Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Craig4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand that within a few days of making the statement, that Chamberlain regretted making it as a huge mistake.
 
dudalb said:
For Nazi..the party of Hitler and Goebbels to accuse some other group of making a virtue out of lying is drop dead funny.
Click to expand...

I have been lurking on this thread for quite a while, and also other related threads.

Seems to me that 9/11 gets more extreme as the threads progress.

That is not sad, it is just plain. downright weird.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, there's also the fact that bombers of the time are mainly limited by their maximum takeoff weight, which can be devoted to either fuel or bombs, not having the ability of modern planes to tank up after taking off on empty tanks. Even without escort fighters being an issue at all, the effectiveness of any individual bomber sortie can go up immensely by decreasing the necessary fuel. The famously failed operation Tidal Wave can in large part be attributed to the fact that the bombers had to go practically all fuel to get that far.
 
When my opponents are cornered, as they are with their silly explanation of the German (and French/British) invasion of Norway, they go in the moral overdrive and try to divert attention away from the topic and start posting atrocity propaganda, subsidized by their governments. Ah well, American and hypocrisy, they admit it themselves.

Obviously they don't post any material to back up their idiotic claims. Not a single serious historian will support this insane idea, namely "that the Germans invaded Norway to use it as a launchpad for bombing raids on Britain". Again, the fact that the distance from the German mainland is shorter than from Norway refutes this idea. My opponents keep forgetting that Britain and France had declared war on Germany 8 months earlier. In the Norway case they started to act on it.

I wonder if I can lure prof Nick into supporting his buddies, that would be great. But I doubt that prof Nick will lend himself for that. But it is nice dreaming though. ;)
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
When my opponents are cornered, as they are with their silly explanation of the German (and French/British) invasion of Norway, they go in the moral overdrive and try to divert attention away from the topic and start posting atrocity propaganda, subsidized by their governments. Ah well, American and hypocrisy, they admit it themselves.

Obviously they don't post any material to back up their idiotic claims. Not a single serious historian will support this insane idea, namely "that the Germans invaded Norway to use it as a launchpad for bombing raids on Britain". Again, the fact that the distance from the German mainland is shorter than from Norway refutes this idea. My opponents keep forgetting that Britain and France had declared war on Germany 8 months earlier. In the Norway case they started to act on it.

I wonder if I can lure prof Nick into supporting his buddies, that would be great. But I doubt that prof Nick will lend himself for that. But it is nice dreaming though. ;)
Click to expand...

WOW, just WOW.
 
abaddon said:
WOW, just WOW.
Click to expand...

That's not a very intelligent post, abaddon. I would say it is content-free.

Meanwhile, back on topic:

http://gerard45.bloggertje.nl/note/...r-de-zogenaamde-nederlandse-neutraliteit.html

Eind april 1940 lagen er aan de Frans-Belgische grens namelijk al tien Britse divisies. Van de 368.000 man werden er op 14 juni 1940 338.000 bij Duinkerken van het vasteland verdreven. Op 10 mei 1940 (om 06:00 uur ’s ochtends) werd de Duitse oorlogsverklaring door de Duitse gezant Graf Zech von Burkensroda aan de Nederlandse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Van Kleffens overhandigd met de volgende inhoud:

'Wij hebben onweerlegbare bewijzen voor een onmiddellijk dreigende inval van Frankrijk en Engeland in België, Nederland en Luxemburg, die met medeweten van Nederland en België sinds lang was voorbereid, met het doel op het Roergebied een aanval te doen.'
Click to expand...

In their zeal to accuse Germany of acquiring 'Lebensraum' in Western Europe, people tend to forget that the British had 368,000 men invaded in France, before the Germans joined them for a little house warming party. The Germans accused Britain and France of preparing an attack on the Ruhr area. It is unlikely that the British had gone to France to collect mushrooms. And again, the British and French had declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

Any progress yet on the Norway case, my esteemed opponents? Any documents, quotes from prominent historians, anything to back up your claims?

No? I already thought so.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
WOW, just WOW.
Click to expand...

He makes sense once you understand that this his view has nothing to do with the truth. The Nazi needs to rehabilitate Hitler's memory. There's no requirement that his rationalizations contain honesty. Once you get that the Nazi is pretty transparent.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Again, the fact that the distance from the German mainland is shorter than from Norway refutes this idea.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you: If you wanted to bomb Aberdeen, the third largest city in Scotland, would it be quicker from Wilhelshaven or Bergen?

Nevermind the Shetlands or Orkneys, where there are naval bases...

My opponents keep forgetting that Britain and France had declared war on Germany 8 months earlier.
Click to expand...

You neglect to mention that this was hardly without warning.

Perhaps you can explain why it was necessary to invade Denmark as well?
 
Craig4 said:
He makes sense once you understand that this his view has nothing to do with the truth. The Nazi needs to rehabilitate Hitler's memory. There's no requirement that his rationalizations contain honesty. Once you get that the Nazi is pretty transparent.
Click to expand...

But Craig4 is not able to point at the errors in my explanation. Not in a long shot.

Again, I am not (just) busy rehabilitating Germany, more importantly I am preparing for the downfall of our former colony and liberating Europe from you. If necessary together with the Chinese, Russians and Islamic world.
 
Wroclaw said:
Let me ask you: If you wanted to bomb Aberdeen, the third largest city in Scotland, would it be quicker from Wilhelshaven or Bergen?

Nevermind the Shetlands or Orkneys, where there are naval bases...
Click to expand...

Ludicrous.

There was a mini raid on Aberdeen in 1943 with a lousy 125 people killed, nothing compared to what the Anglos did to Germany. They dropped 20 times as much on their opponents as Germany on Brittain. And why did they wait until 1943 if they were so anxious to invade Norway to bomb Britain? But it is a lie. A filthy alllied lie. But you have to lie in order to keep the Anglo myth alive that the Germans were the agressors, but they were not.

You neglect to mention that this was hardly without warning.

Perhaps you can explain why it was necessary to invade Denmark as well?
Click to expand...

Since when did the British and French warn Germany that they were invading Norway as well? :boggled:
 
9/11-investigator said:
Again, the fact that the distance from the German mainland is shorter than from Norway refutes this idea.
Click to expand...

No Dear,
Scapa Flow, home of the British Grand fleet is in Nth Scotland. Can you show me a closer base than Norway? ( You didn't look did you? tsk tsk tsk not good on facts are you?)
 
9/11-investigator said:
And why did they wait until 1943 if they were so anxious to invade Norway to bomb Britain?
Click to expand...

Because they didn't.
Luftflotte 5 attacked the north as part of the mid-August 1940 raid...and were nigh on wiped out. They couldn't attack again until 1943 because they simply didn't receive replacements, and had been stripped of fighters etc.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Really? You didn't bother to measure it, did you. Aberdeen is 150 miles closer to Bergen than Wilhelmshaven.

There was a mini raid on Aberdeen in 1943 with a lousy 125 people killed
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm quite sure their families felt it was no big deal.

nothing compared to what the Anglos did to Germany. They dropped 20 times as much on their opponents as Germany on Brittain. And why did they wait until 1943 if they were so anxious to invade Norway to bomb Britain? But it is a lie. A filthy alllied lie. But you have to lie in order to keep the Anglo myth alive that the Germans were the agressors, but they were not.
Click to expand...

How do you type while wearing a straitjacket?

Since when did the British and French warn Germany that they were invading Norway as well? :boggled:
Click to expand...

No, they warned Hitler that if he invaded Poland they would declare war.

Didn't they?

And you haven't told us all why Hitler invaded Denmark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom