Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
9/11-investigator said:
Priceless! You can´t make this stuff up!
Click to expand...

Flying with the Heinkel He 111 and Junkers Ju 88 medium bombers, they would drop their light bomb-load and—for a brief period—fight off the British fighters. Although flying from relatively close airfields in France, the Bf 109 was operating at the very edge of its range, while the Bf 110, specifically designed for the escort role, had inferior performance and was easily outperformed by the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hawker Hurricane employed by the Royal Air Force.

Priceless because you didn't know basic military history......yet again!
 
Matthew Ellard;7025267Priceless because you didn't know basic military history......yet again![/QUOTE said:
He also seems to believe that Ribbentrop is a reliable source of information. You couldn't make it up.
Click to expand...
 
Uzzy said:
I don't consider it 'deluded'. He was indeed rearming, but almost entirely in the field of air defences. Money for the RAF went up year by year, passing the money spent on the British Army in 1937, and the Navy in 1938, with a focus on fighter planes and improved AA guns, along with radar, as the fear from aerial bombing at this time was insanely high. I think one of the Chief's of Staff at the time suggested to Chamberlain that in a war with Germany, 100,000 British civilians would die in the first week due to bombing (100,000 turned out to be around the total dead from bombing in the entire war).
Click to expand...

Which was perfectly reasonable considering the air arm was viewed as key (after witnessing German rearmament). Without that increased input for the RAF we would have been without the Hurricanes that staved off defeat in 1940.

Uzzy said:
But he certainly believed that a proper settlement on European matters could be achieved, right up until the Invasion of Czechoslovakia. In Robert Self's Biography of Chamberlain, he quotes the Colonial Secretary at the time of the Czech Invasion, Malcolm Macdonald, as saying
Click to expand...

I believe (and I'm without refs I'm afraid) cabinet and MoD docs from 1938 showed that war was expected within 5 years, but our then arms situation was such that a war over Czechoslovakia would be premature. Germany was far better equipped. What the invasion of the Czech Republic did was to shift Chamberlain to a "sooner rather than later" mindset, not from a "peace to war" one.

Uzzy said:
So, I don't think he was in anyway deluded. I do think that he felt a negotiated settlement could be achieved, and hoped for that to happen, but at the same time kept his options open by rearming to a limited extent, especially in building up the defence of the home islands.
Click to expand...

I think the documents show he understood Hitler's aims. I don't think he thought a negotiated settlement was anything other than a delaying tactic.
 
Tolls said:
Which was perfectly reasonable considering the air arm was viewed as key (after witnessing German rearmament). Without that increased input for the RAF we would have been without the Hurricanes that staved off defeat in 1940.



I believe (and I'm without refs I'm afraid) cabinet and MoD docs from 1938 showed that war was expected within 5 years, but our then arms situation was such that a war over Czechoslovakia would be premature. Germany was far better equipped. What the invasion of the Czech Republic did was to shift Chamberlain to a "sooner rather than later" mindset, not from a "peace to war" one.



I think the documents show he understood Hitler's aims. I don't think he thought a negotiated settlement was anything other than a delaying tactic.
Click to expand...

It's pretty hard to imagine that Chamberlain (or anyone else really) thought Hitler was going to keep his word. His lack of integrity up to that point was obvious to anyone. Chamberlain is unfairly labeled as naive in history over his "Peace in Our Time" sound bite which is a bit unfair.
 
Rich_C said:
Germany wasn't trying to save fuel because of environmental reasons. They were trying to save fuel because they had a very limited supply.
Click to expand...

Let me see, in order to fly a few bombing runs from Norway, they transported thousands and thousands of troops from Germany to Norway, which costs far more fuel. Oh, and not to forget, that precious limited supply of airplane fuel had to be transported from Rumania to Norway first.

Cut the crap.

Give me a serious historian who comes up with that silly argument.

Before you keep shooting yourself in the foot, why not have a look at newspaper articles from those days from neutral Holland and especially from the secret British government document.

It was about iron ore and nothing else and everybody knew it at the time.

http://gerard45.bloggertje.nl/note/15367/geallieerden-schonden-in-1940-als-eersten.html

Op 16 februari 1940 schond de Britse marine de Noorse neutraliteit door in de Noorse wateren een Duits vrachtschip aan te vallen, waarbij 5 Duitse zeelieden om het leven kwamen, en op 8 april 1940 schonden de Engelsenen nogmaals de Noorse neutraliteit door mijnen te leggen in de Noorse wateren om de ijzerertstoevoer naar Duitsland af te snijden (de operatie werd uitgevoerd door de mijnenleggende destroyers HMS Express, Esk, Icarus, Impulsive, Hardy, Havock, Hunter en Hotspur en beveiligd door de Britse slagkruiser HMS Renown en de destroyers HMS Hyperion, Hero, Greyhound en Glowworm). Gelijkertijd versperde een Brits smaldeel met troepen de haven van Narvik.
Click to expand...

The British were blocking the harbor of Narvik, so the Germans had no choice than to go after these war mongers.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Ellard said:
Flying with the Heinkel He 111 and Junkers Ju 88 medium bombers, they would drop their light bomb-load and—for a brief period—fight off the British fighters. Although flying from relatively close airfields in France, the Bf 109 was operating at the very edge of its range, while the Bf 110, specifically designed for the escort role, had inferior performance and was easily outperformed by the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hawker Hurricane employed by the Royal Air Force.

Priceless because you didn't know basic military history......yet again!
Click to expand...

Ellard does not even know basic logic and shoots himself in the foot with his own arguments. So just to recap... planes that hardly could reach their destination from nearby France air strips, could also be used from far more remote Norwegian air fields and that was the reason for invasion. :boggled:
 
Tolls said:
Which was perfectly reasonable considering the air arm was viewed as key (after witnessing German rearmament). Without that increased input for the RAF we would have been without the Hurricanes that staved off defeat in 1940.

I believe (and I'm without refs I'm afraid) cabinet and MoD docs from 1938 showed that war was expected within 5 years, but our then arms situation was such that a war over Czechoslovakia would be premature. Germany was far better equipped. What the invasion of the Czech Republic did was to shift Chamberlain to a "sooner rather than later" mindset, not from a "peace to war" one.

I think the documents show he understood Hitler's aims. I don't think he thought a negotiated settlement was anything other than a delaying tactic.
Click to expand...

Show us the documents. And what do you think 'Hitler's aims' were other than uniting all Germans in a German state?

Here is what really motivated Chamberlain:

The American Secretary of State, James Forrestal, who later died in mysterious circumstances, wrote in his Forrestal Diaries (Cassel and Co., London 1952):

'Have played golf with Joe Kennedy [US Ambassador in Britain, father of President John Kennedy]. According to him, Chamberlain declared that Zionism and world Jewry have obliged England to enter the war.'
Click to expand...

And I have shown you here the real reason why Britain went to war.

Oh, and I went through Hitler's speeches recently:

http://hitler.org/speeches/

There is nothing about Lebensraum, 'Herrenvolk', expansion of territory, hardly anything about Jews, but a lot about economics, the German Volk, Versailles and the treason of the alllies, the murderous food blockade. Talking about blockade, I noticed that Britain is on the last receiving end of the new pipeline from Russia. :D We should remember that once the oil from the ME will stop flowing due to idiotic NATO policies!

And why should Britain go to war over this fake state of Czechoslovakia, a creation of the alllies in Versailles. What do you think the British would you do if France, after a won war, would order the creation of an independent Devon? You would take it back, right? So what's your problem with 'Czechoslovakia'? Nobody fired a shot. It had always been German ruled. It was partly German. It was original German. Prag was once the capital of the German empire. The first German university was build in Prag.

Slowly I start to wonder why the European population does not storm these alllied bases in Europe and kick them out the hard way, these Europe rapers!
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
Let me see, in order to fly a few bombing runs from Norway, they transported thousands and thousands of troops from Germany to Norway, which costs far more fuel.
Click to expand...


Moving cargo by ship is vastly more fuel efficient than by aircraft. Moving cargo by rail is also vastly more fuel efficient than by aircraft, though not quite as efficient as by ship.

In other words, the amount of fuel needed to get the troops to Norway by ship or rail would not necessarily have been a vastly larger amount than that needed by a bomber squadron.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Ellard does not even know basic logic and shoots himself in the foot with his own arguments. So just to recap... planes that hardly could reach their destination from nearby France air strips, could also be used from far more remote Norwegian air fields and that was the reason for invasion. :boggled:
Click to expand...

No dear....pay attention, Fighters have limited range. German bombers could reach Scapa flow but without fighter escort and get shot down by British fighters. Therefore to stop the loss of bombers the Luftwaffe needed bases close enough to allow fighters to escort their bombers and remain over target. Do you get it yet?

Because you are inexperienced you only saw the cost of additional fuel. What you have completely missed is the number of man hours invested in German bombers that were being shot down and thus unavailable for the Russian front. German bomber production failed to meet losses in 1940 and 1941 and the total bomber force decreased.
 
9/11-investigator said:
A few posts ago...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7024264&postcount=4609

... I gave you a review from a professional military man Lt. Colonel Robert A. Lynn, Florida Guard, Orlando, Florida.

Nowhere does he mention your idiotic bombing arguments. It was about iron ore and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Ummm no he is not. You really need to research people before shooting your mouth off. Florida Guard is a bunch of men who have no affiliation with any military organisation, who run around playing soldier
 
There is no greater pacifist than the attacker. For he would rather have his wish without fighting.
It is the defender, who decides to fight the attacker, who is the real war monger.

Is this a good recap of the position of 9/11 as I understand it?
 
9/11-investigator said:
Why not? He is a German, not somebody from the Jewish defined Anglo 'culture', where lying is a Talmudic inspired and encouraged virtue.
Click to expand...

I believe you embedded a link to the Wikipedia page for Ribbentrop. Did you even read it (why am I asking, of course not)? If you had you would realise that he was not the sort of man you would want to give evidence (for anything).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom