Who started both World Wars?

[Corsair 115]

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...

Germany was certainly doomed as soon as it declared war on the United States. The production capacity of the U.S. was simply enormous, and its economy was safe from the kinds of aerial assaults that plagued German industry. Only the U.S. had sufficient spare capacity that it could not only supply its own forces waging war in two different theatres, it could not also supply copious amounts of material to its allies, but it could spend huge amounts of resources on programs that were far from certain (e.g. the Manhattan Project). And the atomic bomb was a war-winning weapon.

Germany was likely doomed as soon as it invaded Russia. Russia too had a large economic capacity for waging war, and even without direct U.S. efforts against Germany, Russia would have defeated the Third Reich on its own, though it probably would have taken until 1947 or so.

causing a delay of Barbarossa of a few months, time they could have used in reaching Moscow before the onset of the winter...

Given how vastly overconfident and hugely unprepared Germany was for the realities of invading Russia, that is unlikely. Germany paid little attention to the logistical problems posed by its Russian invasion, and never made any contingency provisions if everything didn't go exactly according to plan. Moreover, the weather conditions in May of 1941 were less than favourable, with a quite wet spring in western Russia rendering many of the roads effectively impassable, so it is unlikely the Germans could have invaded then even if they had wanted to. June was consequently always the more reasonable launching date.

 

[randman]

Why do you include this?

Hitler should be viewed as a normal politician rather than the subject of utter demonization

You think his rounding up Jews was something a "normal politician" does?

 

[Corsair 115]

OK, thanks. Finally some content from my opponents.

Which is more than we can say for you.

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?

What you don't seem to understand is that intentions are often shaped by, and respond to, operational, technological, or logistical considerations. This is a hugely important point. Bomber Command resorted to area night attacks because they were driven to it by operational and technological limitations.

The RAF tried to hit factories and other specific military targets early in the war—but that involved flying in daylight without fighter escort. The result was large losses which made the effort unsustainable. So the change is made to flying at night. Only now the problems of navigation and sighting the target come to the fore. Contrary to prewar expectation, finding even entire cities, let alone specific installations within them, proved to be extraordinarily difficult at night. So while many raids are conducted, most aren't even getting within five miles of where they were supposes to be. Which clearly means hitting specific installations is now off the table.

So, the emphasis switches to bombing areas, with the idea being that some of the damage done in that area will be to important installations within the area, along with general economic dislocation and disruption caused to the area. To ensure a sufficient weight of bombs that will do enough damage to make the effort worthwhile, the emphasis switches to four-engined heavy bombers.

And thus we end up with Bomber Command turned into a striking force designed primarily to hammer cities. (Aided in no small measure, it should be noted, by having a commander-in-chief who disdained the idea that 'precision' attacks could ever achieve the disruptive effects on German war industries that the economic experts predicted.)



In terms of specific operational strength of Bomber Command, for those others in this thread who may be interested, I came across the following figures in one of the books I have on hand. You know, the sort of thing 9/11-investigator apparently has little regard for—books.

On March 27, 1941, Bomber Command had 810 operational bombers. Of those, 218 were light bombers, 512 were medium bombers, and 80 were heavy bombers. On March 6, 1942, it had 767 operational bombers. By type it was 91 light, 509 medium, and 167 heavy. On Sept. 15, 1942, there were 563 operational bombers: 65 light, 163 medium, and 335 heavy. On Feb. 4, 1943, it had 1,091 operational bombers. This consisted of 95 light, 354 medium, and 642 heavy.

So, it took almost a year to double its complement of heavy bombers from 80 to 167. It took another six months to double the number again to 335. Four and a half months after that the number had nearly doubled once more. Thus one could argue quite reasonably that Bomber Command didn't become a potent striking force until 1943.

 

[dafydd]

Why do you include this?



You think his rounding up Jews was something a "normal politician" does?

In Nein's warped world,yes. He'd love to do some rounding up himself.

 

[Craig4]

.
No, a closer metaphor would be C4 and his friends tell niner's uncle Dolphie that he'd better not rape their sister and friend, which zie had been saying for years zie would do.


Dolphie assumes that they are mostly bluster, so goes ahead and does it, because zie once bought her dinner and a movie (so she "owes zie"), and since their grandparents had once been friends, and zie had gotten zir buddies to threaten the grandparents if they didn't agree to the rape.


C4 and his friends beat the cr*p out of niner, but not before Dolphie kills close to 6 million of her friends because zie didn't like them.




But then, not only do C4 and his friends take care of all the hospital bills, but made several loans to Dolphie's heirs (since Dolphie took the brave Aryan Warrior solution) to get them back on their feet on their promise not to do it again.


But niner is still j*cking off to thoughts of raping C4's lil cousin and all her lil friends because, after all -- they's just girls, and everyone knows they's only good for one thing...
.

Failure to grasp some basic concepts, typical for the Nazi. The girl in his scenario didn't seek the fight. The Nazis did.

 

[Craig4]

Germany was certainly doomed as soon as it declared war on the United States. The production capacity of the U.S. was simply enormous, and its economy was safe from the kinds of aerial assaults that plagued German industry. Only the U.S. had sufficient spare capacity that it could not only supply its own forces waging war in two different theatres, it could not also supply copious amounts of material to its allies, but it could spend huge amounts of resources on programs that were far from certain (e.g. the Manhattan Project). And the atomic bomb was a war-winning weapon.

Germany was likely doomed as soon as it invaded Russia. Russia too had a large economic capacity for waging war, and even without direct U.S. efforts against Germany, Russia would have defeated the Third Reich on its own, though it probably would have taken until 1947 or so.





Given how vastly overconfident and hugely unprepared Germany was for the realities of invading Russia, that is unlikely. Germany paid little attention to the logistical problems posed by its Russian invasion, and never made any contingency provisions if everything didn't go exactly according to plan. Moreover, the weather conditions in May of 1941 were less than favourable, with a quite wet spring in western Russia rendering many of the roads effectively impassable, so it is unlikely the Germans could have invaded then even if they had wanted to. June was consequently always the more reasonable launching date.

Should have, could have, would have, didn't. None of the Nazi's rationalizations or excuses matter. All that matters at the end is who is bent to whose will. Such is war. It's why nations should avoid it wherever possible.

 

[SanityGap]

BS.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN04-194004.htm




The actual invasion occured on April 9, so after the British laying mine fields.

We even have a video of the war mongering British laying mines in Norwegian waters.

My opponents have no case when it comes to Norway and thus in the question of who started WW2.

I was actually slightly off, one mine field was layed. But guess what! They were interupted by a German invasion.

"In the event only one minefield was actually laid. As the WS force sailed to its destination on 7th April, German ships were sighted in the Heligoland Bight on passage to Norway and the minelaying off Stadtlandet was cancelled. Early the next day (Monday 8th April 1940, the designated day for the mining to be carried out) Britain informed the Norwegian authorities of their intention to lay the mines inside their territorial waters. Soon after, Force WB carried out its simulated minelay off the Bud headland using oildrums and carried out a patrol of the area to 'warn' shipping of the danger. Force WV to the north of Norway duly carried out its task and laid the minefield in the mouth of Vestfjord. At 5.15 am that morning the Allies broadcast a statement to the world justifying their action and defining the minefield areas. The Norwegian government issued a strong protest and demanded their immediate removal, but by this time the German fleet was already advancing up their coastline and from that point onwards events moved so quickly that the issue of the minefields became largely irrelevant"

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


Edit. A bit more from http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_wilfred.html

"It is sometimes suggested that the German invasion of Norway was launched in response to Operation Wilfred. Although the two operations were indeed first mentioned at about the same time, the German invasion plans were in place well before the British made their move. Detailing planning work had begun in January 1940, the directive authorising the attack had been signed on 7 March, and the invasion date had been set on 2 April. The first German ships left port on 3 April, two days before the Teviot Bank put to sea. "

 

[VonKleist]

Edit. A bit more from http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_wilfred.html

"It is sometimes suggested that the German invasion of Norway was launched in response to Operation Wilfred. Although the two operations were indeed first mentioned at about the same time, the German invasion plans were in place well before the British made their move. Detailing planning work had begun in January 1940, the directive authorising the attack had been signed on 7 March, and the invasion date had been set on 2 April. The first German ships left port on 3 April, two days before the Teviot Bank put to sea. "

It was January 27 1940, that Hitler ordered 'Studie Nord' to be placed under his personal supervision.

The Fuhrer Directive for Weserubung (no. 10a) was issued on March 1, 1940:

1. The development of the situation in Scandinavia requires the making of all preparations for the occupation of Denmark and Norway by a part of the Wehrmacht (Weser Exercise).This operation should prevent British encroachment on Scandinavia and the Baltic. Further it should guarantee our ore base in Sweden and give our Navy and Luftwaffe a wider start-line against Britain. The part which the Navy and the Luftwaffe will have to play, within the limits of their capabilities, is to protect the operation against the interference of British naval and air striking forces.
In view of our military and political power in comparison with that of the Scandinavian States, the force to be employed in Weser Exercise will be kept as small as possible. The numerical weakness will be balanced by daring actions and surprise execution. On principle, we will do our utmost to make the operation appear as a peaceful occupation, the object of which is the military protection of the neutrality of the Scandinavian States. Corresponding demands will be transmitted to the Governments at the beginning of the occupation. If necessary, naval and air demonstrations will provide the necessary emphasis. If, in spite of this, resistance develops, it is to be crushed by all available military means.

Full text of the directive can be viewed HERE. Its on page 831.

 

[Tolls]

Edit. A bit more from http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_wilfred.html

"It is sometimes suggested that the German invasion of Norway was launched in response to Operation Wilfred. Although the two operations were indeed first mentioned at about the same time, the German invasion plans were in place well before the British made their move. Detailing planning work had begun in January 1940, the directive authorising the attack had been signed on 7 March, and the invasion date had been set on 2 April. The first German ships left port on 3 April, two days before the Teviot Bank put to sea. "

I pointed this out last week, yet 911 either missed it or chose to ignore it.
The German invasion set off before the British, so was in no way in reaction to it.

 

[Wroclaw]

I am still waiting for Wroclaw to come with an answer to this post... so he can dig himself even deeper into the ground. There is no way I am groing to 'drop' this subject. Dream on.

I've cited you a well-regarded source on the matter and you refuse to check it.

That means I win.

 

[Wroclaw]

Craig4 and his 5 friends see a girl walking in street

You are truly vile.

 

[dafydd]

You are truly vile.

We already knew that. Odd,because all of my Dutch friends are sane,healthy minded people. Lucky that Nein 11 will never breed.

 

[dafydd]

I've cited you a well-regarded source on the matter and you refuse to check it.

That means I win.

You won from the very first word of this thread.

 

[Tolls]

The thing is, we also have (from garethdjb's post above) it from the Fuhrer himself:

Further it should guarantee our ore base in Sweden and give our Navy and Luftwaffe a wider start-line against Britain.

Now, I admit I got it wrong last week when I thought it was chiefly for the North Sea bases...but I wonder how 911 will explain this away?

 

[Craig4]

You are truly vile.

The Nazi has some confusion owning to his unsophisticated understanding of how the world actually works. The rules for how people in a society interact are different from the way nation states or groups of states interact. In his deviant little scenario the woman is not a nation states. In a state we have an internal security apparatus that protects us. You have a police, courts, justice system there to deter and prevent this scenario. We'll set aside for now why that particular scenario jumped into his head.

When you're a country there is no police force there to protect you. States have militaries and intelligence and security services to protect themselves and keep tabs on other states. A state might steal the secret of a potential adversary or stage an exercise near a disputed border region to warn off an aggressor. Try doing that to your next-door-neighbor. Where we would expect that state to do it we don't expect our citizens to do it to each other.

 

[dafydd]

The thing is, we also have (from garethdjb's post above) it from the Fuhrer himself:


Now, I admit I got it wrong last week when I thought it was chiefly for the North Sea bases...but I wonder how 911 will explain this away?

He'll just change the subject again. The list of questions he still has to answer grows longer.

 

[TSR]

He'll just change the subject again. The list of questions he still has to answer grows longer.

.

You mean these 25 questions?

1. Hans: Where is the text of these 'peace messages' 9/11 says Hitler was putting out early in the war.... Give us the details, the date it was sent by who, to whom and what did it say, full and complete details.

2. Hans: Why did 2.8 to 3.3 million Soviet POWs die in Nazi 'care'? More than 50% against 3.5% of western POW taken by the Nazis?

3. Hans: 9/11 give us your vision of the world in 1946 if the English and French hadn't declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland? What would have happened?

4. Hans: So why didn’t all the horribly terrible countries that wanted to attack Germany not do so? Why didn’t Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Britain and France just all attack in 1933, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 or 39 -- why sit there and wait for Germany to attack them?

5. TSR: Prove a single lie from the *judgments* at Nuremberg.

6. TSR: Prove that Poland fought wars with *all* of its neighbors for expansion post WWI.

7. TSR: Where in the document which you cited is the word "lebenstraum" even mentioned?

8. TSR: And what did Bullitt say to Cordell Hull in '36 and why?

9. TSR: What evidence does Suvorov cite in his book(s)?

10. TSR: What, specifically, did each of those tens of thousands you admit were shot "in the East" do to deserve being shot?

11. TSR: What does this from your own source do to your citation of Stefan Scheil as authority?

Dabei ignoriere Scheil folgende Tatsachen:
die Hoßbach-Niederschrift vom November 1937, nach der Hitler den Krieg gegen Polen angestrebt und für unvermeidbar erklärt hat,
Hitlers Kriegskurs seit dem Münchner Abkommen 1938,
unannehmbare Forderungen des NS-Regimes an Polen, so dass dessen Regierung eine gegenseitige Grenzgarantie im März 1939 ablehnte,
die „bewusst eskalierten Spannungen mit Polen im Sommer 1939“,
dass die Wehrmacht seit Juni 1939 angriffsbereit war,
dass die „teilweise martialischen Töne“ in Polen bedeutungslos waren, weil den Deutschen ihre reale militärisch-technische Überlegenheit klar war,
Hitlers Rede am 22. August 1939 vor Wehrmachtsgenerälen, in der er zur Zerschlagung Polens und Vernichtung seiner Führungsschicht aufrief und kein Eingreifen der westlichen Bündnispartner Polens erwartete,
dass Stalin Hitler mit dem Hitler-Stalin-Pakt nicht zum Krieg gegen Polen drängte, sondern dessen Angriffswillen für eigene gefahrlose Gebietsgewinne nutzte.

12. TSR: In what way am *I*, personally, an enemy of Europe?

13. dafydd: What were Anne Frank's crimes?. Was she a spy, did she blow up any airfields, was she involved in a plot to kill Hitler? Why did the Nazis murder her?

14. TSR: What 'certain topics', relevant to the defense of the Nazis, were forbidden at the IMT?

15. TSR: What proof do you have theat the Polish, pre WWII, 'dreamed of marching on Berlin'?

16. TSR: What evidence do you offer that all 25k+ children mentioned just in the Jäger report alone were partisans engaged in atrocities?

17. Kevin.Silbstedt: Why would they according to this document need to cremate 4756 bodies in 24 hours at Auschwitz-Birkenau?

18. Kevin.Silbstedt: Why would according to this document Leichenkeller I of the Krematorium III need a gas tight door (=gasdichte Tür) AND 14 shower heads (=Brausen)? Quite an amazing coincedence that eyewitnesses and perpetrators discribed the shower heads as installations to fool the victims, isn't it? What's your explanation for that?

19. Kevin.Silbstedt: If all the witnesses (like Henryk Tauber) and perpetrators (like Josef Erber) are just liars, why do the four wire net Zyklon B introduction columns appear on this document as "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtungen" together with their wooden covers (=Holzblenden)?

20. Kevin.Silbstedt: A study by the Institute of Forensic Research in Cracow find cyanide traces in the walls -- why would you need a delousing chamber in a crematory?

21. Kevin.Silbstedt: Why would Karl Bischoff call one of the "Leichenkeller" of Krematorium II a "Vergasungskeller" (=gassing cellar), if the nazis were such great people, that they didn't have to "vergasen" (=gas) anyone?

22. Kevin.Silbstedt: Why does a letter of Erhard Wetzel also speak of such installations? (first page, second page)

23. Kevin.Silbstedt: Why would they according to this document need to to PREheat (=vorwärmen) Leichenkeller I of Krematorium II and III? And "pre" what?

24. Kevin.Silbstedt: If the "Leichenkeller I" of the Kreamtorium II and III weren't gas chambers for extermination, then what the hell was their function? They had shower heads, gas tight doors, a ventilation system, were supposed to be be preheated and so on. Oh and don't fantasize here, proof your claims with evidence like eyewitness accounts, documents, forensic studies or whatever.

25. garethdjb: When was the Fuhrer Directive for Weserubung (no. 10a) issued, and what does this mean for your lies about the invasion of Norway?

25 questions -- zero answers from niner.
.

 

[dafydd]

Nein,will you answer the following questions please.

1. Hans: Where is the text of these 'peace messages' 9/11 says Hitler was putting out early in the war.... Give us the details, the date it was sent by who, to whom and what did it say, full and complete details.

2. Hans: Why did 2.8 to 3.3 million Soviet POWs die in Nazi 'care'? More than 50% against 3.5% of western POW taken by the Nazis?

3. Hans: 9/11 give us your vision of the world in 1946 if the English and French hadn't declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland? What would have happened?

4. Hans: So why didn’t all the horribly terrible countries that wanted to attack Germany not do so? Why didn’t Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Britain and France just all attack in 1933, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 or 39 -- why sit there and wait for Germany to attack them?

5. TSR: Prove a single lie from the *judgments* at Nuremberg.

6. TSR: Prove that Poland fought wars with *all* of its neighbors for expansion post WWI.

7. TSR: Where in the document which you cited is the word "lebenstraum" even mentioned?

8. TSR: And what did Bullitt say to Cordell Hull in '36 and why?

9. TSR: What evidence does Suvorov cite in his book(s)?

10. TSR: What, specifically, did each of those tens of thousands you admit were shot "in the East" do to deserve being shot?

11. TSR: What does this from your own source do to your citation of Stefan Scheil as authority?

Dabei ignoriere Scheil folgende Tatsachen:
die Hoßbach-Niederschrift vom November 1937, nach der Hitler den Krieg gegen Polen angestrebt und für unvermeidbar erklärt hat,
Hitlers Kriegskurs seit dem Münchner Abkommen 1938,
unannehmbare Forderungen des NS-Regimes an Polen, so dass dessen Regierung eine gegenseitige Grenzgarantie im März 1939 ablehnte,
die „bewusst eskalierten Spannungen mit Polen im Sommer 1939“,
dass die Wehrmacht seit Juni 1939 angriffsbereit war,
dass die „teilweise martialischen Töne“ in Polen bedeutungslos waren, weil den Deutschen ihre reale militärisch-technische Überlegenheit klar war,
Hitlers Rede am 22. August 1939 vor Wehrmachtsgenerälen, in der er zur Zerschlagung Polens und Vernichtung seiner Führungsschicht aufrief und kein Eingreifen der westlichen Bündnispartner Polens erwartete,
dass Stalin Hitler mit dem Hitler-Stalin-Pakt nicht zum Krieg gegen Polen drängte, sondern dessen Angriffswillen für eigene gefahrlose Gebietsgewinne nutzte.

12. TSR: In what way am *I*, personally, an enemy of Europe?

13. dafydd: What were Anne Frank's crimes?. Was she a spy, did she blow up any airfields, was she involved in a plot to kill Hitler? Why did the Nazis murder her?

14. TSR: What 'certain topics', relevant to the defense of the Nazis, were forbidden at the IMT?

15. TSR: What proof do you have theat the Polish, pre WWII, 'dreamed of marching on Berlin'?

16. TSR: What evidence do you offer that all 25k+ children mentioned just in the Jäger report alone were partisans engaged in atrocities?

17. Kevin.Silbstedt: Why would they according to this document need to cremate 4756 bodies in 24 hours at Auschwitz-Birkenau?

18. Kevin.Silbstedt: Why would according to this document Leichenkeller I of the Krematorium III need a gas tight door (=gasdichte Tür) AND 14 shower heads (=Brausen)? Quite an amazing coincedence that eyewitnesses and perpetrators discribed the shower heads as installations to fool the victims, isn't it? What's your explanation for that?

19. Kevin.Silbstedt: If all the witnesses (like Henryk Tauber) and perpetrators (like Josef Erber) are just liars, why do the four wire net Zyklon B introduction columns appear on this document as "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtungen" together with their wooden covers (=Holzblenden)?

20. Kevin.Silbstedt: A study by the Institute of Forensic Research in Cracow find cyanide traces in the walls -- why would you need a delousing chamber in a crematory?

21. Kevin.Silbstedt: Why would Karl Bischoff call one of the "Leichenkeller" of Krematorium II a "Vergasungskeller" (=gassing cellar), if the nazis were such great people, that they didn't have to "vergasen" (=gas) anyone?

22. Kevin.Silbstedt: Why does a letter of Erhard Wetzel also speak of such installations? (first page, second page)

23. Kevin.Silbstedt: Why would they according to this document need to to PREheat (=vorwärmen) Leichenkeller I of Krematorium II and III? And "pre" what?

24. Kevin.Silbstedt: If the "Leichenkeller I" of the Kreamtorium II and III weren't gas chambers for extermination, then what the hell was their function? They had shower heads, gas tight doors, a ventilation system, were supposed to be be preheated and so on. Oh and don't fantasize here, proof your claims with evidence like eyewitness accounts, documents, forensic studies or whatever.

25. garethdjb: When was the Fuhrer Directive for Weserubung (no. 10a) issued, and what does this mean for your lies about the invasion of Norway?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Failure to grasp some basic concepts, typical for the Nazi. The girl in his scenario didn't seek the fight. The Nazis did.

No they did not.

Neither in the Danzig issue, nor in the Norwegian campaign, nor in the invasion of Western Europe, nor on the Balkans and nor in Russia.

Again, it was Britain and France that declared war on Germany, for the simple reason they they wanted a rollback to the Versailles situation; they did not accept the existence of Germany.

Russia wanted to Bolshevize Europe ever since these criminals came into existence. Molotov understood that Germany was cornered and decided to exploit the situation by demanding nothing less than a strategic capitulation of Germany; they wanted all non-German Eastern-Europe, Turkey, Iran and Denmark. Stalin outright provoked Hitler into war. I have already shown earlier with the biography of Molotov, that Molotov gleefully remarked that Hitler had no choice but to attack.

America had been looking to expand it's influence in Europe ever since Roosevelt came to power and he exploited the Polish crisis and lured Japan into an attack against PH to get his war in Europe via the back door.

Read A.J.P. taylor. Or wait, do we have a treat for you!

Read Ralph Raico's Great 'Wars and Great Leaders' (2010).

And if you don't have the money because your house is financially 'under the water' or you frequent the soup kitchens, because your country lost the competition on world markets, we have a (legal) poor man's copy here for you:

http://mises.org/books/great_wars_great_leaders_raico.pdf

Warning, although Raico seemingly is an Anglo he says basically what I have been saying all along here, every sentence of his brilliant essays. In essence, according to Raico, the sadistic criminals Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin won the war. Especially the treatment of Churchill is an eyeopener. I predict that the British in the coming years will not dare to show up in Europe anymore, as they can expect to be randomly beaten; they are going to be the new whipping boys in this century. For them there will be no place in Europe.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I've cited you a well-regarded source on the matter and you refuse to check it.

That means I win.

You have cited nothing. You merely mentioned a book title. And since you refuse to cite anything from it, we can safely assume that there is nothing in it.

so again, do you have anything of substance that makes it plausible that the German motivation for invading Norway was that they wanted a bombing platform against Britain, where I have already shown that Scapa Flow was attacked before the invasion from mainland Germany, proving that they did not need Norway at all to reach any place in Britain and that your cited mini raid against Aberdeen was carried out in 1943, 2 years after the invasion.

So you have no case at all, where I have official British government documents that prove that Britain intended and in fact carried out actions against Germany that justifed military action against Britain.

Now how does it feel to have been exposed as a liar?