The German campaign of conquering Britain

[Del Boy]

I assume this is another quotation of Churchill's, taken from an official speech. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that Churchill said this but in any case, it's completely beside the point. Churchill was a politician at the time. Of course he is going to say that he wants peace and so forth but this does not change the character of the man nor his ulterior motives! Look, politicians make false promises (and sometimes utter outright lies) all the time. A good example is George Bush and Tony Blair both saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before they launched 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' in 2003.

Geez, I can go find a quote where Bill Clinton said he never had sex with that woman, or when George Bush Senior said; "read my lips, no new taxes". Do you see my point. Are you really that naive?

DEL BOY TO DOPPLEGANGER -Is that really supposed to be a credible response to those sentiments presented by Winston Churchill? How strange that factual history confirmed the accuracies of all his concerns.

You can't expect to get away with dismissing serious evidence by equating it with matters which are completely off -topic, and utterly irrelevant to the 1930s. If we don't agree with any narration of true history, brush it aside. Churchill is the truest message- bearer of the 1930s, and may I say with impunity, Hitler was the greatest scoundrel:- " Read my threats - why do you not believe them".

You stick to your hero Adolph. As for me, I rely upon the man who brought him to true justice - utter defeat and utter surrender. Even Hitler knew better that to face his record of horror. In your position, I would not wish to dirty my hands on him. Germany does not wish to do so. Germany has spent long years working hard to was away the stains.

If this is the best you can offer I do not wish to waste my time on you.


Command the future, conquer the past.

 

[Doppleganger]

You can't expect to get away with dismissing serious evidence by equating it with matters which are completely off -topic, and utterly irrelevant to the 1930s.

The problem is you haven't come up with any serious evidence that supports your view that Churchill wanted peace or was not a warmonger. Quoting political speeches does not count by the way and my observations of more recent political speeches sums that observation up quite succinctly.

If we don't agree with any narration of true history, brush it aside.

Once again, political speeches are not narrations of true history. They are designed to appeal to those that listen to them and politicians sometimes 'alter' the truth to achieve that end. You sound exactly like a member of the naive, non-thinking, gullible herd that politicians love.

 

[senojekips]

Why are we still going on with all of this business about Churchill being a warmonger anyway? He never became Prime Minister until 10 May 1940 well after the war had started, and as for the statement that Churchill had only war like thoughts about Hitler and Germany.

In 1937 in his book "Great Contemporaries", Churchill wrote: "If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable (as Hitler) to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations". In the same work, Churchill expressed a hope that despite Hitler's apparent dictatorial tendencies, he would use his power to rebuild Germany into a worthy member of the world community.

That hardly sounds like the work of a lying warmonger with malice aforethought.

Britain wanted war with Germany??

I guess that is why when Chamberlain announced to the House of Commons that Hitler had invited him, Mussolini and Daladier to Munich to discuss matters regarding Germany's decision not to mobilise against Czechoslovakia (at the suggestion of Mussolini). The whole house rose with the cry "Thank God for the Prime Minister".

Once again it doesn't sound like a country planning for war, but more like hoping that war could be averted.

 

[Del Boy]

'Here we have a classic example of Delboy in action. He presents a weird deflection that has nothing to do with the thread and then complains when I answer it. As always, he then returns to the old Nazi gambit.'


OK, DEL BOY TO OLLIEGARCHY -THE FACTS-

1. On this thread, Olliegarchy and Doppleganger have carried on a campaign of denigrating my education and comprehension in a big way. All nonsense of course, and i have already warned them that in that respect they are backing a loser. Eventually I decided to introduce them to a little easy fragment from the days of my education , and ask if they would care to test it. So, in fact, it was not a question of going off-topic, but in the interests of protecting my credibility on this thread, which had been challenged on that basis. In the circumstances, not weird at all, and an easy task for Olliegarchy's towering intellect.

2. IN FACT - I did not complain that he attempted an answer of sorts at all.

3. Re 'the Nazi Gambit'. I did not use this this in a manner of denigration, but one of fact, in that if one presents revisionist, apologist argument, designed to twist history into that direction, re-writing history to argue;
a. that America wanted WW11 and was responsible for it.
b. that Britain wanted WW11 and was responsible for it
c. that Hitler was not evil.
d. that Churchill was a fat racist drunkard.
e. that Roosevelt aimed to exterminate the German people.
f. that Hitler did not want WW11 and wished to avoid it.
etc., etc.,Irving quotations etc.,

Then this gives succour and support to the Nazi cause, and it is therefore legitimate to point this out, ie. 'sounding like a Nazi' or 'supports the Nazi campaign' etc., etc., which is not the same as calling someone a Nazi, whether they are or not. Just as i have never demeaned Germany or Germans here, I am now careful to differentiate between Nazi's and those who support a Nazi position.
At the same time, I do not see why those involved find the Nazi connection to their cause an embarrassment to themselves. I did not think they would consider it an insult.

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


'In terms of answering Doppleganger, he did not even understand what D. wrote.'


DEL BOY TO OLLIEGARCHY - What on earth does this mean - who is not doing what to who? And why?

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



'In any case, all critical analysis of Churchill or the UK automatically becomes pro-Nazi or a lie. Nationalism as Churchillism.'


DEL BOY TO OLLIEGARCHY - What you present is not critical analysis of Churchill - you try to prevent him defending himself with fact.

I protest if it represents a lie, and point out where it is 'pro-Nazi'. Nothing to do with nationilism or the other silly 'ism' you have introduced, but rather to do with truth.


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



'But Delboy, really. Do you honestly believe that (1) Tesla is "nowhere close"


DEL BOY TO OLLIEGARCHY. - Yes. It is the wrong answer. I deal in facts.


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



'or (2) that I only quote Wiki? '


DEL BOY TO OLLIEGARCHY- This is not what I said. Fact.


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



'In any case, attacking me for using "Nazi propaganda" could get you in trouble with the moderators. Or did you dismiss their warnings as you dismiss everyone else?

'

DEL BOY TO OLLIEGARCHY-- Please allow me to emphasise that I have paid very careful attention of the warning of the moderators and will continue to avoid their displeasure in any way. I am at somewhat of a disadvantage in some respects because, as I have pointed out before, I am not yet computor literate to the degree required on the forum.

of course, I do not dismiss everyone else- you really must try to avoid the careless lies when dealing with me, i get tired exposing them, there are so many.

I only point out that you are using what is 'Nazi propaganda' when that happens to be the case, whether you are aware or not; have intent or not. Either way it is dangerous and gives succour andsupport to the Nazi cause. I don't think I need point this out to a man of your intellect. Wherever I come across examples of this doctrine being given support I feel an obligation to make the point for the benefit of readers. It would help if you would strive to attend the military discussions without encroaching on such contraversial political soap-boxing. Hitler's campaign of the invasion of Britain does not require an off-topic whitewashing of the record of the Nazi regime . But if it appears, it must expect to be challenged.

Understand now???


Command the future, Conquer the past.

 

[Del Boy]

The problem is you haven't come up with any serious evidence that supports your view that Churchill wanted peace or was not a warmonger. Quoting political speeches does not count by the way and my observations of more recent political speeches sums that observation up quite succinctly.


HELLO - by which authority do you say that Churchill's Hansard recorded speeches do not count. What world do you live in. Both answers required here. Respond to Churchill's content to make your point.

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


Once again, political speeches are not narrations of true history. They are designed to appeal to those that listen to them and politicians sometimes 'alter' the truth to achieve that end. You sound exactly like a member of the naive, non-thinking, gullible herd that politicians love.

HELLO,
these do happen to be true narratons of history. All their concerns and predictions became confirmed by factual history. You have no case against them, and that is why you scurry away from them. In the House of Commons all debate on such matters were put through the mangle , in those days. You just cannot dodge this one, and neither could Hitler.

Are you referring to the naive, non-thinking, gullible herd that supported Hitler, and paid the price? Why do you think I oppose your views. Besides that, I am a party of one, just like Winston in the 1930s, so you waste your time there. You are not clever enough to detect my chinks old chap, give it up. Talk facts.


Command the future, conquer the past.

 

[Del Boy]

Unfortunately, as olliegarchy and doppleganger refuse to stay on-topic, and continually use it to propagate political cant which supports Nazi views, I must reluctantly abandon this thread. I have no stomach for absorbing more of the same. The complete repudiation of their antics iscontained in the 1930s speeches of Winston Churchill, if in doubt, refer to them. Remember, they are not retrospective , so Churchill did not then know of the eventual outcome. That becomes the credibility of his position. Thanks to everyone else, I will leave other minds to attempt to encourage the military debate and reject the political. At all times on this thread I have attempted to frame my posts in straighforward down to earth terms, for the benefit of wide debate; Olliegarchy's authoritative stance cuts no ice with me. Because it is so condescending, does not mean that it is necessarily truthful. Remember, anyone can put togther a case on almost everything, drawn from myriad covert and overt agendas on the net. I always remember that in this world, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Cheers, enjoy. I leave you with the 2 -fingered victory salute, and I am still whistling Colonel Bogey. ( lol.)



Command the future, conquer the past.

 

[Doppleganger]

Unfortunately, as olliegarchy and doppleganger refuse to stay on-topic, and continually use it to propagate political cant which supports Nazi views,

Del Boy,

1. Just because I don't blindly believe everything Churchill says I am a Nazi?
2. Just because I dare to think that the reasons for why WWII started may not be as clear as some would have us believe I am a Nazi?
3. Just because I can accept that all of the Great Powers have periods of shame in their history I am a Nazi?

Do all of the above statements mean then that I "propagate political cant which supports Nazi views"? Leave the thread if you will, but do not pretend it's because you've been forced off because of 'Nazi views'. It's more likely that, aside from endlessly quoting Churchill and His greatness and some dubious personal attacks, you've had nothing to offer this thread.

 

[ill be damed if i know]

Del Boy,

1. Just because I don't blindly believe everything Churchill says I am a Nazi?
2. Just because I dare to think that the reasons for why WWII started may not be as clear as some would have us believe I am a Nazi?
3. Just because I can accept that all of the Great Powers have periods of shame in their history I am a Nazi?

Do all of the above statements mean then that I "propagate political cant which supports Nazi views"? Leave the thread if you will, but do not pretend it's because you've been forced off because of 'Nazi views'. It's more likely that, aside from endlessly quoting Churchill and His greatness and some dubious personal attacks, you've had nothing to offer this thread.

Well accusing anyone of being a nazi should be done with caution , it is a serious accusation to make . Iam not sure if Delboy is actually calling you a Nazi .

I think what he might be getting at is that yourself and Ollie put more emphasis on britian and frances failures that were the reason for the outbreak of ww2 and almost defending Nazi germanys actions to use aggression on its neighbours.

I agree that the outbreak of war is more complicated than " Hitler is bad , so we the brits had to stop him " of course there are more factors involved.



PS: churchill was a great man despite his many flaws.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Well accusing anyone of being a nazi should be done with caution , it is a serious accusation to make . Iam not sure if Delboy is actually calling you a Nazi .

I think what he might be getting at is that yourself and Ollie put more emphasis on britian and frances failures that were the reason for the outbreak of ww2 and almost defending Nazi germanys actions to use aggression on its neighbours.

I agree that the outbreak of war is more complicated than " Hitler is bad , so we the brits had to stop him " of course there are more factors involved.

Actually, I do offer logical reasons for why Hitler invaded Poland. And, if allowed, I would talk about the geopolitical reasons why Britain and France declared war on Germany. However, none of this changes the fact that Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Most of our arguments hinge on one central point: I treat Nazi Germany as a sovereign major regional power and Delboy does not. For him, an Allied invasion of Germany was justifiable even before Hitler came to power. Delboy fully supports Churchill's warmongering against Weimar Germany in 1932. Furthermore, if you examine all of Delboy's comments, you will notice that he takes an anti-German stand on every single point. He certainly makes no effort to understand that Germany might have national security concerns or border issues or basic historical problems with its neighbours. For him, Germany is the problem. We usually call the dehumanization of an entire country or ethnic group racism.

Because I am a neorealist, and essentially see the world operating according to the basic power principles of Machtpolitik, I expect major powers to act in their interests. It was clearly in Hitler's interests to attack Poland. The German invasion of Poland was therefore hardly spectacular. The British and French declaration of war against Germany was entirely different because it meant fighting a dominant power. And I find this decision interesting. What real interests were they following? Poland had no worth as a military ally, as an economic partner, or even strategic value. From the Allied perspective, they should have wiped Germany off the map in 1918 -- something that Ferdinand Foch basically wanted to do. But that is not how the defeated were traditionally treated in the European states system. Nor would it have been especially moral. But I am sure that Delboy's morality suddenly shifts direction on this issue. Eliminating German power becomes justifiable. The German elimination of Polish power is just a war crime.

For Delboy, none of this is a problem. His brand of kamikaze nationalism demands violent action against the major powers of the day. We have to stop major powers from expanding, is his credo. Well, a real kamikaze scenario would be a British declaration of war against the United States for having invaded more countries than I have fingers. What a wonderfully loyal Nazi or Bolshevik Delboy would have made.

 

[ill be damed if i know]

"Actually, I do offer logical reasons for why Hitler invaded Poland. And, if allowed, I would talk about the geopolitical reasons why Britain and France declared war on Germany. However, none of this changes the fact that Britain and France declared war on Germany."

yes i have red your opinion on the justification of the invasion of poland but still dis agree , despite someone political views ,neo realist or not no country has the right to force its will on another whether this be britain , germany etc.

"Because I am a neorealist, and essentially see the world operating according to the basic power principles of Machtpolitik, I expect major powers to act in their interests"

Yes countries well always act in their own interest , thats human nature but by this theory you would therfore agree that britain and france had the right to declare war on germany as german strength effected balance of power which naturally threaten britain and france. If u go by the neo realist stand point.

I think what we have to understand with delboy is that he lived through the war , he experienced the threat of invasion which i think you would agree would have an effect on ones opinion on german actions .

 

[Ollie Garchy]

(1) yes i have red your opinion on the justification of the invasion of poland but still dis agree , despite someone political views ,neo realist or not no country has the right to force its will on another whether this be britain , germany etc.

(2) Yes countries well always act in their own interest , thats human nature but by this theory you would therfore agree that britain and france had the right to declare war on germany as german strength effected balance of power which naturally threaten britain and france. If u go by the neo realist stand point.

(3) I think what we have to understand with delboy is that he lived through the war , he experienced the threat of invasion which i think you would agree would have an effect on ones opinion on german actions.

(1) Explanation is not justification: Explaining Hitler's actions is not the same as justifying them or agreeing with them. I understand your point. The problem is that your statement is in stark contrast with the world as we know it. You are expressing the way the world should be and not the way it is. Power is the starting point of all human and organizational relationships. And power is nothing more than the ability to force people to do what you want. There is a reason why America is now called the "Hegemonic Democracy".

We all have interests and our interests clash with those of other people. Let's refer back to the German-Polish problem. Polish leaders wanted to both hold onto the territorial gains they had made in 1919 and also revise the border more in their favour. Most German conservatives, on the other hand, wanted a return to the borders of 1914. Hitler wanted Poland to be moved far to the east and downsized. Polish-German interests were incompatible and violently so. If you consider that Germany was a Nazi/Fascist major regional power and Poland was a borderline-Fascist minor power, why side with Poland and start a world war?

(2) The British/French Declaration of War: This act was not a moral issue of right or wrong. It was a policy issue of right or wrong. Do you understand the difference? In other words, was world war the right choice to make for overall British and French interests? Again, you are returning to the "balance of power" idea. The problem is that the German acquisition of Polish "assets" did not enhance German power potential. The neutralization of Poland simply got rid of a bitter German enemy and made an attack against Russia more likely. The annexation of Poland did not alter the European balance anymore than the Soviet annexation of Poland changed the same balance.

(3) Living through WWII: It is an interesting thing that those who suffered most were generally far more "forgiving" than those who did not suffer at all. AC Grayling touches on this subject in "Among the Dead Cities". He points to polls made during the war. British civilians living in bombed cities were "less keen to see German cities bombed than were the residents of unbombed cities". (p. 285). This is hard for us to understand because we more closely resemble the "unbombed". This "paradox" was evident all over Europe during the war. I don't understand it.

 

[Doppleganger]

(3) Living through WWII: It is an interesting thing that those who suffered most were generally far more "forgiving" than those who did not suffer at all.

It could be akin to the notion that the vast majority of people don't really wish ill to come to people who are basically in the same boat as them. Indeed, the ordinary British man in the street may have felt a personal kinship with his German counterpart. He probably realised that the ordinary German had about as much control over the situation as he did. It could also be related to the term, 'I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy". Examine also what happens when 2 boxers go 12 rounds. Invariably the first thing they do is hug each other. Basically, when separated from their egos (usually even this doesn't matter) the vast majority of people are fundamentally good and wish no ill on one another.

I don't have anything to back this up with - I'm not really a big student of philosophy as such. It's basically just an opinion and a gut feeling. However, where this doesn't happen is when 2 peoples decide to cross the line over what is considered acceptable human behaviour. Acceptable human behaviour is pretty much understood the world over, like not killing kids and that sort of thing. There are times though when a war that becomes personalised can push things over this moral barrier. A process of desensitization sets in and acts that previously would be considered outrage become commonplace. I am, of course, referring to the Eastern Front, although it certainly wasn't confined to that theatre globally. Things didn't really start off too well when German official policy was that the Russians were not given the status of being fully human.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

It could be akin to the notion that the vast majority of people don't really wish ill to come to people who are basically in the same boat as them. Indeed, the ordinary British man in the street may have felt a personal kinship with his German counterpart. He probably realised that the ordinary German had about as much control over the situation as he did. It could also be related to the term, 'I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy". Examine also what happens when 2 boxers go 12 rounds. Invariably the first thing they do is hug each other. Basically, when separated from their egos (usually even this doesn't matter) the vast majority of people are fundamentally good and wish no ill on one another.

I don't have anything to back this up with - I'm not really a big student of philosophy as such. It's basically just an opinion and a gut feeling. However, where this doesn't happen is when 2 peoples decide to cross the line over what is considered acceptable human behaviour. Acceptable human behaviour is pretty much understood the world over, like not killing kids and that sort of thing. There are times though when a war that becomes personalised can push things over this moral barrier. A process of desensitization sets in and acts that previously would be considered outrage become commonplace. I am, of course, referring to the Eastern Front, although it certainly wasn't confined to that theatre globally. Things didn't really start off too well when German official policy was that the Russians were not given the status of being fully human.

Jörg Friedrich had a good thing to say on this topic. He argued that the "intellectual mind" mobilizes all of excuses needed to override basic human morality. Killing takes more than guts. It takes the mind. For example, it is necessary to distinguish between "us" and "them", cognitively take away someone's right to live using a theoretical construct like race, or try to find something really special to soothe the mind--like world domination, whether Jew or German.

Killing in a fit of rage or because of stress does not count. Soldiers who willy nilly started shooting at partisans and/or groups of civilians probably did so because they were battle exhausted. That is another matter. The strange thing is that frontline troops did not normally behave this way. It was the golden boys of the 2nd echelon that normally lined up the hapless people and mowed them down. These are the guys you see on tv bitching about how "They started it" or "Look what they did to my family". In all probability, these graduates of murder 101 probably did not suffer or lose their dog. They just use/used these concepts to rationalize their utterly Mongolian behaviour.

Did I mention Mongolian? Now we are talking about the Sovs and Asian military "philosophy". In contrast to Keegan's insane image of Cossack "soldiers" (*), I take a more cynical view. Socioculturally, these non-Europeans did not have any problems with cutting off heads for a football match or crucifying people to see how long they last. Or raping the bejeepers out of kids. It was just plain old fun. Lord have mercy.

(*) the Cossacks were renowned for their bravery in raping and pillaging, but less so for their ability to stand and fight the Western European way. I call them the "chickens of death" or how about the "slightly-mobile chickens of death"?

Watch this and laugh. A simple translation of the German is: "A regiment of Cossacks that has volunteered for service in the ranks of the Wehrmacht against the Bosheviks. The Cossacks are demonstrating their riding skills". (lol)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYN9Ax3wR7k&NR=1

 

[perseus]

He argued that the "intellectual mind" mobilizes all of excuses needed to override basic human morality. Killing takes more than guts. It takes the mind. For example, it is necessary to distinguish between "us" and "them",

Sorry for drifting off again, but this is an interesting topic. Churchill and Hitler had to convince their people that the other side was inherently evil. This is quite bizarre really since they came from almost the same race. If there was any evil it was in the party mechanism that attempted to brainwash the public.

I have mentioned this previously, but it is claimed that only a small fraction of Allied (western) troops actually aimed to kill, probably since their upbringing and to some extent their genetic makeup teaches them not to kill unless absolutely necessary. As a consequence army training and 'discipline' has to purge this instinct to produce killing machines.

Modern armies claim not to have this problem due to using appropriate training methods whatever this is, however they do expect the same troops to peace keep and conform to rules of engagement etc. Is it then surprising that atrocities occur?

 

[Doppleganger]

(*) the Cossacks were renowned for their bravery in raping and pillaging, but less so for their ability to stand and fight the Western European way. I call them the "chickens of death" or how about the "slightly-mobile chickens of death"?

Watch this and laugh. A simple translation of the German is: "A regiment of Cossacks that has volunteered for service in the ranks of the Wehrmacht against the Bosheviks. The Cossacks are demonstrating their riding skills". (lol)

This is very much the case of a group of peoples which new technology (the tank specifically and the machine gun to a lesser extent) made obsolete almost overnight. The Polish equivalent, the Polish cavalry of the Pomeranian Army, learned this lesson very harshly when they charged the tanks of XIX Panzer Corps under Guderian in the opening stages of the Polish campaign. They were cut to shreds of course. The Cossacks and the like could still do stuff like reconnaissance and logistics but as front line troops, forget it. It is interesting that the Cossacks seemed to be one of the few groups of people that Hitler exploited after the start of Barbarossa. The Cossacks that served up in the Wehrmacht, the XVth Cossack Cavalry Corps, ended up on anti-partisan duty in Yugoslavia. After the war they were controversially 'repatriated' back to the Soviet Union. A death sentence more or less as the Soviets put them into labour camps as they tended to do with most of their 'undesirables'.

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

 

[Ollie Garchy]

1. Doppleganger: Do you have evidence concerning the Polish cavalry charge? Most of the books that I have looked at call this a myth. I have no idea. I tend to agree that it probably did happen, but that is just my instinct talking.

2. Perseus: I thank you for expressing interest in this subject. People fight wars. And people are not Daleks. Nor do "mechanisms" like alliances or technologically-driven foreign policy assessments. Machines, technology, foreign policy, morality, etc., are factors in the human equation. And the consent for war is manufactured by the state. The same state then turns around and proclaims itself innocent of all warmongering:

a) Bush had "no choice" but attack Iraq. He mobilized the full range of reasons. WMD, 911, dictatorship, and Saddam's human rights abuses. It is of course interesting to note that this logic did not apply to the Saudis, who were more guilty of 911 than Saddam.

b) Did you know that the Americans are currently reconstructing dual-use chemical companies in Iraq? Prior to the war, these installations were cited as CWC violations because they could produce CW according to the concept of "breakout". Stuff like phosgene. Today, these companies are proudly pumping out sulfuric acid and other chemicals for detergents, pens and that sort of stuff. I guess "breakout" isn't important anymore.

What does this have to do with WWII? Quite a lot, actually. The same argument was used by the British to describe the German "blitzkrieg economy". I will write more later...with evidence.

 

[Doppleganger]

1. Doppleganger: Do you have evidence concerning the Polish cavalry charge? Most of the books that I have looked at call this a myth. I have no idea. I tend to agree that it probably did happen, but that is just my instinct talking.

Well, now that you come to mention it there does seem to be some contradictions. I originally used 'The History of World War II' by Lt Col E. Bauer as my source but Wiki sources do not mention any specific charge and refer to the myth of the cavalry charge. According to the link below, Guderian reports that at the 'Battle of Krojanty' there was a cavalry charge against infantry that was successful, but no charge against armour. However, if you read Guderian's memoirs directly he mentions that, "the Polish Pomskara Cavalry Brigade, in ignorance of the nature of our tanks, had charged them with swords and lances and had suffered tremendous losses." (p.72) This was on 3rd September though, 2 days after the Battle of Krojanty. Moreover, the Wiki site regarding the Battle of Krojanty does not contain any footnotes or sources.


Bibliography and Links:

Bauer, E. Lt-Colonel The History of World War II, Orbis (2000) General Editor: Brigadier Peter Young; Consultants: Brigadier General James L. Collins Jr., Correli Barnet. ISBN 1-85605-552-3

Guderian, Heinz (1952). Panzer Leader. Da Capo Press Reissue edition, 2001. New York: Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-81101-4

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

 

[Del Boy]

I have not read posts on this thread since I stated so, and I do not intend doing so,but this is a one-off message for olliegarchy.

Having investigated your claims for Tesla's place in scientific history; considering that (without detailed study) the information is so extensive and impressive, and even taking into account that it does have the advantage of very partisan support, of course, ( understandably); and although this was not the answer I required, I recognise that it would be ungracious to dismiss him and not accept your sponsorship of him. So I accept your answer as a relevant one.

What we have here are two great scientists, the other from a substantial American family, covering both the same ground, and also with seperate outstanding specialities.

Strangely, both were lost as far as recognition was concerned, erased, you might say, and Tesla has been re-found;this, as it happens, since the question was originally set.

My candidate still dwells in some obscurity and far as remembrance and recognition of his remarkable blazing talents are concerned, although examples of his written work is apparent on the internet search machines.

His academic career was blighted, it seems, by reservations he expressed regarding some of Einstein's work, which affected his standing, until some forty years later, when his position in the matter was confirmed.

By the 1930s he was lost, to be dicovered living in obscurity, poverty even , and tried again. In fact, his career ended at 90 years of age, still working for the Pentagon on the subject inter-continental ballistic missiles. His work had a great deal of military application.

He remains a lost American genius.




Command the future, conquer the past.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

I have not read posts on this thread since I stated so, and I do not intend doing so,but this is a one-off message for olliegarchy.

Thank you Delboy. But who was the other chap?

 

[03USMC]

a)
b) Did you know that the Americans are currently reconstructing dual-use chemical companies in Iraq? Prior to the war, these installations were cited as CWC violations because they could produce CW according to the concept of "breakout". Stuff like phosgene. Today, these companies are proudly pumping out sulfuric acid and other chemicals for detergents, pens and that sort of stuff. I guess "breakout" isn't important anymore.

You need to post a credible source.