The German campaign of conquering Britain

[Ollie Garchy]

PART TWO:

(3) Overy & The German War Machine

Any state leader planning on waging aggressive war against the largest military the world has ever seen, while simultaneously understanding that most of Europe would declare war because it was in their interests to do so, would plan for a big war. Why is this even an issue?

Even if we accept Overy's numbers, which I do not because I have looked into the issue, his argument is deeply flawed when we apply basic logic. Because Germany was an essentially disarmed society in 1933, Hitler and his generals required heavy armaments expenditures just to reach parity with the Allies. Since the new Wehrmacht operated according to the principle of fighting alone, owing to Versailles isolation and the need to fight a potential war on three fronts, their doctrine demanded even more armaments production than would normally have been the case -- just to reach a strong defensive capability. Offensive capabilities is another matter. This basic reality explains much of the opposition to Hitler within the German General Staff during the late 1930s. They thought he was nuts.

I want to end this post with a better illustration of Overy's "mistake". During the early 1930s, the Reichswehr leaders lamented the low state of motorization in Germany. Understanding that strong industrial capacities in the automotive sector translated into military-industrial muscle, they conceived of an idea to boost car sales at home and thereby help create more automotive plant. The idea was simply to build highways that would make owning a car more than just a luxury. After he took power in 1933, Hitler agreed with the idea. He even decided to assist the automotive firms in expanding their productive base. By 1937, the generals were starting to get nervous. They were happy with the progress made in the civilian sector. They however questioned the neglect of retooling industry for tank production...and issued official complaints in this regard. German industrialists set about fixing the problem. But, France still had more tanks than Germany in 1940. In any case, designating investment in dual-use technology as purely military -- which Overy does if you check his sources -- is unfair. If this were universally true, the United States would have spent vast sums on investment in military outlays prior to 1941.

Sources:

http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/meinkampf/v2c14.htm

If you want the other stuff, I can provide them. They will, however, be of no use to anyone who does not read German.

[Last note: If people would simply argue that the war started and was fought because the Allies wanted to enhance their own power base, or even that war was waged to stop real increases in German military or geopolitical power, I could live with that. I only object to the mobilization of cheap morality...which is only necessary in the first place to blame the enemy for starting a war that he in fact did not start...which is only necessary if you (or the people you rule) believe that war is immoral. This is the Kennan problem.]

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Ollie.

now for some real FACT, whether you want it or not.

FACT 1.


3 september 1939.

At dawn on I September Hitler’s armies invaded Poland. In accordance with the British and French governments’ guarantee to Poland, on 2 september an ultimatum was issued demanding Germany’s withdrawal and respect of Poland’s sovereignty. At 11.15 on 3 september the british prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, announced in his melancholy voice that the ultimatum had expired without any reply being received from Germany and that, consequently, Britain was at war with germany. After an air-raid warning, which proved false, the House met in early afternoon and Churchill made his last speech from the back-benches.

Following the debate Chamberlain invited Churchill to become First Lord of the Admiralty. At 6pm he took up his post and the signal was flashed to the fleet: ‘Winston is back’! As he later wrote in The gathering storm:’ So it was that I came again to the room I had quitted in pain and sorrow almost a quarter of a century before…. Once again we must fight for life and honour against all the might and fury of the valiant, disciplined and ruthless German race. Once again! So be it!’


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

I want to respond to this post because it demonstrates part of the problem with understanding my approach.

(1) Notice how Churchill turns a British declaration of war into a fight for survival against a "ruthless German race". He mentions this without the slighest recourse to logic...at least in the little tidbit presented here. But he never needed any. His audience understood what he meant. Not only that, they appear to have believed it deeply. I desperately want to understand how things like this work. The obedience and intellectual discipline of the British people was absolutely staggering.

(2) Notice how the logic of the argument turns a defiant Germany into the war's instigator. It is implied that Berlin had no other option but follow the British ultimatum. Since they did not, the responsibility for the war rests on their shoulders. Amazing.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that Russia in 2003 issued the United States with an ultimatum demanding the immediate withdrawal from Iraq or face a declaration of war. How would we have treated such an event...other than start painting our windows white? Would we generally have thought, "Goodie. The Russians are standing up for the rights of Iraqis"? Or maybe, "'Bout time someone is standing up to the 'valiant, disciplined and ruthless American race'"? Or, "My God, the Russians are being attacked by the Americans"? Hardly. We (including myself) would probably have thought that the Russians were involving themselves in matters that do not concern them, and that they were in fact trying to start a major war in order to make a military move against the Ukraine or White Russia. We most certainly would not have treated the American war in Iraq as a declaration of war on Russia.

 

[senojekips]

The obedience and intellectual discipline of the British people was absolutely staggering.

I just love that comment, coming from a person allegedly belonging to a race that eagerly supported Hitler. This "logic" is as flawed as the rest of your attempt to absolve the Germans of the time from any blame in the starting of WW2.

In hind sight, it appears to me, and probably most of the remainder of the world that Churchill was obviously a pretty astute judge when he made the statement about the ruthless German race, taking into account the things that followed.

Your peculiar logic and selective quoting of "expert" sources is all over the house like a mad woman's footsteps. It's time to close your books and open your eyes and ears.

Wars may be started by politicians, but the ultimate judgement and resultant laying of blame comes from the man in the street, not the shiney @rsed philosophers of the world.

 

[Del Boy]

Ollie.

now for some real FACT, whether you want it or not.

FACT 1.


3 september 1939.

At dawn on I September Hitler’s armies invaded Poland. In accordance with the British and French governments’ guarantee to Poland, on 2 september an ultimatum was issued demanding Germany’s withdrawal and respect of Poland’s sovereignty. At 11.15 on 3 september the british prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, announced in his melancholy voice that the ultimatum had expired without any reply being received from Germany and that, consequently, Britain was at war with germany. After an air-raid warning, which proved false, the House met in early afternoon and Churchill made his last speech from the back-benches.

Following the debate Chamberlain invited Churchill to become First Lord of the Admiralty. At 6pm he took up his post and the signal was flashed to the fleet: ‘Winston is back’! As he later wrote in The gathering storm:’ So it was that I came again to the room I had quitted in pain and sorrow almost a quarter of a century before…. Once again we must fight for life and honour against all the might and fury of the valiant, disciplined and ruthless German race. Once again! So be it!’


Amongst all Ollie's and Dopplegangers protests regarding the in and outs of WW11, i am now presenting a series of only cold facts as history was made. No agend a-ruled theories, no twits and spin.
Ollies response is pathetic. He cannot give credible reply and reverts to emotional appeal. He talks as though Churchill was speaking in retrospect. Gotta gong you out Ollie - beaten by fact -just as i suspected.

Above was just the first and establishes clearly precisely why the war started, how and who was responsible.

The only matter which counts on this issue is the FACT - hereafter FACT 1.

I MUST NOW FOLLOW THIS WITH FACT 2.

 

[Del Boy]

WW11 - FACT 2.


LONDON - 16TH nOVEMBER 1934.


As we go to and fro in this peaceful country, with its decent orderly people going about their business under free institutions, and with so much tolerance and fair play in their laws and customs, it is startling and fearful to realise that we are no longer safe in our island home. For nearly a thousand years England has never seen the camp-fires of an invader. The stormy seas and our Royal Navy have been our sure defence. Not only have we preserved our life and freedom through the centuries, but gradually we have come to be heart and centre of an Empire which surrounds the globe. It is indeed wuth a pang ofstabbing pain that we see all this in mortal danger.

A thousand years scarce serve to form a State,
An hour may lay it in the dust....

Only a few hours away by air there dwells a nation of nearly seventy millions of the most educated,industrious, scientific, disciplined people in the world, who are being taught from chidhood to think of war and conquest as a glorious exercise, and death in battle as the noblest fate for man. There is a nation which has abandoned all its liberties in order to augment its collective might. There is a nation which, for all its strength and virtues, is in the grip of a group of ruthless men preaching a gospel of intolerance and racial pride, unrestrained by law, by Parliament or by public opinion. It is but twenty years since these neighbours of ours fought almost the whole world, and almost defeated them. Now they are re-arming with the utmost speed, and ready to their hands is this lamentable new weapon of the air, against which our Navy is no defence, beforewhich women and children, the weak and the frail, the pacifist and the jingo, the warrior and the civilian, the front line trenches and the cottage home, lie in equal and impartial peril.

Nay worse still, for with the new weapon has come a new method, or rather has come back the most brutish methods of ancient barbarism, namely the possibility of compelling the submission of races by terrorising and torturing their civilian population. And worst of all - the more civilised a country is, the larger and more splendid its cities, the more intracate the structure of its social and economic life; the more is it vulnerable, the more is it at the mercy of those who would make it their prey.

At present we lie within a few minutes' striking distance of the French, Dutch, and Belgian coasts, and within a ferw hours of the great aerodromes of Central Europe. We are even within cannon-shot of the Continent. So close as that! Is it prudent, is it possible,HOWEVER WE MIGHT DESIRE IT, to turn our backs upon Europe and ignore what may happen there? Everyone can judge this question for himself, and everyone ought to make up his mind about it without delay. It lies at the heart of our problem. For my part I have come to conclusion - RELUCTANTLY I ADMIT - THAT WE CANNOT GET AWAY. Here we are and we must make the best of it. But do not under-estimate the risks - the grievous risks- we have to run.

I hope - I pray, and on the whole, grasping the larger hope, I believe, that no war will fall upon us. But if inthe near future the Great War of 1914 is resumed again in Europe after the Armistice - for that is what it may come to - under different conditions no doubt - no one can tell where or how it would end , or whether sooner or later we would be dragged into it, AS THE UNITED STATES WERE DRAGGED IN AGAINST THEIR WILL IN 1917. Whatever happened and whatever we did, it would be a time of frightful danger for us.... Therefore it seems to me that we cannot detach ourselves from Europe, and that for our own safety and slef-preservation we are bound to make exertions and run risks FOR THE SAKE OF KEEPING PEACE.

There are some who say - indeed it has become the shrill cry of the hour - that we should run the risk of disarming ourselves in order to set an example to others. WE HAVE DONE THAT ALREADY FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS, but our example has not been followed. On the contrary, it has produced the opposite result. All the other countries have armed only the more heavily; and the quarrels and intrigues about disarmament have bred only more ill-will among the nations.

Winston Churchill


1934 - Well that sounds like Britain was the culprit, doesn't it.?????

I don't bloody - well think so.

THIS WAS FACT - NO ARGUMENT - HISTORICALLY DATED.

WATCH OUT FOR FACT 3 - EVEN IF THE TRUTH HURTS - TAKE IT ON THE CHIN - JUST LIKE THE NAZIS DIDN'T.

FACT 3 COMING -WE ARE WARMING UP!

 

[Doppleganger]

Del Boy, all you are doing is cutting and pasting quotes from Winston Churchill. My 5 year old nephew could do that. Where is your analysis, where is your argument, where is your conclusion? Is this really the best you can do?

 

[senojekips]

Del Boy, all you are doing is cutting and pasting quotes from Winston Churchill. My 5 year old nephew could do that. Where is your analysis, where is your argument, where is your conclusion? Is this really the best you can do?

Why is it that when you back a statement with a link, it must be believed, yet when others cut and paste the material from their links, the best you can manage is to come back with churlish remarks..... Perhaps your 5 year old nephew could teach you a thing or two.

"Would be if could be intellectuals",.... huh!

 

[senojekips]

Maybe my comments have been a little harsh,.... never mind, I have it on good authority, (a philosopher no less) that Hitler got a bum deal the first time around, so his clone is being groomed to have a second go at World domination. I just can't wait!!

 

[Ollie Garchy]

WW11 - FACT 2.

Remember FACT 1?: I will try to show you how facts work. I think FACT 1 (or whatever) was that Hitler killed 30 million people. The argument was that Hitler was "bad" because he killed people and that the Allies just had to declare war to stop it. While I am still in the process of putting my analysis of 1918-1939 atrocities together, I can demonstrate some of my PROVISIONAL findings.

a) Interwar German Killing of Jews: The number of Jews killed by the Nazis appears to have been remarkably low during the period January 1933-September 1939. During the "Kristallnacht" pogrom, for example, estimates range from 36 to 200. Since some Jews committed suicide during this period, and there were other random murders, I liberally accept a number of about 1,000. About 30,000 or so were put into concentration camps until released on the condition that they leave Germany.

Daniel Goldhagen's analysis of the Holocaust does not even provide any figure for the period in question -- probably because it would discredit his theory. He only mentions "Kristallnacht" and a couple random examples. Why? Because the extirmination of the Jews did not even start until June 1941 (Einsatzgruppen) and the death camps were not even opened until 1942. Prior to 1939, not much happened. "The anti-Jewish violence of the Nazi party after 1933", an article issued by Yad Vashem writes, "was directed to four different types of actions: the direct physical maltreatment of Jews and "non-Aryans"; the damage of Jewish property; the boycott of Jewish enterprises; and the appropriation of Jewish possessions". (Yad Vashem link) But none of this stops Goldhagen from writing: "...the entire western world beheld Kristallnacht, and the world reacted with moral revulsion and outrage". (Daniel Goldhagen, p. 102).

b) Interwar Russian Killing of Jews: Now contrast the German total of 1,000 with what we know about the 1919 Pogroms in Russia during the Russian civil war. Over 60,000 Jews were murdered in that year alone. And this is only one example of a whole series of pogroms throughout eastern Europe during this period. (Dollinger, p. 421). It is no wonder that Goldhagen does not list the number of Jews killed in Germany during the 1930s and instead relies on vague generalities that skirt the issue. And, believe me, I checked his numbers. The intesting thing is the difficulty finding large German numbers at all. For the Soviets, you get finger cramps after typing them all in.

and how about some of these facts:

a) Britain (1936-37 ): Massacre of 11,000 Indian civilians 1936-38.

b) France (1921-32): Thousands of forced Labourers die building the Congo-Ocean Railroad (1921-32). In total, 200,000 for the period 1900-1940. (some of these are before 1918, so they don't count)

c) Japan (1937-1938 ): The Rape of Nanking kills around 150,000 civilians.

d) Italy (1935-1943): The Abyssinian Conquest kills between 100,000-400,000 civilians. (Some of these are after 1939, so they don't count, either).

or how about this nicely put tidbit:

American reactions to Haitian Slaughter (1937): "In October 1937, Trujillo ordered the massacre of Haitians living in the Dominican Republic in retaliation for the discovery and execution by the Haitian government of his most valued covert agents in that country. The Dominican army slaughtered as many as 20,000 largely unarmed men, women, and children, mostly in border areas, but also in the western Cibao. News of the atrocity filtered out of the country slowly; when it reached the previously supportive administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States, Secretary of State Cordell Hull demanded internationally mediated negotiations for a settlement and indemnity. Trujillo finally agreed. The negotiations, however, fixed a ludicrously low indemnity of US$750,000, which was later reduced to US$525,000 by agreement between the two governments. Although the affair damaged Trujillo's international image, it did not result in any direct efforts by the United States or by other countries to force him from power".

The US and world was however supremely pissed off at the 1,600 Guernica (Spain) bombing deaths caused by the German Condor Legion / but not the British liquidation of 3,000 - 10,000 Burmese during the 1930 - 1932 Saya San Rebellion.

Provisional Conclusion: Your Hitler was "bad" during the prewar theory seems like a complete farce. If I cannot find more examples of German killing (and I am looking hard), I might actually be able to prove that every other major power other than the US was far worse. My preliminary study of what amounts to a bonanza of death, allows me to understand why Hitler was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. I did not expect it to be this extreme.

By the way, Fact 2 is not a fact.

Sources:

Dollinger, Schwarzbuch der Weltgeschichte (1999).
Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners (1996).
http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%207001.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/delta/dominican1937.htm

 

[senojekips]

Cut and pasted from:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/facts.html
Yes, your 5 year old nephew could do better I'm sure.

TRIGGER OF THE WAR

Hitler's revenge for Germany's defeat of 1918 brought about the cataclysm that was Europe between 1939 and 1945. The incident which triggered World War II was the fake, simulated attack by the Germans on their own radio station near Gleiwitz on the Polish border. To make it appear that the attacking force consisted of Poles, SS officer Alfred Naujocks secured some condemned German criminals from a nearby concentration (protective custody) camp and dressed them in Polish uniforms before being shot and their bodies placed in strategic positions around the radio station. A Polish-speaking German then did a broadcast from the station to make it appear that Poland had attacked first.
On January 26, 1934, Germany and Poland signed a ten year non-aggression pact but the Gleiwitz incident gave Hitler the excuse he needed to invade Poland, which he did on September 1, 1939, an act which was to develop into a war embracing almost the entire world and causing the deaths of some 55,014,000 persons, military and civilians. About 85 million men and women of all nationalities served as combatants in this, the world's first total war, in which more than twice as many civilians died than did uniformed soldiers. Three days later in Britain, one and a half million civilians were successfully evacuated from the largest cities into the country. Also on this day, Britain, France, India, Australia and New Zealand, declared war on Germany. On October 19, 1939, Hitler incorporates the western half of Poland into the German Reich. On September 18, German forces joined up with the Soviet Russian forces which had invaded from the east (In spite of a non-aggression treaty signed on November 27, 1932) and quickly formed plans to divide Poland up between them along the Brest-Litovsk line. Germany obtained an area of around 73,000 square miles, the Russians about 78,000. In its invasion of eastern Poland the Russians lost 737 men. (The campaign in Poland cost the Germans 13,111 killed or missing and 27,278 wounded)

Mind you, I'm sure that this was only a harmless joke that went a little too far. Those Nasties always were a fun loving lot weren't they? Protective custody, that's a good little joke, they were protected to death, lucky devils.

I'm sure this doesn't match up with what our learned philosophers think, but I feel that it is certainly a good representative view of the remainder of the worlds population. Yes, I know,.... they are all idiots, but that's the world we live in. I'll cry myself to sleep tonight.

 

[Del Boy]

Del Boy, all you are doing is cutting and pasting quotes from Winston Churchill. My 5 year old nephew could do that. Where is your analysis, where is your argument, where is your conclusion? Is this really the best you can do?

As it happens i have not cut and pasted. Furthermore, I am prersenting the facts,as they occurred, reported on the spot by the man at the heart and with the truest knowledge. These cannot be argued with for they are fact, and straight from the lion's mouth, not retrospective, and confirmed by later events as accurate.

I understand why you find this so difficult, because you wish to ignore the facts and bandy the opinions of those with their own agendas back and forth.

I appreciate that the truth hurts, but I did advise Ollie to let it go. So far I have completely demolished Ollie's theories regarding who was responsible for WW11, wriggle as you will, and that Britain wanted war and was resposible for WW11.

On we go, re-tracing the actual facts as they happened. And I have only just started.

 

[Del Boy]

OLLIE

yOUR LAST POST IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, BECAUSE FACT 1. HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ALL THAT. HUH - SOME DEBATE!

Now, FACT 1 merely set out who was responsible for WW11. Nazi Germany. fact.

Now then - your post seems to attempt to absolve Hilter's evil -ness, about which I haven't even started yet, it will be the last of the 6 Facts dealt with. Was Hitler Evil? You say NO, and only a bit Evil(????), and anyway what about others evil ones (???).
I disagree. I intend establishing once again that Hitler's regime was very, very evil indeed, a cancer which had to be removed for the benfit of the world. A dark shadow on humanity.
Wait for it - it is worth waiting for. Meanwhile it would be nice if you would cut the propoganda and stick to the points.

As Doppleganger says - a five year old can cut and paste form the worldwide net.

 

[Doppleganger]

As it happens i have not cut and pasted. Furthermore, I am prersenting the facts,as they occurred, reported on the spot by the man at the heart and with the truest knowledge. These cannot be argued with for they are fact, and straight from the lion's mouth, not retrospective, and confirmed by later events as accurate.

If you had cut and pasted, perhaps your 'quoted' posts wouldn't have been littered with spelling mistakes.

I understand why you find this so difficult, because you wish to ignore the facts and bandy the opinions of those with their own agendas back and forth.

I don't find it difficult at all. But I do find your debating skills and arguments simplistic and incomprehensible at times.

I appreciate that the truth hurts, but I did advise Ollie to let it go. So far I have completely demolished Ollie's theories regarding who was responsible for WW11, wriggle as you will, and that Britain wanted war and was resposible for WW11.

Sorry, but IMO you haven't even come close to demolishing Ollie's theories.

On we go, re-tracing the actual facts as they happened. And I have only just started.

I'm still awaiting your reply to my answers to your 6 questions..

 

[senojekips]

I don't find it difficult at all. But I do find your debating skills and arguments simplistic and incomprehensible at times.

Yes Del Boy, it is a crime to have a simple explanation, because it gives your detractors no room to wriggle. Ahhh,... our Pseudo intellectuals, (or is that Shoodough) don't they just amaze you with their logic.

Like, accusing you of merely cutting and pasting in one post, then on the next page stating that

If you had cut and pasted, perhaps your 'quoted' posts wouldn't have been littered with spelling mistakes.

Que?..... Get your 5 year old nephew now, you really need him.

 

[Del Boy]

If you had cut and pasted, perhaps your 'quoted' posts wouldn't have been littered with spelling mistakes.



I don't find it difficult at all. But I do find your debating skills and arguments simplistic and incomprehensible at times.



Sorry, but IMO you haven't even come close to demolishing Ollie's theories.



I'm still awaiting your reply to my answers to your 6 questions..

Ooh ! Nice. Lovely stuff. Sorry about the spelling, I'm a top speller, I'd shoot your socks off mate. But I work fast.

I wonder if Adolf spelled better than Winston?

Now then - what about content? You are unable to counter anything. Do you know why? Because it is irrefutable fact, my cut and paste friend.


And if you had read the content, and had the ability to understand it, you would have found the answers to some of your questions already. I have continually pointed you towards this, but you do not pay attention. Wake up at the back - you are merely being the parrot on Ollie's shoulder.


Here's another theory to add to Ollie's file, and it holds up better than his:-



IT WASN’T ME

Who killed Hitler
It wasn’t me
Why do I still get the blame
For everything
In Germany

Who killed Hitler
Someone broke his heart
Someone broke his spirit
Took his lousy world apart

It wasn’t me

I think it was my Uncle Stan
Then the greatest boxing man
In London
He was big and strong
With a great left jab
And he could break
A concrete paving slab
He fought Max Schmelling
Just like Joe Louis did
With the same result
And during the war
In Bethnal Green
He fired an anti-aircraft machine

I think he got him.

Or

Perhaps it was my Uncle Fred
Another great fighter
It has to be said
A naval man he
Served on the Hood
Was sunk in the Thresher
And then with intent
Took affirmative action
To return the compliment.

I guess we got him.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Ooh ! Nice. Lovely stuff. Sorry about the spelling, I'm a top speller, I'd shoot your socks off mate. But I work fast.

I wonder if Adolf spelled better than Winston?

Now then - what about content? You are unable to counter anything. Do you know why? Because it is irrefutable fact, my cut and paste friend.


And if you had read the content, and had the ability to understand it, you would have found the answers to some of your questions already. I have continually pointed you towards this, but you do not pay attention. Wake up at the back - you are merely being the parrot on Ollie's shoulder.


Here's another theory to add to Ollie's file, and it holds up better than his:-



IT WASN’T ME

Who killed Hitler
It wasn’t me
Why do I still get the blame
For everything
In Germany

Who killed Hitler
Someone broke his heart
Someone broke his spirit
Took his lousy world apart

It wasn’t me

I think it was my Uncle Stan
Then the greatest boxing man
In London
He was big and strong
With a great left jab
And he could break
A concrete paving slab
He fought Max Schmelling
Just like Joe Louis did
With the same result
And during the war
In Bethnal Green
He fired an anti-aircraft machine

I think he got him.

Or

Perhaps it was my Uncle Fred
Another great fighter
It has to be said
A naval man he
Served on the Hood
Was sunk in the Thresher
And then with intent
Took affirmative action
To return the compliment.

I guess we got him.

Poetry? Wow.

 

[Doppleganger]

Ooh ! Nice. Lovely stuff. Sorry about the spelling, I'm a top speller, I'd shoot your socks off mate. But I work fast.

I wonder if Adolf spelled better than Winston?

There's nothing wrong with your spelling normally, but your Winston Churchill passages do contain some spelling errors.

Now then - what about content? You are unable to counter anything. Do you know why? Because it is irrefutable fact, my cut and paste friend.

There simply has been nothing to counter. All you've done is quote Winston Churchill and poetry. Anyone can quote text parrot-like, but real debate involves analysis and thinking. Sadly, your posts have been almost devoid of either.

And if you had read the content, and had the ability to understand it, you would have found the answers to some of your questions already. I have continually pointed you towards this, but you do not pay attention. Wake up at the back - you are merely being the parrot on Ollie's shoulder.

Sorry Del Boy, but your debating skills on the evidence of this thread are almost non-existent. I suspect you are not prepared to listen to, or enter into, sensible and mature debate so I'm not sure how much point there is in continuing this discussion. You seem unwilling to challenge your long-standing beliefs. Talk about trying to teach an old dog new tricks. I guess it's really true what they say about that after all. A thought-provoking poster comes into this forum and tries to shake things up with sensible and thoughtful arguments and he gets shot down in flames.

No wonder this forum is dead.

 

[Del Boy]

Doppleganger - your only contribution seems to be personal insult poorly applied. You have nothing else to offer. You do not even understand the gist of what we have here. Two Boys from Brazil hoping to promote a re-writing of history and truth. Your personal insults expose the weakness of your case. As for new tricks, you can't even follow here, asking the same question over and over. Just out of your depth I presume.

Neither of you can establish that FACT 1 is in anyway incorrect in content, and it is not possible to deviate from the absolute fact of Hitler's aggression being the cause of the declaration of war.

So what possible complaint can you have ? Clutching at straws springs to mind. Ollie would have us believe that Churchill's fatness was the reason.

FACT 2 dismisses, with its continuing theme, Ollie's claim that Britain wanted WW11, and was responsible for WW11. That award falls to Hitler.
FACT 2 also goes some way to exonerating USA as the prime culprit. More on that.

The pity for Ollie's case is that the facts remain clear and available, that the Hitler regime's fingerprints are all over the evidence.

You two Boys from Brazil remind me of the story of the Christian buried up to his neck in the Roman arena, only his head showing. The lion is released, and rushes at the head. The crowd roars. The lion leaps. The head leans to the left and the lion sails past. The crowd is silenced. The lion rushes again. The crowd cheers. The head leans to the right and the lion misses again. The crowd is hushed once more. The angry lion hurtles forward again and springs. The crowd roars. The head leans backwards the lion sails over the top. As he does so, the head reaches up and bites the lion's ball off.

The crowd erupts in fury and the chant goes up.. 'Boo - Boo -- Boo - Play fair.'

Well Boys, you can't expect an easy ride for your old toffee. LOTS TO COME - I'VE ONLY JUST STARTED. MORE NEW TRICKS COMING UP.

WATCH FOR FACT 3.



COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Doppleganger]

Doppleganger - your only contribution seems to be personal insult poorly applied.

Your personal insults expose the weakness of your case.

Please point out to me where I have personally insulted you. I've given my opinion about your debating skills, or lack thereof, and your unwillingness to listen to new ideas and challenge long-held beliefs. I am amazed that anything I have said on this thread could be taken as a personal insult to you.

Anyway, consider this my last reply to you. I have better things to do with my time than argue with someone who clearly is unwilling, or perhaps unable, to listen and accept new ideas.

All the best.

 

[Del Boy]

Doppleganger.

Spelling? Agism? incomprehensibility? etc., Noted but wasted. It is good that you are withdrawing from this one. It is not a worthy project, as it is crudely said - trying to polish a turd; it can't be done. You will surely have better vehicles. I advised Ollie from the start not to go there. It is still too fresh in human memory, the evidence is still held.

The regime you wish to put in a better light remains one that demeans the memory of Germany and Germany has put it behind . We all know of the efforts of their soldiers and armies, and these are not in dispute. At the horrific battle for Monte Casino, I had relatives on both sides. I have no axe to grind with modern Germany, but I sympathise with the current Polish leader regarding the recent history.

I believe you and Ollie are attempting to defend the indefensible, and if push comes to shove, it gets more and more hurtful. As I said to Ollie - let it lie, the die was cast many moons ago.

Your last sentence almost has it in a nut-shell. |I am not unable, but I AM unwilling, to accept this idea. And it is not new, by the way. It is more a case of flogging a dead horse.

All the best to you too. No hard feelings. And look upon the poem as a spelling test.