Who started both World Wars?

[Wroclaw]

Oh, this just keeps getting better.

Kriegsmarine Admiral Alfred Saalwächter led Western Group Command in the North Sea. He presented to the OKM a plan for the occupation of naval bases in Norway — on MARCH 2, 1939!

 

[Wroclaw]

And now Tiny changes the subject, addressing a post from yesterday on Barbarossa.

It's say his goose is thoroughly cooked at this point.

 

[Wroclaw]

Well, gotta run now, but Tiny: I'd be happy to send you the full 27-page document. But first you must admit publicly that you never saw the full version and had posted the summary believing it was the whole thing.

 

[VonKleist]

It is obvious that Garethdjb is not going to risk his forum neck by pretending that the Germans wanted to expand their Lebensraum high up north or use Norway as an usinkable aircraft carrier as the lesser Gods here want to have it. Gareth (who is half Dutch) only mentions iron ore as the motive and shows that the Germans merely responded to agressive actions planned by Churchill.

9/11 Investigator, a Jew, is now making strange claims about Lebensraum and aircraft carriers in regard to the Norway invasion. Given that I was merely replying to Sanitygap's post and correcting the date for the Fuhrer directive, the reaction of 9/11 investigator, a Ugandan, is frankly bizarre. Anyway, the Fuhrer directive is there for 9/11-investigator (who is half Marmoset) to read. Or alternatively find a review on Amazon to read.

On a more serious point, the main issue for the Germans was the ore supply. The plain fact was that it would be much easier for the allies to interrupt that supply by diplomatic means alone. Or rather, the only way for Germany to absolutely guarantee the supply of iron ore was to invade. The invasion became inevitable after the Altmark incident demonstrated that Norway would not, or could not, defend its neutrality.

There was a German concern over a possible allied expeditionary force landing in Norway to support the Finns in the winter war. Such a force would also disrupt Germany's ore supply. Though the allied plan never got past the discussion phase, the press at the time represented such an intervention as a real possibility. By March 12, of course, this possibility had evaporated.

Incidentally, as early as October 10 1939, Admiral Raeder had suggested to the Fuhrer that capturing Norwegian ports, especially Trondheim and Narvik, would be useful to the Kriegsmarine and would enable it to broaden the scope of its operations against the Royal Navy.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Well, what do you know? Vice Admiral Wolfgang Wegener wrote a book in 1929 — 1929! — entitled Sea Strategy in the World War. Here's a taste:

So he suggested one of two options to achieve this. The first was to invade France. Do you wonder what his other suggestion was?

You want to suggest that this Wegener chap was in charge in 1940?

Could somebody please tell Wroclaw that Hitler was in charge and not Wegener, he won't accept it from me.

To the lurkers: I have to explain this lad everything. Maybe that their alleged superintelligence is another hoax and that their sole skill is telling BS stories. It sure looks like it. Anyway, our kosher friend must be rather desperate to dig himself even deeper into his self created mess by resorting to written theories/opinions from 1929 by someone from the 2nd rank.

Keep on trying, 'smartie'!

 

[9/11-investigator]

9/11 Investigator, a Jew, is now making strange claims about Lebensraum and aircraft carriers in regard to the Norway invasion. Given that I was merely replying to Sanitygap's post and correcting the date for the Fuhrer directive, the reaction of 9/11 investigator, a Ugandan, is frankly bizarre. Anyway, the Fuhrer directive is there for 9/11-investigator (who is half Marmoset) to read. Or alternatively find a review on Amazon to read.

On a more serious point, the main issue for the Germans was the ore supply. The plain fact was that it would be much easier for the allies to interrupt that supply by diplomatic means alone. Or rather, the only way for Germany to absolutely guarantee the supply of iron ore was to invade. The invasion became inevitable after the Altmark incident demonstrated that Norway would not, or could not, defend its neutrality.

There was a German concern over a possible allied expeditionary force landing in Norway to support the Finns in the winter war. Such a force would also disrupt Germany's ore supply. Though the allied plan never got past the discussion phase, the press at the time represented such an intervention as a real possibility. By March 12, of course, this possibility had evaporated.

Incidentally, as early as October 10 1939, Admiral Raeder had suggested to the Fuhrer that capturing Norwegian ports, especially Trondheim and Narvik, would be useful to the Kriegsmarine and would enable it to broaden the scope of its operations against the Royal Navy.

Excellent. Exactly what Ribbentrop and I, the 'self-hating Ugandan Jew' (according to Gareth), have been saying all along.

Any comments, Wroclaw?

Give it up pall, you are making a fool of yourself, even more than necessary.

But, but, but... Gareth, I am.... shocked! SHOCKED! I thought that the Germans wanted to conquer ze wurld? Is that not true, after all? And may I ask you an intimate question... Are you a... a... a... Nazi apologist?

 

[Corsair 115]

And no no doubt you would have used, right, just like you complete unnecessary did with Japan?

Are you back to that wholly false statement again? After two atomic bombing and a Russian declaration of war, Japan still had not surrendered. So how again were they unnecessary?

The monsters won WW2, Soviets and Americans. They waged war and were prepared to use any means to conquer Europe...

Unlike Nazi Germany, which conquered Poland, Belgium, France, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete...

No. A hypercentralistic state like the USSR would have been dissolved once it's capital had been conquered.

The problem was that Germany could not have done that with the logistical problems confronting it. You'd have to change the entire start of the operation and the Germans making a far more realistic appraisal of the forces needed. Much of Germany's advance rested upon Soviet incompetence. Even then they held up the Germans long enough.

You portray the planning of the Germans as carelessness, a very un-German trait.

It was careless. The logistics were questionable from the start—with the Russian railways running on a different gauge, this meant either capturing Russian trains in order to transport supplies, or ripping up the Russian rail lines and replace them with German ones. The former was unlikely and the latter was laborious and time-consuming. Russian roads were generally abysmal so moving goods by truck was not much of an option, and Germany did not have anywhere near enough trucks to meet its supply demands anyway.

This result was that Germany's advance were dependent upon the rail lines keeping up and upon horse-drawn carts moving the supplies from the railheads to the units in the field. Contrast that with the 'Red Ball Express' the Western Allies used to keep its forces in Normandy supplied after D-Day which moved as much as 12,500 tons of supplies per day by truck alone.

The Germans convinced themselves of the logistical viability of Barbarossa only by resorting to self-deception: They reduced the estimates of the amount of fuel and ammunition its units would consume during operations and inflated the estimates of what its railways would be able to deliver.

Then there was the size of the force allocated to the invasion: the 150 divisions used at the start of Barbarossa was only fifteen more than had been used against western Europe in May of 1940, and the number of tanks was only about 30% greater. This in spite of the battlefield area being twenty times larger.

Put the inadequate force-to-space ratio together with the logistical nightmares and it's not a recipe for success. What's surprising is not that the Germans were stopped but that they managed to get as far as they did despite the handicaps they faced. Had the Russians been more competent at the start, Barbarossa would have been a disaster for the Reich from the outset. (Hitler should have talked to the Japanese. They knew something about just what kind of tough, determined foe the Russians could be, having been beaten soundly by them in the battles around Khalkin Gol in 1939.)


Incidentally, this was not the first time such delusional planning had been made. The plans for Operation Sea Lion, while never carried out, contained many of the same sort of critical failings and errors seen in the Barbarossa effort.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Are you back to that wholly false statement again? After two atomic bombing and a Russian declaration of war, Japan still had not surrendered. So how again were they unnecessary?

We have discussed this before in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6608302&postcount=3273
and further in that page and the next.

Unlike Nazi Germany, which conquered Poland, Belgium, France, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete...

OMG, intentionally ignoring that the British and French has declared war on Germany, not the other way around and thus the war had turned into a European war. Not a single country was invaded with the intention for territorial gain. Even Gareth admits that the invasion of Norway was defensive. Even Churchill admitted the invasion of Yugoslavia was defensive (engineered by the British, by the American William Donovan and by the Soviets). Even Molotov admits that the invasion of Russia was defensive!!!

Scheil on the German invasion of the Balkans:

[101] French supreme commander Gamelin had been pushing as early as May 1940, about a Balkan front modelled after Churchillian design… Churchill told Roosevelt about these plans on October 27, 1940… In 1948 Churchill pretended that the expansion of the war to a neutral region was his work: “I wanted Yugoslavia and I hoped for Turkey. Together with Greece it would have brought us 50 divisions, meaning a nice nut for the Germans to crack.”

[102] Reason for satisfaction on the British side existed at least for having been able to delay the German attack on Russia… In a speech on April 25, 1941, the British ambassador to the US openly admitted that British policy had deliberately had initiated war on the Balkans and had sacrificed Greece, just to bring Germany into trouble… After the war the story was changed into blaming the Germans for being aggressive on the Balkans.

Corsair:

It was careless. The logistics were questionable from the start—with the Russian railways running on a different gauge, this meant either capturing Russian trains in order to transport supplies, or ripping up the Russian rail lines and replace them with German ones. The former was unlikely and the latter was laborious and time-consuming. Russian roads were generally abysmal so moving goods by truck was not much of an option, and Germany did not have anywhere near enough trucks to meet its supply demands anyway.

No, they were strangled! Even NMT show trial organizer Robert Jackson admitted as much.

This result was that Germany's advance were dependent upon the rail lines keeping up and upon horse-drawn carts moving the supplies from the railheads to the units in the field. Contrast that with the 'Red Ball Express' the Western Allies used to keep its forces in Normandy supplied after D-Day which moved as much as 12,500 tons of supplies per day by truck alone.

What do you want to say with this other than that you are admitting that the alllies had overwhelming material superiority used to intentionality rape and conquer Europe and nothing else. What Germany done to America to deserve this terrible fate. And don't give me this BS about the German war declaration. America was already fighting a war against Germany in the Atlantic and with these delivery of destroyers. Roosevelt's only problem was to deceive Congress but he wanted war since 1933.

The Germans convinced themselves of the logistical viability of Barbarossa only by resorting to self-deception: They reduced the estimates of the amount of fuel and ammunition its units would consume during operations and inflated the estimates of what its railways would be able to deliver.

No, even Molotov admits the Germans had no choice but to defeat Russia in order to get the peace they wanted. Britain, Russia and America were waging a war of destruction and nothing else. Both America and Russia were busy fighting for world supremacy over the dead body of Europe, enabled by the greatest traitor Britain ever had, Churchill.

Then there was the size of the force allocated to the invasion: the 150 divisions used at the start of Barbarossa was only fifteen more than had been used against western Europe in May of 1940, and the number of tanks was only about 30% greater. This in spite of the battlefield area being twenty times larger.

What should they do, that was all they had.

Put the inadequate force-to-space ratio together with the logistical nightmares and it's not a recipe for success. What's surprising is not that the Germans were stopped but that they managed to get as far as they did despite the handicaps they faced.

I leave it to dudalb to guess what I think.

Had the Russians been more competent at the start, Barbarossa would have been a disaster for the Reich from the outset. (Hitler should have talked to the Japanese. They knew something about just what kind of tough, determined foe the Russians could be, having been beaten soundly by them in the battles around Khalkin Gol in 1939.)

The German-Japanese alliance was a near empty alliance. The USSR and Japan had a non-agression agreeement in place before Barbarossa. Japan sensed what was coming in the Pacific and did not need Russia in their neck (in the end Japan got Russia in it's neck anyway).

 

[Wroclaw]

You want to suggest that this Wegener chap was in charge in 1940?

Of course not. Raeder was in charge. The question is whether Raeder found Wegener's opinions relevant.

Clue: He did.

Could somebody please tell Wroclaw that Hitler was in charge and not Wegener, he won't accept it from me.

Nice straw man, Jackbag.

To the lurkers: I have to explain this lad everything. Maybe that their alleged superintelligence is another hoax and that their sole skill is telling BS stories. It sure looks like it. Anyway, our kosher friend must be rather desperate to dig himself even deeper into his self created mess by resorting to written theories/opinions from 1929 by someone from the 2nd rank.

Keep on trying, 'smartie'!

Can't hear ya, Tiny!

 

[Wroclaw]

Excellent. Exactly what Ribbentrop and I, the 'self-hating Ugandan Jew' (according to Gareth), have been saying all along.

Any comments, Wroclaw?

Give it up pall, you are making a fool of yourself, even more than necessary.

But, but, but... Gareth, I am.... shocked! SHOCKED! I thought that the Germans wanted to conquer ze wurld? Is that not true, after all? And may I ask you an intimate question... Are you a... a... a... Nazi apologist?

Yeah, Tiny, that bit about Raeder suggesting the invasion of Norwegian ports in October '39.

You are dumb.

 

[VonKleist]

. Even Gareth admits that the invasion of Norway was defensive.

9/11 investigator, a Lapp, has once more decided to read what he wants to, rather than what has been written. This is in keeping with a modus operandi which involves starting with a desired outcome and then trying to find evidence that fits, while rejecting any that does not. The problem here is that 9/11 investigator, a Punjabi, lacks the basic knowledge of Second World War history necessary to maintain a coherent discussion. This is exacerbated by the fact that 9/11 investigator, a Ferengi, is basically too lazy to spend a few weeks reading some history in order to understand the context of the sources we are discussing.

On Wegener, Raeder and Hitler were both aware of his 1929 work, and this provided the context for the discussion of October '39. I would think that this would also have formed the basis for 'Studie Nord' but I have no idea about the details of that operation.

 

[MG1962]

What should they do, that was all they had.

So I am just not getting what you are throwing down. You are going to be attacked by another country, so you attack them first.....Why?

Why not spend the time pre planning and developing defensive strategies. Its not like you didn't have the brains. People like Albert Kesseling are considered among the greatest defensive generals of any era.

 

[Corsair 115]

So I am just not getting what you are throwing down. You are going to be attacked by another country, so you attack them first.....Why?

Why not spend the time pre planning and developing defensive strategies. Its not like you didn't have the brains. People like Albert Kesseling are considered among the greatest defensive generals of any era.

Indeed. Defence is much easier and less costly than offence. As was demonstrated in the Normandy campaign, the German military was outstanding in conducting defensive operations. Add to that the rule-of-thumb that the attacking force needs a three-to-one superiority in force in order to be reasonably certain of a victorious assault. Putting that together means Germany should have built its defences and waited for the Russian military to throw itself into the meat grinder.

As it happened, it was the reverse: the Germans threw themselves into the Russian meat grinder.

 

[Corsair 115]

We have discussed this before in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6608302&postcount=3273
and further in that page and the next.

Yes, we have. And you were just as wrong then as you are now.

No, they were strangled! Even NMT show trial organizer Robert Jackson admitted as much.

That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Germans launched a massive invasion of Russia without an adequate amount of force for the space they were operating in, and without adequate logistical support. (I note you do not contest these points.)

Conducting an operation with an inadequate amount of force and with inadequate logistical support is a recipe for defeat. Being the conspiracy-minded person that you are, you should consider the ramifications of that: Germany wanted to lose... Hitler deliberately lost the war!

What do you want to say with this other than that you are admitting that the alllies had overwhelming material superiority...

It illustrates that the Allies took the logistical requirements of their operations very seriously and were under no illusions about the huge amount of resources and effort needed to keep their forces properly supplied. The same cannot be said for the German plans for Barbarossa.

...used to intentionality rape and conquer Europe and nothing else.

It is revealing how you keep saying that while ignoring it was Germany which conducted the "rape and conquer [of] Europe" to use your own words.

What should they do, that was all they had.

That's easy: DON'T ATTACK. Instead, wait for the enemy to come to you. Lure him into the trap. Let him throw himself into the meat grinder.

I'll repeat: Conducting an operation with an inadequate amount of force and with inadequate logistical support is a recipe for defeat. Being the conspiracy-minded person that you are, you should consider the ramifications of that: Germany wanted to lose... Hitler deliberately lost the war!

The USSR and Japan had a non-agression agreeement in place before Barbarossa.

Yes, it came about as a result of Japan being bloodied by the Russians in 1939 (by one General Zhukov, who would later come to prominence for his work against the Germans). Japan had learned the lesson: do not underestimate the Russians. It was a lesson Germany had yet to learn: they underestimated the Russians, thought they would be a pushover.

Germany paid a steep price to learn the error of its assumption.

 

[Tolls]

OMG, intentionally ignoring that the British and French has declared war on Germany, not the other way around and thus the war had turned into a European war. Not a single country was invaded with the intention for territorial gain.

No.
As has been pointed out to you from day one, Germany attacked Poland. Poland was an ally of Britain and France...

As for the bolded part ... Danzig?

 

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator

OMG, intentionally ignoring that the British and French has declared war on Germany, not the other way around and thus the war had turned into a European war. Not a single country was invaded with the intention for territorial gain.

Hmmm. So Lebensraum (living space) was not part of Hitler's Weltanschauung? This is a new wrinkle!

[W]ithout consideration of "traditions" and prejudices, it [Germany] must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation.
------
In an era when the earth is gradually being divided up among states, some of which embrace almost entire continents, we cannot speak of a world power in connection with a formation whose political mother country is limited to the absurd area of five hundred thousand square kilometers.

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Edit:

9/11 Investigator, a Jew, is now making strange claims about Lebensraum...

Nein 11 is Jewish?

 

[MG1962]

Indeed. Defence is much easier and less costly than offence. As was demonstrated in the Normandy campaign, the German military was outstanding in conducting defensive operations. Add to that the rule-of-thumb that the attacking force needs a three-to-one superiority in force in order to be reasonably certain of a victorious assault. Putting that together means Germany should have built its defences and waited for the Russian military to throw itself into the meat grinder.

As it happened, it was the reverse: the Germans threw themselves into the Russian meat grinder.

You just have to look at the battle of Seelow Heights. The Germans were out numbered 10:1 under resourced, lacking real options. And it still took a very battle hardened Soviet Army 3 days to break through with loss of virtually every tank they had, (approximately 3000)

 

[dafydd]

Hmmm. So Lebensraum (living space) was not part of Hitler's Weltanschauung? This is a new wrinkle!



Edit:



Nein 11 is Jewish?

A Jew. A Reform Jew. A very reform Jew. A Nazi.-Woody Allen.

 

[Craig4]

A Jew. A Reform Jew. A very reform Jew. A Nazi.-Woody Allen.

Clearly when it comes to self loathing he's lost is amateur status.

 

[Walter Ego]

A Jew. A Reform Jew. A very reform Jew. A Nazi.-Woody Allen.

A Jew who thinks the Germans got a bad rap for WW2?

Sounds like a character from a Roth Roth novel. Check out this excerpt from Operation Shylock which, coincidentally, I just finished reading. Is Nein working for Mossad?