Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I want you to consult The Battle of Britain by Hough and Richards, page 111. It describes the mission of Luftflotte 5.
 
R.A.F. said:
You can't even maintain a rational argument, and you have the audacity to try to tell others what they should think?

Boy, you sure have a high opinion of yourself...too bad that same opinion isn't shared by those you talk down to.
Click to expand...

Seriously? The Nazi accused someone of lying???? That's rich.
 
9/11-investigator said:
You somehow doubted that the alllied bombing campaign was in full swing. An said something incoherent about cows...
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is showing (again). I can only assume you've never heard of the D.M. Butt report on Bomber Command's operations, presented in August, 1941. It examined the aerial photographs taken in the wake of about one hundred bombing missions conducted between June 2 and July 25, and found on average only about one sortie in five bombed within five miles of the target. And on missions to the Ruhr that rate dropped to about one sortie in ten bombing within five miles of the target.

In other words, Bomber Command's missions at that time were effectively not much more than a random scattering bombs over Germany. Hence its efforts can be described as being more of a threat to German cows in the pastures than to German civilians and industry.

Moreover, in terms of strength, Bomber Command possessed some 730 operational bombers in July of 1941. Of those only a little over 60 were four-engined heavy bombers; the rest were twin-engined medium bombers or were light bombers. In comparison, by the end of 1943, just under 2½ years later, Bomber Command strength included more than 930 heavy bombers—nearly fifteen times as many.

I suppose if one wants to be overly pedantic one could say Bomber Command's efforts were "in full swing" in 1941. But by any practical measure, an effort which resulted in a low percentage of aircraft getting within five miles of the target and a force which contained only several dozen heavy bombers hardly seems to be representative of something "in full swing" especially when compared to what was the case two years later.


9/11-investigator said:
Refering to dead tree books located on your bookshelf is outright silly on an internet forum.
Click to expand...


I guess that explains why you know so little about so much. One can only wonder what you might have learned had you been aware of those magnificent things called public libraries...
 
Wroclaw said:
I want you to consult The Battle of Britain by Hough and Richards, page 111. It describes the mission of Luftflotte 5.
Click to expand...


In 9/11-investigator's world books don't exist. So the citation will be meaningless to him.
 
Corsair 115 said:
In 9/11-investigator's world books don't exist. So the citation will be meaningless to him.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, he has a PhD in Nazi Studies from Google U. With such eminent qualifications I'm sure the masses are just lining up in the streets to follow him. He'll be more powerful than the Crop Circles Movement.
 
Last edited:
Corsair 115 said:
Your ignorance is showing (again). I can only assume you've never heard of the D.M. Butt report on Bomber Command's operations, presented in August, 1941. It examined the aerial photographs taken in the wake of about one hundred bombing missions conducted between June 2 and July 25, and found on average only about one sortie in five bombed within five miles of the target. And on missions to the Ruhr that rate dropped to about one sortie in ten bombing within five miles of the target.

In other words, Bomber Command's missions at that time were effectively not much more than a random scattering bombs over Germany. Hence its efforts can be described as being more of a threat to German cows in the pastures than to German civilians and industry.

Moreover, in terms of strength, Bomber Command possessed some 730 operational bombers in July of 1941. Of those only a little over 60 were four-engined heavy bombers; the rest were twin-engined medium bombers or were light bombers. In comparison, by the end of 1943, just under 2½ years later, Bomber Command strength included more than 930 heavy bombers—nearly fifteen times as many.

I suppose if one wants to be overly pedantic one could say Bomber Command's efforts were "in full swing" in 1941. But by any practical measure, an effort which resulted in a low percentage of aircraft getting within five miles of the target and a force which contained only several dozen heavy bombers hardly seems to be representative of something "in full swing" especially when compared to what was the case two years later..
Click to expand...

OK, thanks. Finally some content from my opponents. I have no reasons to doubt what you say. The point is that in this thread we are not discussing technical details of the war or battles, but rather intentions. Who started the war? Who wanted the war? The British did not drop these bombs in order to hit nobody or cows, now did they?
 
Last edited:
Wroclaw said:
I want you to consult The Battle of Britain by Hough and Richards, page 111. It describes the mission of Luftflotte 5.
Click to expand...

Lame move by Wroclaw. He knows very well that I likely do not possess that book so he can pretend that he is saved by that book, without telling us what it is in that book that supports his hopeless case, namely that Germany supposedly invaded Norway out of naked agression or wish for territorial gain.

Transparent attempt to postpone his inevitable demise in the Norway discussion.

Wroclaw, against better knowledge, wants to avoid to have to admit that von Ribbentrop was right when he said that Germany was forced to save it's skin by invading Norway, after Britain had started to block essential iron ore shipments from Sweden, via Narvik/Norway to Germany. I have shown many British government documents that the British government intended to block Narvik with the aim of hurting essential German interests. Wroclaw, so far has shown us nothing to support his idiotic claim that the Germans wanted to use Norway as a bombing launchpad. Wroclaw and Ellard tried to underpin their claims by refering to the bombing of Scapa Flow, without checking that that bombing had taken place before the invasion of Norway, proving that Germans did not need Norway at all to bomb Scapa Flow or any British territory for that matter.

Unless Wroclaw is going to tell us what exactly it is on page 111 of his book that he thinks supports his groundless claims about German intentions in respect to Norway, we have to conclude that he failed and implicitly has to admit that vital German interests were hampered by the British and French and that Germany had no choice but to invade Norway to escape early defeat and another Versailles 2.0 punishment, purely and alone for the fact that Germany existed, a fact not liked by French and British. This was the only reason why the French and the British (or Churchill faction rather) were looking for war, both in WW1 and WW2. By clever maneuvering in 1940 as well as through their victor status in 1945 they were able to make it look as if Germany had been behind the invasion of Norway. In reality the Germans were setup by British and French after it had been the British and French who had declared war on Germany after Germany had taken the German town of Danzig back, that had been taken from Germany by the British and French in Versailles.

That's the real story.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

P.S. discussion history:

1. - Wroclaw claims Germans needed Norway as a bombing launchpad in an effort to keep blaming the Germans for the invasion of Norway.
2. - Ellard chimes in in support of Wroclaw.
3. - Ellard now brings in fighters into the Scapa Flow story. So far I have discovered only one German attack on Scapa Flow and that was before the invasion of Norway!
4. - Now even Corsair supports the fuel saving argument (without any documents to back it up that fuel saving was the German motive).
5. - Then Wroclaw refers to the (small scale) bombing of Aberdeen as an illustration why the Germans invaded Norway. Aberdeen was bombed 2 years after the invasion! :D
6. - In a desperate move Wroclaw tries to save his story by claiming that the Narvik blockade was merely an act of war against Norway, not Germany, leaving us puzzled as to what Norway had done against Britain to deserve this treatment (that's where you end up if you try to defend untenable claims; very amusing indeed).
7. - The mess Wroclaw has worked himself into ever expands by dropping the name of a book written by Hough and Richards, without saying how the book saves his argument. If it did he would have told us.

to be continued...
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
after Britain had started to block essential iron ore shipments from Sweden, via Narvik/Norway to Germany. I have shown many British government documents that the British government intended to block Narvik with the aim of hurting essential German interests. ..
Click to expand...

They were at war, that's what happens, counties plan to disrupt the capacity of their enemies.
How is this any different to the sinking of convoys by U-boats?

The fact that the mines were never laid removes the reason you claim for the invasion. The argument of a pre-emptive strike does not hold water.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Your ignorance is showing (again). I can only assume you've never heard of the D.M. Butt report on Bomber Command's operations, presented in August, 1941. It examined the aerial photographs taken in the wake of about one hundred bombing missions conducted between June 2 and July 25, and found on average only about one sortie in five bombed within five miles of the target. And on missions to the Ruhr that rate dropped to about one sortie in ten bombing within five miles of the target.

In other words, Bomber Command's missions at that time were effectively not much more than a random scattering bombs over Germany. Hence its efforts can be described as being more of a threat to German cows in the pastures than to German civilians and industry.

Moreover, in terms of strength, Bomber Command possessed some 730 operational bombers in July of 1941. Of those only a little over 60 were four-engined heavy bombers; the rest were twin-engined medium bombers or were light bombers. In comparison, by the end of 1943, just under 2½ years later, Bomber Command strength included more than 930 heavy bombers—nearly fifteen times as many.

I suppose if one wants to be overly pedantic one could say Bomber Command's efforts were "in full swing" in 1941. But by any practical measure, an effort which resulted in a low percentage of aircraft getting within five miles of the target and a force which contained only several dozen heavy bombers hardly seems to be representative of something "in full swing" especially when compared to what was the case two years later.





I guess that explains why you know so little about so much. One can only wonder what you might have learned had you been aware of those magnificent things called public libraries...
Click to expand...

He had the lack of accuracy explained to him a long way back on his "explaining" of the Holocaust thread. It was in response to his accussation that the allies never bombed the railway lines and german infrastructure at Auschwitz to save the Jews.
I see he has said it again in the same thread! Post #5458
 
Last edited:
SanityGap said:
They were at war, that's what happens, counties plan to disrupt the capacity of their enemies.
How is this any different to the sinking of convoys by U-boats?

The fact that the mines were never laid removes the reason you claim for the invasion. The argument of a pre-emptive strike does not hold water.
Click to expand...

Well you see, it makes it easier to destroy their armies when they can't build tanks and planes and such. It's called winning the war (or to get really technical we call it effecting the enemy centers of gravity (COG) ). If they Nazis didn't like it they should have been better and war than their enemies. As history has shown, the Nazis were inferior to the Allies.
 
Craig4 said:
Well you see, it makes it easier to destroy their armies when they can't build tanks and planes and such. It's called winning the war (or to get really technical we call it effecting the enemy centers of gravity (COG) ).
Click to expand...

Fully agree.

Craig4 said:
If they Nazis didn't like it they should have been better and war than their enemies. As history has shown, the Nazis were inferior to the Allies.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

The Nazis were better at war for a period. They came up with the blitzkrieg tactic and milked it for all it was worth. There is nothing, per se, wrong with this. In a war situation, it is expected that one would use whatever tactical advantages may be available. The difference here is that the whole blitzkrieg notion was based on aggressive invasion of territory in a planned manner.

Blitzkrieg, by it's very definition, implies premeditated invasion of a country or countries who are not actively at war with the instigator.

It is, however, a testament to the effort and ingenuity of the allied forces that they could so quickly shift from their accepted paradigm to the new model of warfare imposed by the nazis.
 
9/11-investigator said:
That's the real story.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

P.S. discussion history:

1. - Wroclaw claims Germans needed Norway as a bombing launchpad in an effort to keep blaming the Germans for the invasion of Norway.
2. - Ellard chimes in in support of Wroclaw.
3. - Ellard now brings in fighters into the Scapa Flow story. So far I have discovered only one German attack on Scapa Flow and that was before the invasion of Norway!
4. - Now even Corsair supports the fuel saving argument (without any documents to back it up that fuel saving was the German motive).
5. - Then Wroclaw refers to the (small scale) bombing of Aberdeen as an illustration why the Germans invaded Norway. Aberdeen was bombed 2 years after the invasion! :D
6. - In a desperate move Wroclaw tries to save his story by claiming that the Narvik blockade was merely an act of war against Norway, not Germany, leaving us puzzled as to what Norway had done against Britain to deserve this treatment (that's where you end up if you try to defend untenable claims; very amusing indeed).
7. - The mess Wroclaw has worked himself into ever expands by dropping the name of a book written by Hough and Richards, without saying how the book saves his argument. If it did he would have told us.

to be continued...
Click to expand...

Wow so you now openly admit you dont read any links you are supplied
 
Craig4 said:
War is the ultimate meritocracy. You don't lose because you're inferior, you're inferior because you lose.
Click to expand...

The outcome of a war is to a large extent determined by the coalitions you are able to construct. Germany probably would have won the war if they had managed to get Spain as an ally [**] (and as a consequence close off the Mediterranian at Gibraltar) rather than these Italian operette fools, the ally from hell, and their incompetent adventurism in Lybia and the Balkans, causing a delay of Barbarossa of a few months, time they could have used in reaching Moscow before the onset of the winter and the arrival of Anglo deliveries to these worst criminals of human history, the Soviets. Barbarossa was the only chance the Germans had in not losing the war in forcing Britain to accept peace and the existence of Germany. The motivation for starting that operation was exactly that and not the acquisition of 'Lebensraum' as the Anglo lie would like to portray it. The defeat of the USSR before the Americans would arrive on the scene would have given the Germans a chance of survival.

[**] - The reason why Spain decided to stay sort of neutral was the result of British diplomacy via it's ambassador in Madrid, Samuel Hoare. The Spanish basically were bought off with food originating from the endless plains of North-America. Hoare btw was sympathetic to a peace with Germany. Scheil on Spain:

p.325 - Franco demanded from Germany grain and other goods if Spain were even to consider war entry on the side of the Axis. Germany could not deliver that and Franco knew it. Spain did not enter the war and for this reason it could expect 400,000 ton of grain from Canada. The Anglosaxon power had easily played out politically there position of strength.
Click to expand...

Had Germany managed to get Spain into the Axis, Britain would not have been able to meddle in Greece and the Balkans and occupation of that area would not have been necessary and would not have happened. And the Axis would have been able to cut-off the Suez canal, cutting off the short route for Britain to India and the ME and the oil.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
The Boyne river is not in Northern Ireland. It is most firmly part of the Irish Republic, i.e. southern Ireland. Is there nothing you can actually get right?
Click to expand...

My dear fellow, Ireland is just as interesting to me as Kazakhstan or Bulgaria. This 'Celtic Tiger' cannot be kept afloat without large financial aid from North-Western Europe.

Just to update you: in the times of King Billy there was no such thing as an Irish Republic.

Although I am sympathetic to the idea to every now and then let my Anglo opponents score a rare point for humanitarian reasons, the Boyne river is clearly in the northern part of Ireland. I am sorry.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom