Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Childlike Empress said:
No problem. After we've solved this, here's your list so far:

RAF

Mönchengladbach May 11./12. 1940.

Germans

Wieluń September 1st 1939.
Click to expand...

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieluń

1200 people killed.

Während sich in deutschen Aufzeichnungen eine polnische Kavalleriedivision als Angriffsziel findet, gibt es Vermutungen, der wahre Grund sei ein Experiment zur Zerstörung von Städten durch den Einsatz von zunächst Spreng- und Brandbomben gewesen.

Again, the exercise here is not to free the Germans of all possible blame, but rather to follow Buchanan and destroy the myth of the Good War. We are interested in the big picture, like that the Germans dropped on Britain only a 5% of what the Anglos dropped on Germany.
 
Last edited:
Again, the exercise here is not to free the Germans of all possible blame, but rather to follow Buchanan and destroy the myth of the Good War. We are interested in the big picture, like that the Germans dropped on Britain only a 5% of what the Anglos dropped on Germany.
Click to expand...

Well then they should have thought twice before they bombed British Cities.

What did they think? we would just let them get on with it? Why is it the fault of the ALlies that th Germans couldn't build enough bombs?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Well then they should have thought twice before they bombed British Cities.
What did they think? we would just let them get on with it? Why is it the fault of the ALlies that th Germans couldn't build enough bombs?
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. In the German-British conflict it was the British who declared war and started bombing (as soon as Churchill came to power).
 
About Wielun, her is a German account of the events by Dr. Hoog:

http://www.jf-archiv.de/archiv04/404yy50.htm

The article is about a biased account of the Wielun attack as presented by the ZDF (sort of German BBC) on August 31, 2004. The ZDF presented the attack as terrorist. This article defends the position that the attack had been carried out in accordance of the rules of Kriegsrecht. The article defends the thesis that the attack was a taktischer Luftangriff im Frontbereich (tactical air assault within the range of the front). According to this article strong Polish armee units were in Wielun and therefor the attack was justified.

About Dr. Hoog: leitender wissenschaftlicher Direktor des Militaergeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes in Freiburg. Er ist Herausgeber der Baende "Luftkriegfuehrung im Zweiten Weltkrieg"

Wielun as Terror bombing event exit.

Next.
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
Conveniently forgetting that Poland was Britain's ally.
Click to expand...

You have no reason to assume that I had forgotten that.

Interesting enough Britain was an ally already on september 1, 1939, but did nothing to protect Poland accept declaring (a toothless Phoney) war.

It was under Churchill that the bombing on Germany began. Why was that?

Oh, and Germany and the USSR both invaded Poland and divided it amongst them.

Britain declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland.

Fair enough.

But: Britain did not declare war on the USSR. And not only that, Britain also allied themselves with the USSR against Germany and after the war handed over Poland (and the rest of Eastern Europe) to the Soviets without a peep of protest. General Patton even offered to go after the Soviets and kick them out of Europe. But the Anglo establishment stopped Patton, who slowly gained sympathy for the Germans and started to hate the barbaric Soviets he was stuck with. He started to write to his wife about these 'semitic policies' and in the end got likely murdered over his resistance against Washington.

Conclusion: Britain under Chamberlain blundered itself into the war after giving Poland a blanc cheque that they could do what they wanted, Britain would 'help' anyway, an empty promise as later turned out. After Churchill came to power it was not about Poland any longer but about the destruction of Germany as desired by Churchill's Jewish pay masters, Germany a country that temporarily had escaped from the Jewish grip after the Jews were (in the process of being) kicked out. Buchanan argues that Britain should have put pressure on the Poles to give in to German demands on the Danzig issue.

P.S. from the same IHR link:

By the end of the war Patton was expressing serious doubts about the results of the conflict. In a letter to his wife, he confessed: "Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race and we [are] about to replace them with Mongolian savages." And in another letter, Patton admitted: "The stuff in the papers about fraternization is all wet... All that sort of writing is done by Jews to get revenge. Actually, the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe... I prefer the Germans. So do our cousins [the British]."... Patton and Montgomery considered the Soviets to be a serious menace. Both felt it best to carry the war into Russia in 1945, while the Anglo-American ground and air forces were mobilized and on the Continent, rather than wait for some crisis to emerge in the future. Patton was confident that he could be in Moscow within months.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
Only a miserable character from rainy pest hole Hull-England can come up with these tactics of hitting under the belt in this way. But we all know how they are, either:
a) throw as many bombs as possible on children from 10 km altitude.
Click to expand...


The RAF was driven to area bombing at night because daylight bombing was too costly in terms of aircraft and crews, and because, contrary to pre-war expectations, bombing accurately at night was proving incredibly difficult. Finding even the proper city at nighttime was no easy task, let alone hitting anything specific inside of it.

Quoting from The Crucible of War 1939-1945 by Brereton Greenhous, Stephen J. Harris, William C. Johnston, and William G.P. Rawling (emphasis added):

The case for area bombing was confirmed by the findings of D.M. Butt, a civilian member of the War Cabinet staff whose report on Bomber Command's operations, presented in August 1941, became a seminal document in the evolution of bombing strategy. Examining aerial photographs triggered by bomb releases on the hundred-odd raids mounted between 2 June and 25 July, Butt concluded that on average no more than one sortie in five bombed within five miles of the correct target, while over the Ruhr on dark or cloudy nights perhaps only one bomber in ten got within five miles of the objective. Industrial haze — smog — was the major culprit in the Ruhr's especially disheartening statistics. Not yet a true conurbation, the major cities in the valley were nevertheless close to each other and they shared several confusing characteristics. Belching forth smoke and well protected by Flak, all were railway towns bordering rivers or canals. Given any combination of cloud, darkness, fatigue, fear, and navigation error, as well as the understandable inclination of bomber crews to believe they were where they were supposed to be, one city could easily be mistaken for another.
Click to expand...


In the aftermath of the report the introduction of better bombsights, electronic navigation aids, the Pathfinders, and Master Bombers would all slowly raise the ability of Bomber Command to find the correct objective and hit it with some degree of effectiveness. But hitting the correct area was all that was ever expected of nighttime bombing. (Though, by 1945, it was actually capable of doing considerably better than that in many cases.)
 
dudalb said:
The annexatation was a disaster for Germany. Bismarck was right in having very grave doubts about it. It ensured that relations between France and Germany would be poisoned.
Click to expand...

Germany never had the problems with Alsace-Lorraine that Russia had with the Poles or the Ukrainains or that Austria-Hungary had with the Czechs, Italians, Croats, etc within their boundaries. There were minor incidents but nothing along the lines of the near open rebellion in Eastern Europe.

Has NEI yet explained why the Germans felt France couldn't be defeated directly in 1914 instead of by wheeling through a neutral country their own princely ancestors had co-guaranteed? How about any cites establishing Bethmann-Hollweg's "surprise" at the strong British response to the violation of Belgium's neutrality?
 
9/11-investigator said:
We are interested in the big picture, like that the Germans dropped on Britain only a 5% of what the Anglos dropped on Germany.
Click to expand...


Yes, because Germany never developed a long-range heavy bomber force. It's a little hard to do strategic bombing if you don't develop a four-engined heavy bomber to do the job and then build enough of them to carry it out.

Given this, it should hardly be surprising to anyone that the Allies delievered far more tonnage of bombs onto Germany than Germany did onto Britain. The Allies had the means to do so and used them; Germany lacked the means and thus could not. The result lies entirely at the feet of the German leadership.
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
Germany never had the problems with Alsace-Lorraine that Russia had with the Poles or the Ukrainains or that Austria-Hungary had with the Czechs, Italians, Croats, etc within their boundaries. There were minor incidents but nothing along the lines of the near open rebellion in Eastern Europe.

Has NEI yet explained why the Germans felt France couldn't be defeated directly in 1914 instead of by wheeling through a neutral country their own princely ancestors had co-guaranteed? How about any cites establishing Bethmann-Hollweg's "surprise" at the strong British response to the violation of Belgium's neutrality?
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the real problem was not the reaction of the Alsatians, but the bitterness over the annexatation that France had.A
As to the second, easy.
Germany felt it needed a quick win in the West,out of fear of "The Russian Steam Roller" in the East. (The basic planning assumption the Germans had was that any major war in Europe would be a Two Front War.) The Prussians who basically ran Germany were more then a little paranoid about "The Slavic Threat". They wanted the units to be used in the West to be transferred to the East as fast as possible, and they felt going through Belgium would be the quickest way to Victory.
And many high in the German Government felt to the last minute the Although Britian might scream and yell, they would not actually go to war with "A Brother Nation" over Belgium. They did not relize how much Germany's Naval Ambitions had alienated England, and that the general pro German outlook that Victorian England had had cooled enromously.
The Irony is ,of course, that the Russians proved to be much more incompetent then the Germans were expecting, and the French and British much tougher. They was no panic after the initial German Breakthrough at the border the way their had been in 1870.
 
Interesting enough Britain was an ally already on september 1, 1939, but did nothing to protect Poland accept declaring (a toothless Phoney) war.
Click to expand...
What was Britain supposed to do try and move the British army to Poland? How was Britain to come to the direct aid of Poland until it had mobilised? What would you have done if you were the British C in C to directly give military aid to Poland?

after giving Poland a blanc cheque that they could do what they wanted
Click to expand...
??

What does this even mean? a blank cheque to do what exactly? Get invaded?

As for Patton being Murdered after he 'started to write to his wife about these 'semitic policies''

Where did you get that bit of lunacy? I thought the conspiracy of choice was the OSS had him killed because he was going to expose Eisenhower as ordering him not to close the 'Falaise Gap;' and deliberately let the encircled Germans to escape. Others claim it was the Russians who killed him because he wason Stalins 'death list'.

All equaly barking mad of course.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
The Irony is ,of course, that the Russians proved to be much more incompetent then the Germans were expecting, and the French and British much tougher. They was no panic after the initial German Breakthrough at the border the way their had been in 1870.
Click to expand...

Pretty close to what I'm driving at. There was no need for Germany to violate Belgium's neutrality. The French government may have privately fumed about Alsace-Lorraine but the people who lived there didn't chafe under the Germans as the Eastern European minorities did under all three "empires". Schools in the region offered classes in either French or German.

It was Bebel and not Bismarck who objected to the inclusion of Alsace-Lorraine into the German Empire.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Yes, because Germany never developed a long-range heavy bomber force. It's a little hard to do strategic bombing if you don't develop a four-engined heavy bomber to do the job and then build enough of them to carry it out.

Given this, it should hardly be surprising to anyone that the Allies delievered far more tonnage of bombs onto Germany than Germany did onto Britain. The Allies had the means to do so and used them; Germany lacked the means and thus could not. The result lies entirely at the feet of the German leadership.
Click to expand...

I am shocked!

I thought that these Germans liked killing and what better means of safely killing other people is there than heavy bombers?

Are you saying that in reality it were the allies specialized in mass killing?

I am amazed, my world is upside down!

P.S. slowly Corsair is morphing into an asset for my case.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
What was Britain supposed to do try and move the British army to Poland? How was Britain to come to the direct aid of Poland until it had mobilised? What would you have done if you were the British C in C to directly give military aid to Poland?

??

What does this even mean? a blank cheque to do what exactly? Get invaded?
Click to expand...

This is the central argument of Buchanan's book: the British should never have given a garantee to the Poles that they would come to their aid regardless of what the Poles would do. That was their huge blunder. Britain should have applied pressure on the Poles instead to give in to the reasonable demands of Hitler.

As for Patton being Murdered after he 'started to write to his wife about these 'semitic policies''

Where did you get that bit of lunacy? I thought the conspiracy of choice was the OSS had him killed because he was going to expose Eisenhower as ordering him not to close the 'Falaise Gap;' and deliberately let the encircled Germans to escape. Others claim it was the Russians who killed him because he wason Stalins 'death list'.

All equaly barking mad of course.
Click to expand...

There never was a label found tied to Patton's left large toe as what precisely the motives were of the killers (if any). I never said that Patton got killed for the letters to his wife. The killing idea is a consequence of the suspicious circumstances of his death and the fact that he was a pain in the neck for people like Eisenhower. Patton was too nice for the Germans to the liking of the very 'semitic' Washington (Morgenthau etc.).

Telegraph.co.uk

But after a decade-long investigation, military historian Robert Wilcox claims that OSS head General "Wild Bill" Donovan ordered a highly decorated marksman called Douglas Bazata to silence Patton, who gloried in the nickname "Old Blood and Guts".
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
What was Britain supposed to do try and move the British army to Poland? How was Britain to come to the direct aid of Poland until it had mobilised? What would you have done if you were the British C in C to directly give military aid to Poland?

??

What does this even mean? a blank cheque to do what exactly? Get invaded?

As for Patton being Murdered after he 'started to write to his wife about these 'semitic policies''

Where did you get that bit of lunacy? I thought the conspiracy of choice was the OSS had him killed because he was going to expose Eisenhower as ordering him not to close the 'Falaise Gap;' and deliberately let the encircled Germans to escape. Others claim it was the Russians who killed him because he wason Stalins 'death list'.

All equaly barking mad of course.
Click to expand...


They made a crappy movie called "Brass Target" that claimed Patton was murdered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Target

And yes, the film is as stupid and lousy as it sounds.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
I am shocked!

I thought that these Germans liked killing and what better means of safely killing other people is there than heavy bombers?

Are you saying that in reality it were the allies specialized in mass killing
Click to expand...

While your efforts to suggest that the Allied Bombing Campaign was purely designed for killing are rather laughable, there is one key difference.

Allied Bombing was there to knock Germany out of the war. War is indeed hell, and involves killing people, sometimes a lot of them, while Nazi Crimes were committed purely to exterminate races they viewed as inferior, and pursued those acts to the detriment of the war effort.

Oh, and we're proud of the rain up here. It makes us hardy folk. And if you really think we'd support Argentina, you're even more ignorant of history then we first realised.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom