard, the Allies' post-war approach was a success that Michael Beschloss, the author of six previous books on the history of American presidents and global affairs, largely credits to presidents Roosevelt and Truman.



Above we see the true history of America’s contribution to Germany’s resurrection.
In contrast, The Morgenthau Plan so beloved by olliegarchy (Lord Haw-Haw), originated during WW11, at the time when the nature of the catastrophic horror of the repulsive Nazi policies and practices in Europe were coming to light. Also becoming clear was Hitler’s determination to murder every member of the Jewish people.
This plan originated in the final analysis from the fourth-floor office-boys of the US Treasury, and eventually ended up on the cutting room floor, rejected at the final hurdle by both Churchill and Roosevelt.

However, it would obviously be absolutely infantile for any country with a WW11 record such as Germany’s to expect to escape punitive and restrictive action altogether , post-WW11, and a short period in history of harsh measures was put in place, as was so obviously necessary.

But this is where Olliegarchy stands. Like Goebbals, who was the main beneficiary of the Morgenthau plan, he makes full propaganda use of the plan in a manner intended to deceive.
Anyone who claims, through Morgenthau, that Roosevelt required the extermination of the German people is clearly barking mad and/or an incorrigible liar.
Anyone who claims that 'THE ONLY GOOD THING Churchill ever did 'was to oppose Roosevelt on this issue is also obviously barking mad, for all to see, and/or an incorrigible liar. Olliegarchy continues to bang his head on the corner of the table. I suggest he sticks to the table, in order to prevent more brain-damage.


Military Agency Records — Notes

1. Proposal by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau for controlling postwar Germany by converting the concentration of heavy industry to agriculture, to prevent Germany from being able to start World War III. The proposal was tentatively approved at the Second Quebec Conference held on September 11–16, 1944, between President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill. On statement not contained in Morgenthua's original version was inserted in the communiqué signed by Roosevelt and Churchill. It held that the Allies were “looking forward to converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in character.” A month later, Roosevelt rejected the proposal, but in the meantime Germans cited the plan as why they should fight to the end rather than being reduced to a non-industrial nation.


The Morgenthau Plan ©

TOP SECRET: PROGRAM TO PREVENT FROM STARTING A WORLD WAR III


1. Demilitarization of Germany. It should be the aim of the Allied Forces to accomplish the complete demilitarization of Germany in the shortest possible period of time after surrender. This means completely disarming the German Army and people (including the removal or destruction of all war material), the total destruction of the whole German armament industry, and the removal or destruction of other key industries which are basic to military strength.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Doppleganger]

It seems to me that ALL the great powers, without exception, are guilty of unsavoury and unethical behaviour over the years. In this century, the Suez Crisis was an example of the British and French going to war for reasons little different than the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary. What is almost forgotten in the West is that the policies of Chairman Mao in China caused the deaths of between 40,000,000 to 78,860,000 people (source: Wikipedia), potentially more than either Hitler or Stalin. Yet is Chairman Mao vilified as a mass murderer?

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

The bottom line is I don't think anyone from anywhere can preach from the moral high ground.

To Del Boy. I've tried reading your posts and to follow your arguments, quite hard with your rambling, chaotic style and lack of any links or proper framing. My main problem with your argument is that you treat WWII 'in isolation' and completely ignore the factors that caused the political events of WWII in the first place, ironic given your signature. That is a very naive way of looking at things.

 

[Del Boy]

It seems to me that ALL the great powers, without exception, are guilty of unsavoury and unethical behaviour over the years. In this century, the Suez Crisis was an example of the British and French going to war for reasons little different than the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary. What is almost forgotten in the West is that the policies of Chairman Mao in China caused the deaths of between 40,000,000 to 78,860,000 people (source: Wikipedia), potentially more than either Hitler or Stalin. Yet is Chairman Mao vilified as a mass murderer?

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

The bottom line is I don't think anyone from anywhere can preach from the moral high ground.

To Del Boy. I've tried reading your posts and to follow your arguments, quite hard with your rambling, chaotic style and lack of any links or proper framing. My main problem with your argument is that you treat WWII 'in isolation' and completely ignore the factors that caused the political events of WWII in the first place, ironic given your signature. That is a very naive way of looking at things.

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

Not a rant, Doppleganger, just a quiet word in your ear.

Look here, young Doppleganger, stop posting idiotic rubbish regarding my posts, you talk rot. You can follow my posts, as can your friend Dr Goeballs, only too well. It is answering or refuting them that is your problem. Your partner is nothing more than a hitler whitewash propagandist, and you are an apologist. Furthermore, I understand that you wish to know what Plain English is. Well, obviously it is the language of the Salisbury Plain, the power heartland of England, the home of the Stonehenge, and famed for the seperation of chalk from cheese. It is particularly useful in making it clear to people exactly what one means; talking Facts, they call it.
It is clear to see that it is a language completely unknown to you, so thank you for asking. Please feel free to call on me anytime for honest appraisal of any subject. No propaganda, no lies, no Bull-s***. Be my guest.


For example, there is nothing rambling about my last post, but you have difficulty with Plain English. Your Dr Goeballs 2 is the rambling wriggler, away from any inconvenient truths. You cannot show me one single lie I have posted on this thread, whereas I am constantly pointing out those of Dr Goeballs, master of dodging to another point though he may be. Don't try to act the great towering intellect regardingchaos and proper framing. You use these ploys to shelter from the truth and facts.

I have allowed you two turnips to set the agendas and take on whatever aspect you require, and so the argument has gone where Dr Goeballs leads. So don't cry lying accusations. I am the one who has tried to give depth with the 1930's situations and am happy to debate that in detail at any time. The same is true of post WW1. However, my opponents will never settle, by shy away from inconvenience simply because their case does not hold water. When we are off -topic, we have been led off by you and your Dr Goeballs 2.

So just refer to my last post and answer it. Stop playing the buffoon regarding style, spelling, grammar etc, all the protective shields you retreat to.
You always intervene to interrupt the proper threads of my arguments with your Dr Goeballs. Leave it to him, he is far better at it than you.

Now then, regarding YOUR post. I regret to advise you that it is complete nonsense; only an imbecile would try to equate Suez with Hungary.

How can you possibly equate Hitler's regime with 'unsavoury and unethical' behaviour. Are you completely insane?

Again you try to deflect the utter evil of the Hitler regime by comparing it with other situations. Look, we know. We all know about Stalin and Mao.
But that is not the issue. Here, your friend has chosen to argue that Hitler was not evil. That Britain wanted WW11. That Britain was responsiblefor WW11. That America wanted WW11. That America was responsible for WW11. Quite a straightforward issue. I have simply gone about the business of demonstrating that not one of these accusations is correct.
My case has been demonstrated .

You have attempted always to avoid the facts by trying to dismiss my accuracy as irrelevant. You call for links. You only do so that you can sweep aside any I put forward 'as inappropriate, and set up yours as gospel. I have told you before that I am only in the early stages of my assault upon your tottering defence of Hitler. And , for your reference, I am indeed very conversant with the reasons and events leading to WW11, a little too much for your comfortableness, I am sure. You both surely shy away from any of my pre-war factual references and quotes from official sources.

Kindly do not suggest that I cannot present links. There is a world of them available, most from set agendas, and this is especially true in the case of Nazi apologists and denial.

I prefer facts - for example. I was at Suez.

However I once told you that I was at Agincourt, which you brought up in your wandering, to see if you were paying attention to the content of the post. You didn't even spot it!! So don't take the high ground with me, I don't suffer fools gladly.

Oh, and yes, I do take the high moral ground on this one, no question. Get over it.
Jurgen Klinsman for Chancellor I say. The greatest German of all time. He's my favourite.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Doppleganger]

Nothing personal Del Boy but I don't even know where to begin in replying to that rambling, sprawling mess of a post. I have no difficulty in understanding plain English but unfortunately, your posts are anything but. I'm not sure where you learned to write but there are many people for whom English is a second language who can write the Queen's English better than you can. You being an Englishman should find that deeply embarrassing. Do you actually read what you write before posting?

What am I supposed to think when you make statements such as, "I was at Suez." Is this an attempt at humour? Oh I spotted when you previously stated "I was at Agincourt" but I choose to ignore it. Wisely, IMO.

If you can provide links to support your argument here's a handy tip. Let's see them! Surely not that hard is it? Let's see some counter-points and some links to support your position. You can do that right?

Thus far your argument has been very pro-British (understandable), superior (not in the least bit understandable) and you appear to refuse to consider that what is the status-quo opinion might not actually be 100% correct. Stop believing everything people tell you, stop insulting people for no reason (calling me an imbecile was uncalled for, you wouldn't do it to my face over my comment so why hide behind a keyboard and do it?), stop being so bloody arrogant and start doing some thinking for a change.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

1. Dwight D. Eisenhower told his staff in October 1945, "The success of this occupation can only be judged 50 years from now. If the Germans at that time have a stable, prosperous democracy, then we shall have succeeded.

2. By that standard, the Allies' post-war approach was a success that Michael Beschloss, the author of six previous books on the history of American presidents and global affairs, largely credits to presidents Roosevelt and Truman.

3. Proposal by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau for controlling postwar Germany by converting the concentration of heavy industry to agriculture...A month later, Roosevelt rejected the proposal, but in the meantime Germans cited the plan as why they should fight to the end rather than being reduced to a non-industrial nation.

1. Eisenhower's quote was just crap for mass consumption. He was one of those who favoured a "hard peace". In any case, Germany has a military today, is still Europe's largest economy, is the European industrial heartland, and the world's largest exporter. None of this has anything to do Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Morgenthau or Churchill. It was a result of Truman's policy reorientation after he took office. Truman kicked out the New Dealers and brought in bankers...bankers with connections to German industrialists and with actual knowledge of the problems facing Europe in the postwar.

2. Michael Beschloss is not even a real historian. He is just a butt-licker of executive power. Look at his list of books. What a laugh.

3. Roosevelt never officially rejected the Morgenthau Plan. It was leaked to the press and German-Americans (the largest ethnic group in the US) freaked. Owing to additional pressure from Cordell Hull and the State Department, not to mention Psych Ops, Roosevelt thought it wise to back away. Morgenthau's ideas were nevertheless enshrined in JCS-1067...the official policy of the American occupation forces. Morgenthau made sure of that. Thankfully, cooler heads decided that his conceptions were impractical and would have amounted to a crime against humanity.

The destruction of Prussia, along with the mass expulsions, constituted crimes against humanity according to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"...which was used to justify the hanging of German war criminals. I guess it was not as "universal" as the title suggests.

 

[Del Boy]

Nothing personal Del Boy but I don't even know where to begin in replying to that rambling, sprawling mess of a post. I have no difficulty in understanding plain English but unfortunately, your posts are anything but. I'm not sure where you learned to write but there are many people for whom English is a second language who can write the Queen's English better than you can. You being an Englishman should find that deeply embarrassing. Do you actually read what you write before posting?

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

Just because you are unable to respond to any point effectively is no excuse for posting such personal rubbish. As I am a believer in facts, not propaganda fiction, and you have specifically asked, I will tell you where I learned to write. At one of the greatest and oldest of Guild schools in England, founded in 1535, when Henry V111 was on the throne, and Bishop of Winchester headmaster. I excelled in English literature and history, and still hold literary prizes from 1949. I suggest, therefore, that you learn to read plain English and understand it fully.

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



What am I supposed to think when you make statements such as, "I was at Suez." Is this an attempt at humour? Oh I spotted when you previously stated "I was at Agincourt" but I choose to ignore it.

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


Well, as always you are unable to recognise the truth. You had used the Suez conflict stupidly, and you were meant to understand that in repudiating that, I was well versed on the issue as I was present and familiar with the political ground.

As for the Agincourt reference, let me just say that it exposed your attitude for me early in the exchanges, as light-weight.


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


If you can provide links to support your argument here's a handy tip. Let's see them! Surely not that hard is it? Let's see some counter-points and some links to support your position. You can do that right?

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

Here's a handy tip for you. Go back to sleep. You are not following at all and are wasting my time. Read my posts again - you can read properly, right? Then return and take me up on any particular point you choose. You are capable of that, aren't you?

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



Thus far your argument has been very pro-British (understandable), superior (not in the least bit understandable) and you appear to refuse to consider that what is the status-quo opinion might not actually be 100% correct.

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

You have claimed consistently to not understand my posts or arguments. Now you pretend to do so.which is the big lie?
In fact, my arguments thus far have been anti -anti-British. Anti-anti-American. Pro -the evil of Hitler. Anti propaganda whitewash of the Hitler regime. at no time have I been anti-German.
What part of TRUTH do you not understand. What part of the English Language do you not understand?
Stop wasting my time with your drivel or respond effectively to my posts.


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



Stop believing everything people tell you, stop insulting people for no reason (calling me an imbecile was uncalled for, you wouldn't do it to my face over my comment so why hide behind a keyboard and do it?), stop being so bloody arrogant and start doing some thinking for a change.

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


This advice you should retain for yourself; it is what I have been trying to stress in posting only FACTS. You are the mass agenda link junkie. I construct my own strategies and present them, and they reperesent only irrefutable fact, to which you have constantly ignored.

I return insult for insult. You have constantly attempted character assassination of me and my presentations, rather than countering the details.

Did I call you an imbecile?



COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Doppleganger]

This advice you should retain for yourself; it is what I have been trying to stress in posting only FACTS. You are the mass agenda link junkie. I construct my own strategies and present them, and they reperesent only irrefutable fact, to which you have constantly ignored.

For someone who claims to use plain English you sure can't spell too well mate. Hint: use Firefox 2.0 if you're not already as it has a built-in spell checker.

Anyway, there is nothing you have posted in this entire thread, other than direct quotes from Winston Churchill that are often irrelevant, that qualifies as "irrefutable fact." You even managed to bring in Winston on another thread (the Westwall), that was barely connected to the subject at hand.

I return insult for insult. You have constantly attempted character assassination of me and my presentations, rather than countering the details.

It certainly wasn't character assassination Del Boy, I simply did not have the patience to try and decipher your meandering posts. I have given up trying to counter your details as you have consistently ignored the vast majority of the points I tried to make. Why should I bother when all you do is go into a rabid attack about how I am a 'Hitler lover' and one of the 'Boys from Brazil'?

Did I call you an imbecile?

You did but hey I wouldn't mind if you came up with solid counter-argument and then called me an imbecile if I deserved it.

The thing is Del Boy I am open to persuasion if you can come up with a compelling enough argument. I'm not afraid to change my mind about something if the body of evidence is strong enough.

 

[Del Boy]

"For someone who claims to use plain English you sure can't spell too well mate. Hint: use Firefox 2.0 if you're not already as it has a built-in spell checker. "

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


Once more you kick of with a facetious lie. Unlike you, I never need artificial aids to assist my spelling, which is excellent, as my posts demonstrate. However time and speed are of the essence, and this is not the placefor spelling competitions. The worst speller's views are just as important as yours, ineffective as they are. And no, I do not usually read my posts after they are written. I know what they contain.

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



"Anyway, there is nothing you have posted in this entire thread, other than direct quotes from Winston Churchill that are often irrelevant, that qualifies as "irrefutable fact." You even managed to bring in Winston on another thread (the Westwall), that was barely connected to the subject at hand."

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


Ah yes, anything posted which opposes your views is irrelevant, of course, including the House of Commons official daily debate record, Hansard; the contribution of the most important player of the time and subject is irrelevant, even though they are not retrospective and confirmed by historical fact.
Here, you are exposed by any re-reading of my posts, and especially the Westwall thread, where Churchill provides the only relevant information, later confirmed by historical fact, which demolished your propaganda hopes for the thread. It is still there to be read, and with this post establishes my point precisely.

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


"It certainly wasn't character assassination Del Boy, I simply did not have the patience to try and decipher your meandering posts. I have given up trying to counter your details as you have consistently ignored the vast majority of the points I tried to make. Why should I bother when all you do is go into a rabid attack about how I am a 'Hitler lover' and one of the 'Boys from Brazil'?"

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


Nonsense. It is on record that character and ability assassination is your chosen weapon.
Make up your mind - which is the truth - you either can or you can't 'decipher' my posts?
If you can, then you have constantly lied about not being able to do so.
If you can't, then you must be unable to know anything about the content.
(Useful hint - say nothing!).

Did you call me rabid? You must be confusing me with Hitler again.

My problem with you is that you give support and succour to what is nothing but Olliegarchy's soapbox from which to whitewash the Hitler regime. I first checked out your position in these matters with 6 questions. It confirmed that yours and mine were only seperated by one minor point and a maybe. We were practically of the same opinion on the issue.
However, disregarding this, you have constantly swept away my contribution dismissively, and blindly followed Olliegarchy's lead, even though his views were in almost complete opposition to both yours and mine.

For this reason I do not respect your contribution.

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



"You did but hey I wouldn't mind if you came up with solid counter-argument and then called me an imbecile if I deserved it."

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


You really must learn to read more carefully. I certainly did not call you an imbecile. I merely remarked that anyone who equated Suez with Hungary would have to be an imbecile. it was a reflection on the statement, and an invitation for you to withdraw from the opinion in question. The offer remains open.

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



"The thing is Del Boy I am open to persuasion if you can come up with a compelling enough argument. I'm not afraid to change my mind about something if the body of evidence is strong enough.

"

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



Show me one lie in my representations of fact on this thread. Prove where
Churchill's contribution as quoted by me has been incoreect or irrelevant ,as you claim.

You should apply this to Olliegarchy's posts, and pick the bones out of them for fact and truth.
His strategy is that of "widely held views".

Well, there was a widely held view that the world was flat.

It was left to my great-grandfather (removed) to help establish, through the sponsoring of his friends Columbus and Da Gama, to demonstrate that this was not so, by the introduction of fact, at the end of the 15th century.

The gullible will follow Olliegarchy's clever but severely holed theories, but the microscope is required when looking at them. We are not all sheep, we have our own minds, and I am always ready to stand alone and say 'No'.



COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

1. "Show me one lie in my representations of fact on this thread".

2. "The gullible will follow Olliegarchy's clever but severely holed theories, but the microscope is required when looking at them. We are not all sheep, we have our own minds, and I am always ready to stand alone and say 'No'".

1. Show me one fact. A quote is not a fact. A quote is an opinion expressed by someone...an opinion that might or might not represent or resemble the "truth".

Here is an example.

The destruction of the Twin Towers is a fact. I have seen the empty space in New York with my own eyes. That is my opinion. Something destroyed those things. But my opinion is also most likely true. Why? Because you cannot falsify what I wrote. You cannot prove that the Twin Towers still stand. You could, if you were so inclined, try to prove that they never existed...or that I do not exist...but that is another issue.

Now, whether or not Sadaam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 is another matter. It is a theory. In order to prove it, you need lots and lots of evidence. We would want eyewitness accounts, written orders, intelligence reports, etc. Simply using Bush as a source would not suffice. It does not matter that Bush once blamed Sadaam. That theory has no evidence and is dead...unless someone finds some evidence.

If you want to present the theory that Hitler alone started WWII, it is necessary to prove a whole range of things using EVIDENCE. Churchill quotes can only tell us what Churchill thought about the subject. It is more important to tell us what Hitler thought, what Hitler wrote, what Hitler planned, what Hitler ordered, what Hitler's subordinates wanted, etc. And then we turn to analysing why Chamberlain's government declared war, and why, and the consequences of that action.

2. Rambling Nonsense. You can make up your own mind. I don't care what you believe. But I am not going to agree with your point of view because (a) of what Churchill said, or (b) the world believes it happened that way, or (c) even that 25% of historians might agree with you. I want some evidence.

Anyway, why would you need a "microscope" to examine "severely holed theories"? Does quoting Churchill count as using the forensic tools of the historian?

 

[Del Boy]

1. Eisenhower's quote was just crap for mass consumption. He was one of those who favoured a "hard peace". In any case, Germany has a military today, is still Europe's largest economy, is the European industrial heartland, and the world's largest exporter. None of this has anything to do Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Morgenthau or Churchill. It was a result of Truman's policy reorientation after he took office. Truman kicked out the New Dealers and brought in bankers...bankers with connections to German industrialists and with actual knowledge of the problems facing Europe in the postwar.

2. Michael Beschloss is not even a real historian. He is just a butt-licker of executive power. Look at his list of books. What a laugh.

3. Roosevelt never officially rejected the Morgenthau Plan. It was leaked to the press and German-Americans (the largest ethnic group in the US) freaked. Owing to additional pressure from Cordell Hull and the State Department, not to mention Psych Ops, Roosevelt thought it wise to back away. Morgenthau's ideas were nevertheless enshrined in JCS-1067...the official policy of the American occupation forces. Morgenthau made sure of that. Thankfully, cooler heads decided that his conceptions were impractical and would have amounted to a crime against humanity.

The destruction of Prussia, along with the mass expulsions, constituted crimes against humanity according to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"...which was used to justify the hanging of German war criminals. I guess it was not as "universal" as the title suggests.

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



1. Eisenhowers quote -to his own staff. Your proof please?

Of course any sane man favoured a 'hard peace'. Hitler's legacy to Germany had flown in the face of humanity. Germany could not possibly have expected anything other than a period of punitive and restrictive operations, for the very best of reasons. In fact they they were treated to generous and magnaminous terms , in relation to their war crimes.

However, at last we are agreed here - America resurrected and restored Germany very preferentially, as you admit, and America is completely responsible for their position today, just as Eisenhower predicted.
Funny how Eisenhower's and Churchill's predictions are borne out by historical fact, leaving you tearing your hair out and screaming foul.


2. OOOH! Another porky-pie. Beschloss has the highest credentials in this field. Anyone can take a look at his internet info. Be my guest, expose our friend here.
Your strategy of denigrating any who do not see eye to eye with you, which is mostly those without their own covert agendas, is coming unstuck it seems.


3. Here we go again. Not QUITE the truth, is it? Not the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? You fail to mention that the version Roosevelt and Churchill went along with at first was already a very watered down version. Ho-hum.

Perhaps you wolud like to elaborate on your version of the "destruction of Prussia". You are a tremendous quoter of 'crimes against humanity.'

As an expert, would you care to list those of the Hitler regime.



COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Del Boy]

Now then. I am becoming very bored with this thread. It has never been on-topic since I have known it. This is because it has become Olligarchy's soapbox for the whitewash of the Hitler regime. He produces nothing new, but collects all the revisionist and apologist links he can find, in some cases even scraps from war-game forums can be found here. This entails me having to spend a great deal of time simply knocking down his red-herrings and downright lies. He seeks to blind the gullible with a torrent of outpouring from his towering intellect.

So let me demonstrate my take on his position briefly :-


1. He wants us to believe that anyone, particularly Britain and USA, other than Hitler, was responsible for WW11.

Further, he wants us to believe the same regarding who WANTED WW11.

This has proved demonstrable and demonstrated as untrue, even if the gullible had ever considered such.


2. He wants us to believe that the Hitler regime was Not evil.

This is demonstrable and demonstrated as untrue and absurb.


This is his thread agenda. Anyone with relevant input is dismissed as beneath his consideration. He even attempts to eliminate the input of the main player, Winston Churchill , although it is mostly historical fact, recorded on the spot at the time, and confirmed by history.

Anyone who disagrees is denigrated as irrelevant and worse, and often as a hater of Germany, something that has never been raised on this thread, except by him.

It appears to me that he, in fact, is full of hatred.

I have no wish to prop up his soap-box any further, so for my part I
am pulling the plug currently, bored by the fact of the on-going lecture by the apologist, and his side-kick.

Olliegarchy, Doppleganger, Hitler - I NOW HAVE BIGGER FISH TO FRY. Hitler stank, he lost, and he cursed the German people as losers, so why get down on your knees to worship. that was Churchill's message to German people in the first place.

I'm done here, there is nothing worth challenging.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Del Boy]

May 22, 2003, 10:50 a.m.
Hitler’s Control
The lessons of Nazi history.

By Dave Kopel & Richard Griffiths

This week's CBS miniseries Hitler: The Rise of Evil tries to explain the conditions that enabled a manifestly evil and abnormal individual to gain total power and to commit mass murder. The CBS series looks at some of the people whose flawed decisions paved the way for Hitler's psychopathic dictatorship: Hitler's mother who refused to recognize that her child was extremely disturbed and anti-social; the judge who gave Hitler a ludicrously short prison sentence after he committed high treason at the Beer Hall Putsch; President Hindenburg and the Reichstag delegates who (except for the Social Democrats) who acceded to Hitler's dictatorial Enabling Act rather than forcing a crisis (which, no matter how bad the outcome, would have been far better than Hitler being able to claim legitimate power and lead Germany toward world war).


Acquainting a new generation of television viewers with the monstrosity of Hitler is a commendable public service by CBS, for if we are serious about "Never again," then we must be serious about remembering how and why Hitler was able to accomplish what he did. Political scientist R. J. Rummel, the world's foremost scholar of the mass murders of the 20th century, estimates that the Nazis killed about 21 million people, not including war casualties. With modern technology, a modern Hitler might be able to kill even more people even more





Acquainting a new generation of television viewers with the monstrosity of Hitler is a commendable public service by CBS, for if we are serious about "Never again," then we must be serious about remembering how and why Hitler was able to accomplish what he did. Political scientist R. J. Rummel, the world's foremost scholar of the mass murders of the 20th century, estimates that the Nazis killed about 21 million people, not including war casualties. With modern technology, a modern Hitler might be able to kill even more people even more rapidly.

About

R.J. Rummel​

​

RUDOLPH J. RUMMEL, b, 1932, BA and MA from the University of Hawaii (1959, 1961); Ph.D. in Political Science (Northwestern University, 1963); Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, Omicron Delta Kappa. Taught at IndianaUniversity (1963), Yale (1964-66), University of Hawaii (1966-1995); now Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Hawaii. Received numerous grants from NSF, ARPA, and the United States Peace Research Institute. Frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (see here). Received the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association for having intellectually most challenged the field in 1999; the Lifetime Achievement Award 2003 from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association; and the 2007 The International Association of Genocide Scholars' Award for Distinguished Lifetime Contribution to the Field of Genocide and Democide Studies and Prevention.


Wrote about two-dozen books and over 100 professional articles. Most recent books: Death By Government (Transaction Publications, 1994), The Miracle That Is Freedom (Martin Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, University of Idaho, 1996), Power Kills (Transaction Publications, 1997), and Statistics of Democide (Center for National Security Law, 1997).
Through his undergraduate term papers, MA Thesis, Ph.D. dissertation, and academic career, R.J. Rummel has focused his research on the causes and conditions of collective violence and war with a view toward helping their resolution or elimination. He published his major results in Understanding Conflict and War, Vols. 1-5 (Sage Publications, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, and 1981). His conclusion was that "To eliminate war, to restrain violence, to nurture universal peace and justice, is to foster freedom (liberal democracy)." Given the supreme importance of this conclusion published in 1981, Rummel then spent the next fifteen years refining the underlying theory and testing it empirically on new data, against the empirical results of others, and on case studies (as in his Death By Government). All this theoretical, empirical, and comparative research is documented in his final work, Power Kills, nominated for the 1998 Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order.




AND THIS IS THE MAN WHOSE VIEWS WERE DISMISSED OUT OF HAND BY OLLIEGARCHY. Get the message??


bye-bye for now, love from Del Boy.

 

[ill be damed if i know]

"One last time. Britain declared war. Period. Final. They started the war. That does not mean anything other than Britain declared and started a war with Germany. That is not a Nazi statement or a Pro-German statement or an anti-British statement. It is a statement of fact"

Yes after germany used aggression on poland not the other way round.

France and Britain by then knew appeasement was useless , the only thing it did was to delay war . But this arguement has been gone over already .

I would like to give you a little scenario : Its 1st september 1939 , you are Nevile chamberlain , germany invades poland , what would your reaction/orders/policies be for Britain ?

I understand where you are coming from Ollie but i just can not agree with you .

ps: noticed how i didnt insult anyone in that thread? ( see it can be done:bravo

 

[Ollie Garchy]

It is always the same with you...circles...circles...circles.

1. Stalin killed more people than Hitler. According to your logic, Stalin was worse than Hitler.

2. I never called Hitler "good". That is your projection.

3. Beschloss' highest degree is an MBA from Harvard Business School. That explains his subservience to executive power. And that he is not an historian. Would you want an astronomer to give you a triple bypass?

4. I never attacked Rummel. I simply stated that the Wiesenthal Center, Yad Vashem and other historians disagree with his methods of classification. They set the figure of civilian deaths (all causes) attributable to Hitler at around 11 million. If we count the number of indigenous peoples slaughtered by the British in the 19th and 20th Centuries, the deaths caused by the slave trade, the crushing of dissent in the Empire, punitive actions like forced starvation in China, etc. the number would be horrifically high...probably the highest of them all.

5. East Prussia was destroyed. Look at maps.

6. Eisenhowever did not make American foreign policy. His point of view was unimportant and not asked for.

In any case, you have not explained why Britain attacked Germany in September 1939 and started WWII.

a) We discounted the importance of Poland because of Stalin's participation in Hitler's war and Soviet domination of Poland after WWII.

b) We discounted depravity as a factor because the Rape of Nanking makes "Crystal Night" look like a Jewish holiday.

c) We discounted antisemitism because nobody cared about the fate of the Jews. Were the British really concerned about Jews or Slavs? The stats say no. How about sending armaments to the Poles? Or a few squadrons? No, the British actually convinced the Polish fleet to head for British ports before the German invasion!!!

d) We discounted German remilitarization because both the Soviets and the French had larger standing armies and the western Allies alone fielded more forces than the Wehrmacht.

e) We discounted German territorial expansion because the Rhineland was German, Austrians wanted to become German, the Sudetendeutsch population wanted to become German, and Hungary and Poland participated in carving up the Czech rump state.

f) We discounted Versailles because it was not legally binding and only enforced using coercion. In any case, attacking Germany for rejecting Versailles would have been downright evil.

But we didn't talk about the factors that count:

a) Geopolitical competition as motivator.

b) German industrial expansion and power projections.

c) The decline of Britain in terms of power.

d) Total British disregard of the Stalin threat.


Country & Number of Jewish refugees brought in

United States 200,000
Palestine 125,000
Britain 70,000
Argentina 50,000
Brazil 27,000
China25,000
Bolivia and Chile14,000
Canada 5,000


http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/non2many.html

 

[Ollie Garchy]

"One last time. Britain declared war. Period. Final. They started the war. That does not mean anything other than Britain declared and started a war with Germany. That is not a Nazi statement or a Pro-German statement or an anti-British statement. It is a statement of fact"

Yes after germany used aggression on poland not the other way round.

France and Britain by then knew appeasement was useless , the only thing it did was to delay war . But this arguement has been gone over already .

I would like to give you a little scenario : Its 1st september 1939 , you are Nevile chamberlain , germany invades poland , what would your reaction/orders/policies be for Britain ?

I understand where you are coming from Ollie but i just can not agree with you .

ps: noticed how i didnt insult anyone in that thread? ( see it can be done:bravo

You were good. I deleted my "bad boy" post. I always have to remember to count to ten.

1. You are assuming that "appeasement" even existed...and are loading it with postwar assumptions. Chamberlain was not "appeasing" Hitler. He was listening to real and reasonable German complaints and reacting. France actually invaded Germany in 1923 because German reparations payments were stalled.

2. If I had been in Chamberlain's position, I would have let Poland fall to the Germans and Russians. But the PM panicked. Politicians are human.

Britain gained nothing by helping Poland. In fact, the declaration of war led to the defeat of France and the isolation of Britain. September 1940 was a far worse situation than September 1939. But Chamberlain could not have foreseen that happening. Most people, including the Germans, thought that a repeat of WWI was in the works. That begs the question, did Chamberlain really think that the German annexation of Poland warranted another world war? Think of the losses of WWI. Hitler did not want another war, and, actually, neither did anyone else. (Maybe Dirlewanger)

The whole issue revolves around what people thought Hitler ultimately wanted. And he was quite candid about it. Hitler wanted to destroy Bolshevism and grab a huge colonial realm in Asia. Even Britain and the United States wanted to destroy Bolshevism.