The German campaign of conquering Britain

[senojekips]

It is important to view the events of WWII and keep Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in mind. The more you concentrate on one issue, the less you know about others. While not really the same as quantum mechanics, these ideas can help us understand some of the problems associated with complex phenomena.

What's this, another diversion?

You continually go on about Del Boy's alleged obsession with Churchill. When are you going to stop your continual sycophantic quoting of these "eggheads" and come up with some reasoning of your own.

"Sh1t,.... never a moment of the day goes by without me keeping good old Werner's uncertainty principle in mind"

Come on Ollie, I know that you think you are talking to a mob of barbarians here, but why quote this cr@p? I'm pretty sure that the average person (even perhaps some well below average persons) are aware of this, and have no need to know that some academic brains trust had the glory of being named as the originator of this "principle". It's more like common sense to anyone other than an "academic".

 

[Doppleganger]

My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen (and Del Boy). I present to you the case for the prosecution, that Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, hereafter known simply as 'Churchill', was not known as a man of peace. In case you need identification here is a picture of the great man himself, taken at the height of his fame:

Ok, just kidding ho ho. But you can't really blame me for mixing them up right? After all the dog's name is Churchill too. Try this one:

Oh, don't like that one either huh? OK I aim to please, how about this one:

There, that's better now isn't it? Are we all happy now? Good!

The point is Churchill was an outspoken man. I think we can all agree on that. He wasn't a man to casually stand by and not express his own opinions on a matter.

For example he wrote in 1925:

"The story of the human race is war."

Before that, at the onset of WWI in 1914, Churchill was the only member of the then British cabinet who backed war from the start. H.H. Asquith, his Prime Minister, wrote of him: "Winston very bellicose and demanding immediate mobilization. . . . Winston, who has got all his war paint on, is longing for a sea fight in the early hours of the morning to result in the sinking of the Goeben. The whole thing fills me with sadness." Churchill also told Asquith that . . . his life's ambition was "to command great victorious armies in battle."

Doesn’t really sound like a man of peace now, does it?

Then there is the issue of the Lusitania. A great deal of smoke swirls around Churchill's part in that affair. Ralph Raico, professor of history at Buffalo State College and a senior scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute wrote:

"Whether Churchill actually arranged for the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915, is still unclear. A week before the disaster, he wrote to Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade that it was "most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany." Many highly-placed persons in Britain and America believed that the German sinking of the Lusitania would bring the United States into the war.

The most recent student of the subject is Patrick Beesly, whose Room 40 is a history of British Naval Intelligence in World War I. Beesly's careful account is all the more persuasive for going against the grain of his own sentiments. He points out that the British Admiralty was aware that German U-boat Command had informed U-boat captains at sea of the sailings of the Lusitania, and that the U-boat responsible for the sinking of two ships in recent days was present in the vicinity of Queenstown, off the southern coast of Ireland, in the path the Lusitania was scheduled to take. There is no surviving record of any specific warning to the Lusitania. No destroyer escort was sent to accompany the ship to port, nor were any of the readily available destroyers instructed to hunt for the submarine. In fact, "no effective steps were taken to protect the Lusitania." Beesly concludes: "unless and until fresh information comes to light, I am reluctantly driven to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy deliberately to put the Lusitania at risk in the hope that even an abortive attack on her would bring the United States into the war. Such a conspiracy could not have been put into effect without Winston Churchill's express permission and approval."

Ok how about this one. In 1971, the British documents were released regarding the Atlantic Charter that took place between Churchill and Roosevelt in August 1941. Here’s how the New York Times reported the revelations:

Formerly top secret British Government papers made public today said that President Franklin D. Roosevelt told Prime Minister Winston Churchill in August, 1941, that he was looking for an incident to justify opening hostilities against Nazi Germany. . . . On August 19 Churchill reported to the War Cabinet in London on other aspects of the Newfoundland [Atlantic Charter] meeting that were not made public. . . . "He [Roosevelt] obviously was determined that they should come in. If he were to put the issue of peace and war to Congress, they would debate it for months," the Cabinet minutes added. "The President had said he would wage war but not declare it and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces. . . . Everything was to be done to force an incident."

Now, one can understand that Churchill was acting in the best interests of his nation which undoubtedly he was. Still it adds to his image of a man who sought war and conflict rather than more peaceable means of solving issues. It doesn’t really paint a picture of a man who was avoiding war at all costs. On the contrary, Churchill wanted war - he wanted to lead great armies into battle as he told Asquith in the days before WWI. Indeed, the very reasons that made Churchill such an effective leader in wartime was because the man was in his element, a commander of great armies. Any notion that Churchill sought only peace in the 1930’s must be treated as outright distortion unless evidence to the contrary can be presented. To suggest such flies in the face of available evidence and indeed of the well known (and well loved) persona of the man himself.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/schul05.htm
http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000459.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/23/newsid_4013000/4013583.stm
http://www.onwar.com/articles/0010.htm
http://www.dhm.de/magazine/heft7/popup-texte/churchill.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/raico-churchill1.html

 

[senojekips]

Now, one can understand that Churchill was acting in the best interests of his nation which undoubtedly he was. Still it adds to his image of a man who sought war and conflict rather than more peaceable means of solving issues.

Some people realise a lot sooner than others that there comes a time to stop p1ssing about and bite the bullet. These persons are more often pragmatists than warmongers.

If I should continually throw stones on your roof, eventually there will come a time when you will do something about it. The seriousness of your retaliation will be largely determined by the success, or lack thereof, of previous attempts to get me to stop. This is especially so if you are aware that I am only doing it to see how far I can push you.

Thus was the case in Sept. 1939. It's quite simple really.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Churchill as "Warmonger". This issue is rather obvious. I cannot ever recall having seen Churchill portrayed as a lover of peace. Only the opposite comes to mind. Does anyone know anything about Churchill's impact on British society during the 1930s? Have any historians worked on this issue? Did Churchill's lies concerning German aircraft production, for example, help convince the average person to reject negotiation as a rational policy?

I see a pattern in British language during the 1930s. I mentioned an official document in 1939. In it, the author argues that the British, French and Poles were not encircling Germany. Rather, Germany was encircling itself. This logic is found in D.'s evidence. "It must also be made clear", wrote Churchill, "that there is no desire to encircle Germany, but only to encircle an aggressor". The convoluted double-think was the same. Britain WAS attempting to encircle Germany. One can only wonder what would have happened if Germany had forged an alliance with Ireland or Mexico. The historical evidence suggests that Britain would have occupied Ireland and the US would have declared war on Germany.

Ireland: "In his speech celebrating the Allied victory in Europe (May 1945) Winston Churchill remarked that he had demonstrated restraint in not laying 'a heavy hand upon Ireland, though at times it would have been quite easy and quite natural.' In a response a few days later, de Valera acknowledged that Churchill did not add 'another horrid chapter to the already bloodstained record' of Anglo-Irish relations'".

Mexico: "The [Zimmermann] telegram instructed the [German] ambassador to go approach the Mexican government with a proposal to form a military alliance against the United States. It was intercepted and decoded by the British, and its contents hastened the entry of the United States into World War I".

It is interesting how unbelievably hypocritical the Allies actually were. Their own actions were of course always logical, while the same actions committed by Germans were always "crimes against the peace".

[Hey, D., that one link almost gave me an epileptic seizure, cool.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

Some people realise a lot sooner than others that there comes a time to stop p1ssing about and bite the bullet. These persons are more often pragmatists than warmongers.

Actually, international law calls them war criminals.

I know, I know. There goes Ollie with his high-flung legal and philosophical stuff again. I know that we don't need law. That stuff only applies to the other guy, not us.

 

[senojekips]

Nice bite Ollie, just a great pity that it ain't true in this case. When one does it to honour a pre-existing agreement between countries, and does it after having given fair warning of the consequences of the offending country's actions before declaring war, it's called honouring your obligations.

I seem to have been down this track before??

No wonder Del Boy makes a few spelling mistakes (another war crime no doubt), you have made him dizzy with your constant going around over the same old material. A well known tactic to frustrate those whose arguments you can't deny.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Nice bite Ollie, just a great pity that it ain't true in this case. When one does it to honour a pre-existing agreement between countries, and does it after having given fair warning of the consequences of the offending country's actions before declaring war, it's called honouring your obligations.

I seem to have been down this track before??

No wonder Del Boy makes a few spelling mistakes (another war crime no doubt), you have made him dizzy with your constant going around over the same old material. A well known tactic to frustrate those whose arguments you can't deny.

Sure, but we will do this until you guys stop the cycle. You guys are repeating yourselves. There is a constant return to these points on your part, not mine. I just continue to respond:

1. Britain had to defend Poland: This would be fine, but we know that Britain cared nothing for Poland itself.

2. Britain had to stop Hitler: But this presupposes an Hitlerian conspiracy that cannot be proven.

3. Hitler killed civilians: A counterfactual argument and gross distortion of the interwar period.

Repetition of the Issue:​

The British, however, got involved in a serious dispute between Germany and Poland. Instead of negotiation, they picked sides and made it plain as day that German interests no longer counted. The dispute related to territories previously controlled by the German state and the fate of Germans living in Poland as a consequence of Versailles. But Britain chose to back the Polish position without reservation -- itself an act of aggression against the German state.

In 1917, the United States declared war against Germany, in part, because of the the Zimmermann Telegram mentioned in my last post. That telegram proposed a Mexican-German alliance if the United States continued to escalate support for the Entente against Germany. The German proposal was obviously not in the national security interests of the United States. On the other hand, British backing of Poland was not in German national security interests, either. Both constituted a very dangerous type of diplomacy.

In a sense, and we have mentioned this before, the British guarantee put both Germany and Britain in an extremely difficult position. It was not in Germany's interests to tolerate encirclement. Nor could Hitler just back away and let the Poles massacre their German minority. The British, on the other hand, wanted to impose their will on Hitler and force him to back away from Versailles revision. Once they made the Anglo-Polish agreement public, however, backing away on 1 September would have forced London to accept another diplomatic defeat. But British policymakers did not have to push for any arrangements with Poland. This diplomacy, since it supported Polish interests against Germany, was the radicalizing element that caused an intolerable international position.

But what state would easily support the interests of a minor power against a major regional power? Decisions like that are not taken lightly. And when the consequences are weighed, very dangerous. Did Britain really want to initiate a world war to save Poland? Hardly. But neither did Hitler.

 

[Del Boy]

Nice bite Ollie, just a great pity that it ain't true in this case. When one does it to honour a pre-existing agreement between countries, and does it after having given fair warning of the consequences of the offending country's actions before declaring war, it's called honouring your obligations.

I seem to have been down this track before??

No wonder Del Boy makes a few spelling mistakes (another war crime no doubt), you have made him dizzy with your constant going around over the same old material. A well known tactic to frustrate those whose arguments you can't deny.

Thank you kindly Senojekips. However, please note that I do not , in fact, make spelling mistakes, only typing errors, through working so fast.
My spelling is indeed very good indeed, but Olliegarchy and Doppleganger have tried to carry out a continual campaign of ridicule, all ,of course, nonsense. They have both questioned my education, my grammar, my spelling, my comprehension etc., in a manner I have never seen on a forum before. None of this has any honest basis, and arises from their inability to counter the points I make. Olligarchy has described me as someone 'without an education'. All this is, of course, the refuge of the weak and those without genuine response available. Each time I bring attention to lies, which is often, they are not addressed, but bring on bouts of character asassination of myself or Churchill.

Well, they may fool the gullible.

It is none of their business, but for the sake of the record I will repeat that my education was conducted in one of the very greatest Guild schools, founded in 1535 on the side of the Thames, where a scholarship took me. Among its many outstanding headmasters was the Bishop of Winchester, in the early 17th century. My education included the LAMDA.

My distinctions were British political, social and military history (1760-1945), Shakespeare and Thomas Hardy.

Throughout military service, I was released from the necessity of ever taking education examinations for promotion, and I worked always from front-line to Infantry Records directly. So the results of my work still stands. My children have achieved high reputations throughout the world in their fields, for both excellence and integrity, including Arabia, USA at the VERY top levels, and Russia. I enjoy convivial e-mail friendships with the likes of assistant attorney-generals.

Sorry about that having to salvage my reputation from the dogs by spelling out irrelevant information here, but I keep being challenged on the subject. I need viewers not to be mislead by my credibility being questioned to nullify my opinions.

Thank you once again. I will take up the pen once more and challenge Olliegarchy on the subject of the strength of his towering intellect.

 

[senojekips]

Sure, but we will do this until you guys stop the cycle. You guys are repeating yourselves. There is a constant return to these points on your part, not mine. I just continue to respond:

Naturally, because you wrongly inferred that an honourable act was a war crime, obviously you had forgotten previous statements that answered this question

1. Britain had to defend Poland: This would be fine, but we know that Britain cared nothing for Poland itself.

Whether Britain "cared" about Poland is not the question. Poland was seen as being the next possible victim of the NAZI's program of domination. Poland merely happened to be where the Brits drew the line in the sand. Personally I'm not convinced that Britain did not care for Poland.

2. Britain had to stop Hitler: But this presupposes an Hitlerian conspiracy that cannot be proven.

Not a conspiracy, an aggressive plan of domination which can be proven.

3. Hitler killed civilians: A counterfactual argument and gross distortion of the interwar period.

Where? When?

Repetition of the Issue:​

The British, however, got involved in a serious dispute between Germany and Poland. Instead of negotiation, they picked sides and made it plain as day that German interests no longer counted. The dispute related to territories previously controlled by the German state and the fate of Germans living in Poland as a consequence of Versailles. But Britain chose to back the Polish position without reservation -- itself an act of aggression against the German state.

Britain saw Poland as the next victim and stood up against Germany, which was still viewed by the Allies with some displeasure as a result of WWI, further aggravated by Hitler's apparent dismissal of the Versailles Treaty.

Now I'm not going to get embroiled in a argy bargy as to the legitimacy or moral value of the treaty, but as I have stated before it was signed by the Germans and therefore had some moral legitimacy of it's own. Like I also said earlier, if Hitler had have spent as much time and effort in trying to have the Treaty repealed, he may well have succeeded.

In 1917, the United States declared war against Germany, in part, because of the the Zimmermann Telegram mentioned in my last post. That telegram proposed a Mexican-German alliance if the United States continued to escalate support for the Entente against Germany. The German proposal was obviously not in the national security interests of the United States. On the other hand, British backing of Poland was not in German national security interests, either. Both constituted a very dangerous type of diplomacy.

IMHO Diplomacy is merely the "nice" face of treachery. Say no more.

In a sense, and we have mentioned this before, the British guarantee put both Germany and Britain in an extremely difficult position. It was not in Germany's interests to tolerate encirclement.

Encirclement? How could they not be encircled, that is a fact of geography, the Swiss are encircled,as are many other European countries, but they don't go to war over it.

Nor could Hitler just back away and let the Poles massacre their German minority.

I know only a little of this, but I do know that it is considered by many to be ill founded, because it is known that the Polish Volksdeutsche were in close contact with the NAZIs and agitating for a repetition of the Anschluss Osterreichs. There were no representations to the League of Nations by the Germans about this alleged massacre, and also if it were true, Hitler would not have had to fake the Polish attack at Gleiwitz in an attempt to justify his attack.

The British, on the other hand, wanted to impose their will on Hitler and force him to back away from Versailles revision. Once they made the Anglo-Polish agreement public, however, backing away on 1 September would have forced London to accept another diplomatic defeat. But British policymakers did not have to push for any arrangements with Poland. This diplomacy, since it supported Polish interests against Germany, was the radicalizing element that caused an intolerable international position.

But what state would easily support the interests of a minor power against a major regional power? Decisions like that are not taken lightly. And when the consequences are weighed, very dangerous. Did Britain really want to initiate a world war to save Poland? Hardly. But neither did Hitler.

If this was truly the case, why did Hitler invade Poland?.... Because, he wrongly assumed that the Brits would not honour their agreement, he thought they were not up to it politically, or in terms of armaments. Obviously, he was wrong, he judged the Brits by his own standards.

They did honour their agreement because they realised that if they did not, the NAZIs would become even more aggressive. Just one more country please Daddy, and one more, and another? the Brits did not need to be Rhodes scholars to see where it was all leading.

Unfortunately for Hitler, the Brits had far more moral fortitude than he gave them credit for.

 

[Doppleganger]

They did honour their agreement because they realised that if they did not, the NAZIs would become even more aggressive. Just one more country please Daddy, and one more, and another? the Brits did not need to be Rhodes scholars to see where it was all leading.

For sake of argument, had Poland been carved up amongst Germany and the Soviet Union without a declaration of war from Britain and France, what do you think would have happened next?

 

[senojekips]

I'm not into hypothetical arguments, they can go absolutely anywhere.

By all means ask Ollie, I'm sure that he will have a theory and it will be "interesting", as no doubt he will have thought about it.

 

[mmarsh]

For sake of argument, had Poland been carved up amongst Germany and the Soviet Union without a declaration of war from Britain and France, what do you think would have happened next?

That's a toughie. Here what I think. Pure Speculation mind you...

Consider this. Hitler hated the French, they were Germanys natural enemy and he was worried about them as he thought their military could match his. He was especially furious at the Humiliations France had imposed on Germany after WWI and was eager to exact revenge. A war with France was inevitable.

However. Hitler also knew that any attack on France would immediately bring the UK into the war, which is something he didn't want.
But Hitler real target was the Soviet Union. The question is would have France and the UK entered the War to help Russia? They didn't like Hitler, but they didn't like Stalin either.

Remember Chamberlain would still probably be British PM which means that since he failed to help his allies the Czechs and the Poles (remember this is theory not fact) it would stand to reason that he wouldn't defend somebody he liked alot less.

As for the French, Prime-Minister Daladier was a fierce anti-Red whom hated Stalin. Unfortunatly France had a Communist party with some teeth (they were part of the reason France lost in 1940). My 88 year old Grandmother still has never forgiven the French Communist Party for backstabbing the country in 1940, (she still comes "les traites." -The Traitors) and they took there orders directly from Stalin. Despite this I don't think Daladier would have aided Stalin, which means the USSR would have faced Hitler alone.

With Governments more anti-communist than anti-Germany its like Germany would have been less threatened by her Western enemies and decided to attack Russia which it had already wanted to do. Had the invasion succeeded it would have given the British and French much needed time to rearm. Perhaps giving the French time to complete the Maginot line in the North. It certainly would have enabled them to strengthened their Air force and Tank Corp, which would have blunted Blitzkreig.

Furthermore Germany would have had to have taken losses both in combat, and as part of an Russian occupation force. That means they would have faced the western allies from a much weaker position than they did in 1940. The battle of France might have had a very different outcome...

 

[Del Boy]

olliegarchy.

the interwar period.


Nonsense. Neither a counterfactual argument or a distortion. It is a plain and simple FACT.


Ollie Garchy;334783]Sure, but we will do this until you guys stop the cycle. You guys are repeating yourselves. There is a constant return to these points on your part, not mine. I just continue to respond:


Hello? All on this thread are responding to you and your outrageous campaign.



1. Britain had to defend Poland: This would be fine, but we know that Britain cared nothing for Poland itself.


Shall I repeat Churchill’s defingng speech on this point. It is a real fact.



2. Britain had to stop Hitler: But this presupposes an Hitlerian conspiracy that cannot be proven.

Shall I repeat Churchill’s defining speech on this point. It is a real fact.

 

[senojekips]

However, please note that I do not , in fact, make spelling mistakes, only typing errors, through working so fast.

I stand corrected, my humble apologies. Being only a "hunt and peck" typist myself, I fully understand.

 

[Del Boy]

""My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen (and Del Boy). I present to you the case for the prosecution, "


Now here is a very strange kettle of fish.

I claim that Churchill worked tirelessly for peace in the 1930s.

The apologists claim that throughout the 1930s he was a "war-monger"


Then comes this prosecution case supporting the latter and it contains nothing at all regarding the 1930s, but concentrates instead on WW1 and the 1940's!

Really great comprehension by the towering intellects. Wake up at the back.

As for content, I'll get back to that, but others have probably dealt with it already, I am pleased to see.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Del Boy]

I stand corrected, my humble apologies. Being only a "hunt and peck" typist myself, I fully understand.

absolutely spot on, my friend. I am after the content. When we get the spelling thread I'll shoot their socks off. Terrible stuff on a great forum. On political forums I have seen folk seriously scourged for making such personal comments. But I guess that's the old supremacy at work. I say 'Work fast, maintain the heat, strike hard'. ( that's me-not Churchill.)

 

[Del Boy]

Olliegarchy and Doppleganger have constantly cast aspersions upon my intelligence and education. I now challenge their towering intellect to answer one the questions from MY education.

ALL PARTS MUST BE ANSWERED.


1. Who was acclaimed as the greatest electrical engineer in America at turn of the 19th/20th century?

2. What were his main achievements?

3. What incurred his fall from grace?


4. Where can examples of his genius be found?

5. Where did his career end?


THERE YOU GO - REAL EDUCATION. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

(AND IS THIS MAN RELEVANT HERE? - Yes,I Believe so.)



And as olliegarchy knows just everything about everything, could he tell us what is the speciality of the top floor of the US State Dept.?



love from your own Del Boy.

 

[Del Boy]

Churchill has been accused here of "war-mongering" throughout the 1930's. I claim he sought only a proper peace. Let us take a look at his factual performance.


House of Commoons 23 Nov 1932.


CHURCHILL HERE WARNS OF THE DANGERS OF ALLIED DISARMAMENT AND RELENTLESS GERMAN RE-ARMAMENT :-

(TYPING ERRORS EXCEPTED)

" ...On the other side there is Germany, the same mighty Germany which so recently withstood almost the world in arms; Germany which resistedly with such formidable capacity that it took between two and three Allied lives to take one German life in the four years of the Great War; Germany which also has allies, friends and associates in her train, powerful nations, who consider their politics as associated to some extent with hers; Germany whose annual quota of youth reaching military age is already nearly double the youth of France; Germany where the Parliamentary system which we used to be taught to rely upon after the Great War are in abeyance. I do not know where Germany's Parliamentary system stands today, but certainly military are in control of the essentials.

Germany has paid since the war an indemnity of about one thousand millions sterling, but she has borrowed in the same time about two thousand millions sterling with which to pay that indemnity and to equip her factories. Her territories have been evacuated long before the stipulated time - I rejoice in it - and now she has been by Lausanne virtually freed from all those reparations which had been claimed from her by the nations whose territories have been devastated in the war, or whose prosperity, like ours, has been gravely undermined by the war. At the same time,her commercial debts may well prove ultomately to be irrecoverable. I am making no indictment of Germany. I have respect and admiration for the Germans, and desire that we should live on terms of good feeling and fruitful relations with them; but we must look at the fact that every concession which has been made - many concessions have been made, and many more will be made and ought to be made - has been followed immediately by a fresh demand.

Now the demand is that Germany should be allowed to rearm. Do not delude yourselves. Do not let His Majesty's Government believe - I am sure they do not believe - that all Germany is asking for is equal status. I believe that the refined term now is equal qualitative status, or, as an alternative, equal quantitative status by indefinitely deferred stages. That is not what Germany is seeking. All these bands of sturdy Teutonic youths, marching through the streets and roads of Germany, with the light of desire in their eyes to suffer for their Fatherland, are not looking for status. They are looking for weapons. and, when they have the weapons, believe me they will then ask for the return of lost territories and lost colonies, and when that demand is made it cannot fail to shake and possibly shatter to their foundations every one of the countries I have previously mentioned, and some other countries I have not mentioned."



1932 - Churchill spelling out the future threat - starting 7 years of warnings to anticipate and avoid war. History confirms his prediction.




COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Hey D., this thread gives new meaning to "casting pearls before swine"!

​

Once more from the top. I cannot even begin to answer the redundant or bizarre responses listed above me. Unfortunately, the worthwhile post of the "French guy" raised issues that we have already covered.


Face the truth, Delboy. Your "comments" (a word that is too flattering) are either representative of inane trolling or signs of a serious lack of structured thought. It is all funny, to a certain degree.


http://humanities.byu.edu/elc/student/idioms/idioms/pearls_before_swine.html

 

[Doppleganger]

That means they would have faced the western allies from a much weaker position than they did in 1940. The battle of France might have had a very different outcome...

Had Germany defeated the Soviet Union, which is debatable simply because in order to so Hitler would not have to make the huge mistake of underrating how difficult a task it would be, the Germans would be in a weaker position but not for the reasons you suggest. They would be stronger because:

1) The campaigns in Russia would have further ironed out any shortcomings in the combined arms operations between the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe.

2) The numbers of Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions would be greater than was available historically in May 1940.

3) Exposure to the Russian T-34 would have spurred on German tank development to produce the Panther, as happened historically.

4) The Panzer divisions available in this hypothetical scenario would no longer have Panzer Is and IIs (training machines literally) in their ranks, instead mainly Panzer IIIs and IVs. This would mean that German divisions would have superior equipment, which they did not have historically

5) The Tiger I would likely be available for heavy tank brigades attached to elite divisions like Großdeutschland, Panzer Lehr and Leibstandarte 'Adolf Hitler'.

Huge amounts of men would be needed to police the eastern occupied territories but this job could be given to 2nd line and satellite troops. The 1st echelon German formations would be available for any new campaign. The major weakness would be that the element of surprise in German tactics would no longer be present. This is a biggie. The French would now expect a breakthrough via the Ardennes Forest so the Germans would have to come up with a new plan. It may be that the Wehrmacht, forged in the fires of the Russian front, would be able to sweep aside Allied Armies anyway but this is hardly a given.

 

[Del Boy]

olliegarchy - your cartoon reminds of the occasions when I have tried to defend Hitler in the past -

When everybody was saying he wasn't fit to be fed to pigs, I stood up bravely and said he was.

So I ain't all bad, you see.


NOW THEN, your response to my posts is just as I had expected. When defeated, try ridicule and character assassination again.
This marks you out as such a fraud. You are completely impotent faced by fact and truth. As soon as you are faced with a question for which you cannot turn to myriad links to provide guff, you are completely out your depth.

WELL - I did say 'put up or shut up'.
So kindly refrain from adopting the superior education and intellect technique to denigrate me. On that score you cannot compete. For once, why not try facing my posts like a man.

By the way - if I were you I would avoid the funnies - you have a retarded sense of humour.

I can't understand you not having an immediate answer at hand for my very simple question. You surprise me , I answered it as a kid.
I guess that is difference between your education and mine. After you have overcome that one, would you care to try some Shakespeare?


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.