Falsifying the history of WW II

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Hans

Very much so but for every 'bad' thing that can be laid at the feet of the Allies (the USSR being a sad exception) far worse can be found in the camp of the Japanese, Italians and especially the Germans, and who drove this in Germany Hitler.

No Hitler* probably no WWII.

Probably a west vs Soviet war in the 50's though as communism spread throughout the world.

*a special award of shame to the French and British for NOT invading the Rhineland in 1936 - had they done so and shown strength against Germany early on - the war might have been avoided too.

While I agree with most of your post, I seriously doubt your claim that invading Nazi Germany in 1936 would have prevented a war. Surely this would have triggered one? Hitler wasn't one to let bygones be bygones...

[malbui]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

While I agree with most of your post, I seriously doubt your claim that invading Nazi Germany in 1936 would have prevented a war. Surely this would have triggered one? Hitler wasn't one to let bygones be bygones...

Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

While I agree with most of your post, I seriously doubt your claim that invading Nazi Germany in 1936 would have prevented a war. Surely this would have triggered one? Hitler wasn't one to let bygones be bygones...

Hitler had given orders that if there were any opposition from the French, the troops occupying the Rhineland should withdraw immediately. It's also reasonably possible that he, and maybe even the entire Nazi party, could have been deposed had Britain and France stood up to him at this point. And even had the war started in 1936, the Allies would undoubtedly have won it far more easily and cheaply than they did historically.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by abaddon

So the Jews are Marxist, communist, capitalist, financiers.

And somehow you cannot spot a problem in that.

That's bizarre.

To be fair, neither could Adolf. There actually was some... bizarre CT logic behind it, to be fair. It wasn't just some contradictory statements being thrown around. There was some CT logic connecting them. It wasn't good logic, it wasn't even sane logic, but it was there.

The Jews were supposed to be all about controlling the banks and economy to make people finally be sick of the whole capitalism thing and want communism instead. Which would give the Jews even more control over everything, somehow.

Of course, like all CTs, it requires pretty much every member of an arbitrary category act like drones towards some goal, even when it's against their personal self interest. Kinda like in the medical CT, millions of doctors would rather they or their relatives die of cancer, than reveal that there's a cure for cancer. Or in this case that if some Jew actually is a banker and worth millions of dollars (which was a lot at the time), he'd gladly give that all up if it's to further some ill defined Jewish agenda.

And of course, it needs one to ignore the fact that most of the problems that NSDAP was blaming on the Jews in the 30's were actually self-inflicted.

E.g., while the propaganda machine churned nonsense pamphlets about how Jews are buying all the cattle, and that's why there's no meat, in reality it was Adolf's autarky policy which forbade meat imports in the first place. Traditionally a lot of that came from places like, say, Denmark. Well, Denmark still had a LOT of cattle to sell, and Germany still had the (now unused) abattoir capacity, but were forbidden from actually importing it.

So, yeah, the logic really got bizarre, to say the least. The Jews were supposedly causing some problems, which actually were due to NSDAP policy and no Jew had been consulted. And it was supposedly in the name of some Jewish beliefs and/or agenda, and totally not something like the actual belief in the imminent shrinking markets problem (which, BTW, 90 years later still hasn't happened) of the NSDAP leadership, and the actual NSDAP agenda of achieving autarchy. And supposedly the Jews had some goal of throwing us all into some backwards commie barbarism, unlike the actual NSDAP agenda of actually trying to de-industrialize and de-urbanize Germany to levels even worse than what the USSR had, if that complete autarchy of food and resource production were to ever be achieved. Etc.

Projection on a massive scale, really.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

While I agree with most of your post, I seriously doubt your claim that invading Nazi Germany in 1936 would have prevented a war. Surely this would have triggered one? Hitler wasn't one to let bygones be bygones...

Just the Rhineland that had been demilitarized

Quote:

The remilitarisation of the Rhineland (German: Rheinlandbesetzung) began on 7 March 1936, when German military forces entered the Rhineland, in direct contravention of the Treaty of Versailles and of the Locarno Treaties.

After the end of World War I, the Rhineland came under Allied occupation. Under the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the German military was forbidden from all territory west of the Rhine and within 50 km east of it. The 1925 Locarno Treaties reaffirmed the permanent demilitarised status of the Rhineland. In 1929, German Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann negotiated the withdrawal of Allied forces. The last soldiers left the Rhineland in June 1930.

Following the Nazis' taking power in 1933, Germany began working towards rearmament and the remilitarisation of the Rhineland. On 7 March 1936, using the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance as a pretext, Chancellor and Führer Adolf Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to march 3,000 German troops into the Rhineland, to joyous celebrations across Germany. The French and the British governments, unwilling to risk war, decided against enforcing the treaties.

The remilitarisation changed the balance of power in Europe from France and its allies towards Germany by allowing Germany to pursue a policy of aggression in Western Europe that had been blocked by the demilitarised status of the Rhineland.

[HansMustermann]

To be fair, it's often presented as if Britain and France were just a bunch of cowards.

The reality is somewhat more complex. Many Brits, most notably Chamberlain, seemed to actually be of the opinion that the Treaty of Versailles had gone a wee bit overboard -- not to mention that it was inconsistent AF in applying its supposed principles -- and weren't fundamentally opposed to amending it a bit.

(NB: Whether you or I actually agree that it was unfair or not, is beside the point. I'm just saying what the impression seemed to be at the time.)

Sure, maintaining the peace is one motivation, but the flip side of the coin is that they didn't seem to really think that every single point of the Treaty of Versailles HAD to be there in the first place. The corollary being that not everything in the Treaty of Versailles seemed worth going to war over.

Basically what I'm saying is that it's not like they were afraid to go to war over something vital. It's just that some stuff from the treaty seemed like stuff they can live without just as well, and thus wasn't worth going to war over.

And it's not just Chamberlain. In a democracy, which the UK was, if you want to have a war, you have to "sell" it to the public and the parliament. Germany or the USSR could just start a war just because the leaders wanted one. In the UK, you kinda had to convince the people that they need to. And unlike 1939, in 1935, see above: a big chunk of the public wasn't fanatical about enforcing Versailles.

In hindsight, sure, it may be obvious it was the wrong decision, but no politician got a ride in the TARDIS to see the effects in the future.

[Carrot Flower King]

Not to mention that in 1936 the UK economy was not up to fighting a war, as it still hadn't recovered from all that Depression stuff...That and some strong memories of pointless, nasty deaths in the mud baths of Flanders making another war something of a hard sell.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Hitler had given orders that if there were any opposition from the French, the troops occupying the Rhineland should withdraw immediately. It's also reasonably possible that he, and maybe even the entire Nazi party, could have been deposed had Britain and France stood up to him at this point. And even had the war started in 1936, the Allies would undoubtedly have won it far more easily and cheaply than they did historically.

I'd like to see the evidence for the claim that the position of the Nazi Party in 1936 was that precarious.
I also find it hard to believe that France, dedicated to an almost entirely defensive strategy, and Britain, woefully ill-equipped, would have won this war 'easily'.
If it took Britain, France, Russia, the US, plus the efforts of the resistance movements in the occupied countries and the free forces outside them, 6 years to defeat Germany, what makes you think that Britain and France alone could have done it easily and cheaply?

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

I'd like to see the evidence for the claim that the position of the Nazi Party in 1936 was that precarious.
I also find it hard to believe that France, dedicated to an almost entirely defensive strategy, and Britain, woefully ill-equipped, would have won this war 'easily'.
If it took Britain, France, Russia, the US, plus the efforts of the resistance movements in the occupied countries and the free forces outside them, 6 years to defeat Germany, what makes you think that Britain and France alone could have done it easily and cheaply?

Because the German forces of 1936 were not the German forces of 1936.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Because the German forces of 1936 were not the German forces of 1936.

Maaaaan, that's, like, really deep...Have another hit on this...

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Because the German forces of 1936 were not the German forces of 1936.

Of course they weren't, and only a complete idiot would ever make such a ridiculous suggestion.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Of course they weren't, and only a complete idiot would ever make such a ridiculous suggestion.

You are the one that made the suggestion.
In what way was France 'woefully ill-equipped' in 1936 to take on the 'woefully ill-equipped' German forces of 1936?

You do know that a large part of the German tank force sent in to Poland and France were Mk1 training tanks, they only had a fraction of the transport and infantry formations of 39 and a similarly small air force?

If France had fully mobilised in 1936 they could have overwhelmed the german forces.
But, here's the thing, they would have been the aggressors in an unjustified war.

[HansMustermann]

Eh, sort of. France was also a democracy, you know? You can't just start a war whenever the guy at the top woke up in an angry mood.

And the French were seriously against that war. Even in '39, there were MASSIVE protests against the war and the mobilization, with "Why die for Danzig?" being pretty much the battle cry. (And again, I'm not saying that the French were cowards, but in France too pretty much nobody was willing to fight for the *********** that was half of Versailles.) And they had massive morale problems with that mobilization.

Try that in '36, and you'd pretty much get booted out of power over night.

Even more importantly, you seem to underestimate how big the problems of the FRENCH army were in '36.

The LEAST of problems being that they were right in the middle of those years without recruits. You start with people being in trenches instead of boning the missus in 1914, add 18 years to that, and yeah, that's about when you notice a dramatic dip in the number of recruitable people.

The bigger problem was that their doctrines were a (marginally) even bigger mess than in 1940. The effectiveness of an army isn't measured just in the number of people and guns, you know? Honestly, you'd have even more problems getting word up the ranks and back to get an artillery strike in time, the tanks were even less having any idea how to operate together with the infantry, etc.

The EVEN BIGGER problem was that France was having an even worst case of distrusting their own army in '36 than in '40. No, seriously. They probably would have trusted the Germans more than their own army. There was this... paranoia that the officer corps is a bunch of reactionaries and monarchists who are just itching to coup the republic. And as such, the number of officers had to be kept to a minimum, as was the duration of time that impressionable young men were exposed to those dangerous officers and their ideas.

Pretty much any request to professionalize the army a bit, or even have enough officers to actually train those recruits worth anything, or just have longer conscription so recruits had some time to be trained enough so they can train the next batch themselves, were causing whole $#!& storms in the parliament. Hell, even something like when later De Gaulle wrote a paper arguing for a more professional and well trained tank corps, an idiot politician waved it around in parliament as PROOF -- PROOF, I tell you! -- that the army officers want to have a sort of a praetorian guard to topple the government with.

So yeah, in the middle of THAT political climate, you want them to start a mobilization? And go to war with THAT army where most recruits hardly got enough training (among other reasons, again, for lack of enough officers and NCOs to train them) to even know which end to point at the enemy?

You're... seriously optimistic if you place much trust in that.

And for that matter, well, now you know why the British didn't put all that much trust in it either.

[Axxman300]

The underlying philosophy behind France and the UK's reluctance for military action was WWI. WWI left deep scars in the men who fought, and then fifteen to twenty years later found themselves in positions of power in those countries. And believe even the older men in power in France and the UK lost friends and family in that war.

So nobody wanted another one.

Except Hitler.

The Germans were angry people after WWI. Most had no idea that they were losing the war until they surrendered due to censorship of the newspapers. Obviously this seeded a deep mistrust in the German government, and allowed all kinds of conspiracy theories to fester which the German National Socialist German Worker's Party capitalized upon. Throw in the fact that the various incarnations of Germany had been at war with somebody for 300 years and you find a population in 1936 that is fed up, and really ticked off. Ticked off enough to vote for Nazis.

The rest is history. Complex history that should be consistently reviewed to avoid repeating it.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

The underlying philosophy behind France and the UK's reluctance for military action was WWI. WWI left deep scars in the men who fought, and then fifteen to twenty years later found themselves in positions of power in those countries. And believe even the older men in power in France and the UK lost friends and family in that war.

So nobody wanted another one.

Except Hitler.

The Germans were angry people after WWI. Most had no idea that they were losing the war until they surrendered due to censorship of the newspapers. Obviously this seeded a deep mistrust in the German government, and allowed all kinds of conspiracy theories to fester which the German National Socialist German Worker's Party capitalized upon. Throw in the fact that the various incarnations of Germany had been at war with somebody for 300 years and you find a population in 1936 that is fed up, and really ticked off. Ticked off enough to vote for Nazis.

The rest is history. Complex history that should be consistently reviewed to avoid repeating it.

Then you had the "Stab in the Back" theory, that the German Armies were never defeated in battle but were betrayed by the civilian government.
That that piece of nonsense had such devastating impact on the german people was a major reason why the Allies isisted on "Unconditional Surrender" with a occupation oif all Germany during World War 2.

The scars left by World War one lasted beyong the start of World War 2. One reason why Churchill ,behind the scenes, foot dragged so much on the Invasion of France was fear of the Western Front repeating itself. One British general, after hearing Ike criticising Churchill for trying to delay the invasion, told Ike he was up against the f the casualaties of Ypres and the Somme.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

The underlying philosophy behind France and the UK's reluctance for military action was WWI. WWI left deep scars in the men who fought, and then fifteen to twenty years later found themselves in positions of power in those countries.

Some held that the French had 'depleted its population of brave men' by the heavy lost of men in the two decades of war during the revolution and the Napoleonic Empire.

Quote:

The effect of the war on France over this time period was considerable. Estimates of the total French losses during the wars vary from 500, 000 to 3 million dead. According to David Gates, the Napoleonic Wars cost France at least 916,000 men. This represents 38% of the conscription class of 1790–1795. This rate is over 14% higher than the losses suffered by the same generation one hundred years later fighting Imperial Germany.The French population suffered long-term effects through a low male-to-female population ratio. At the beginning of the Revolution, the numbers of males to females was virtually identical. By the end of the conflict only 0.857 males remained for every female

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napole...ars_casualties

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

The underlying philosophy behind France and the UK's reluctance for military action was WWI. WWI left deep scars in the men who fought, and then fifteen to twenty years later found themselves in positions of power in those countries. And believe even the older men in power in France and the UK lost friends and family in that war.

So nobody wanted another one.

Except Hitler.

And Italy, and Japan, and the USSR, and pretty much the whole Balkans...

I mean, the embers had barely started to cool down after WW1 when Greece pretty much tried to conquer Turkey.

It's easy to look at it as Hitler being the only guy with a chip on his shoulder, but reality is somewhat more complex. In fact, it's pretty much the other way around: the UK, France and USA were pretty much the only powers who were really anti-war.

And I think that one way to look at it is that WW1 was pretty much the only time in the history of warfare where even when they won they just got horrible losses, crippling debt, and not a whole lot to show for it. And got stuck in an arm race where even just the naval race was looking like it would tank every major power's economy real soon. (See why the UK pushed for that treaty.)

And you couldn't even blame it on any betrayal at the negotiations table, or anything. It was just what modern warfare backed by a major industrial economy looked like.

I mean, they got to redraw some borders in Europe, but that wasn't much consolation for the average Tommy who had returned from that horrible war. Think about it, "I saw two dozen friends get machinegunned down, half a dozen get permanently blinded by gas attacks, AND had to be in the firing squad and execute my best friend for 'cowardice' when he got shell shock, but at least we got to give Danzig to Poland. THAT'll show the Huns." It doesn't really sound worth it, does it? (And yes, that oversimplifies the strategic reasons for some of those borders, but frankly, the details would also go over most citizens' heads.)

It's not hard to see why those populations started not liking war very much, is it?

On the other hand, for the losers, getting shafted was just business as usual. Getting shafted when you lost a war was what you EXPECTED. And nobody was surprised if you said you were, even if you weren't. Not a whole lot to learn there, was it?

Or even among the winners, for Japan it was a significant win of bases for their fleet over half of the Pacific, for only minimal losses, other than the expense of having most of their fleet in the Mediterranean to help the British. The return on investment actually was pretty good for a war. It wasn't gonna learn to avoid it.

Or, winning side again, Italy could just blame not getting anything on the other powers shafting it at the negotiations table.

So yeah, it's easy to think "hey, nobody wanted a war any more, except that Hitler guy, the damned madman." But in reality it's really just the British, French and USA who had decided that war is bad.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Because the German forces of 1936 were not the German forces of 1936.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Of course they weren't, and only a complete idiot would ever make such a ridiculous suggestion.

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

You are the one that made the suggestion.
In what way was France 'woefully ill-equipped' in 1936 to take on the 'woefully ill-equipped' German forces of 1936?

Read your post again, and show me where it says "France".
For that matter, do please show me where I talked about France and Germany being 'woefully ill-equipped'.
You appear to have missed your own typo (at least, I assume that's what it is), and misread what I have posted as well.

[Saggy]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

But in reality it's really just the British, French and USA who had decided that war is bad.

What complete idiocy, or maybe it's a perfect 180 deg. flip of reality.

From ... 'Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Make a War About Nothing' by British man of letters Wyndham Lewis, written in 1936 :

Quote:

As far as Great Britain is concerned, there is, in 1936, not a shadow of a reason for a war with anybody. It is because that there is no concrete reason that abstract reasons have had to be thought up and trotted out.

Nationalism may be superseded by the issue between different forms of political structure, between parliamentarism, fascism, and Bolshevism. .... Parliamentarism and Bolshevism seem to feel a remarkable affinity for one another, if for no other reason than that they are both consumed with an equal hatred of fascism.

No British statesman has ever desired a war with Germany. But they have apparently come to regard themselves as committed to a policy which is violently determined to rid Europe of Hitler. And they are well aware that that cannot be effected without the risk of another world-war. It is not so much ‘fascist dictatorship’ that excites them — for after all they left Mussolini in complete peace for a decade. Neither does Dictatorship , in itself, excite them so much as all that — even accompanied by a permanent Reign of Terror and the massacre of millions of people. For Soviet Russia has been left undisturbed. No, it can only be something about the internal regime of Adolf Hitler that excites in them this implacable mood.

The Franco-Soviet pact has been ratified and it is highly probable that a Rumano-Soviet pact, on the lines of the military pact between the Soviet and Czechoslovakia, will be signed in the near future. The Austrian Government (which represents a fantastically small fraction of the people of Austria) seems to be moving towards an entente with the Little Entente. So the game of ‘encirclement’ goes on: and all these arrangements — carried on in every case over the heads and usually in contradiction to the wishes of the people — are made possible, and constantly stimulated by British and French gold. The remarks which I have quoted from the Morning Post mean, in plain language, that Great
Britain is about to arm the Soviet against Germany. (Marshal Tukachevski stopped behind in England after the funeral of King George to go round the British armament factories to pick his tanks and guns.) There have constantly been rumours of a fifty million pounds British loan to France. That, too, in plain language, is Great Britain arming France against ‘the Hun’

There is one country where the Englishman is certain of a warm welcome: there is one country whose government never ceases to proffer friendship, and to be accommodating and polite, and that is Germany. Year in and year out, like a love-sick supplicant, Herr Hitler pays his court to the haughty Britannia. Every insult that can be invented even by the resourceful Mr. Churchill is tamely swallowed, every rebuff of Mr. Baldwin’s, every sneer of Mr. Eden, is meekly accepted, by this pertinacious suitor!

Roosevelt's Campaign to incite war in Europe

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Saggy

From ... 'Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Make a War About Nothing' by British man of letters Wyndham Lewis, written in 1936 :

"In 1931, after a visit to Berlin, Lewis published Hitler (1931), a book presenting Adolf Hitler as a "man of peace"

In December 1939 he published The Hitler Cult, which attempted both a revision and a renunciation of his 1930s views.
https://journals.openedition.org/erea/220

//////////////////

Wyndham Lewis was a painter, who edited art magazines Saggy.

Do you really really like Wyndham Lewis for his promotion of black culture in the USA? ( I don't think so)



"He praised the contributions of African-Americans to American culture"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyndha...1%E2%80%931945)

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Saggy

Roosevelt's Campaign to incite war in Europe

This is a link to Neo-Nazi, holocaust denier Mark Weber's ridiculous article on the "IHR" holocaust denial website.

Quote
" the Jews who agitated for war against Germany were actually doing nothing other than ruthlessly furthering their own purely sectarian interests"

"The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent."

"Behind him (Roosevelt) stood the self-serving international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction of Germany."

" This is perhaps not so remarkable in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry"

" Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible"

This essay is 100% Neo-Nazi, 1980s, anti Jewish crap continuously spammed by elderly Neo-Nazis..

[Hans]

Yawn where does Saggy get this old junk?

Tiresome, tedious and after all these years smelling of sameness, failure and an inability to accept this type of material doesn't actually 'work'.

[HansMustermann]

It goes even beyond just using a biased opinion piece by an unqualified person. The content is utter BS too, which, really, is why you shouldn't take unqualified opinion pieces as gospel.

E.g., it presents the Franco-Soviet DEFENSE pact of 1935 as some kind of aggressive move against Germany. But cf Article 2 of said pact, the only obligation is to provide mutual defense, in case either France or the USSR are attacked, and only if that attack is unprovoked. I.e., yep, it's a DEFENSE pact.

To be safe from it, Germany just has to, you know, not declare war on France or the USSR until mid 1940 or so, when the treaty expired.

Note that it couldn't even be invoked in the actual invasion of France, since it was a defense pact, and as such it didn't cover the case where France was the one which declared war.

Furthermore, it was so flawed as to be essentially useless. (E.g., both the UK and ITALY had to approve such an intervention, and yeah, Italy was on Germany's side. Plus, it lacked several key pieces that would be needed to make it work.) And sure enough by '36 it was already considered pretty much dead in both France and the USSR.

But anyway...

TL;DR version: so... apologists are basically doing their usual imitation of a toddler who really really really wants a lollipop: "WAH! WAH! If people form DEFENSE pacts instead of letting Hitler take whatever he wants, it means THEY are the aggressors!"

[HansMustermann]

Well, technically it also goes into CT territory trying to blame the UK for the Franco-Soviet defense treaty, but that's so unsupported by anything more than CT level BS (OMG, someone from the USSR visited England! Conspiracy!!), that it can safely be ignored.

[Carrot Flower King]

Saggy, why do you ignore the inconvenient fact that even by 1937 Wyndham Lewis was changing his mind about the true nature of the Nazis and that by 1941 he regarded fascism as far more dangerous than communism?

Anyway, while you're here, what about Spain and the Condor Legion and Guernica and those things? Ever heard of those? I can recommend a couple of good books about the Spanish Civil War, as I'm sure others here coan too.

[HansMustermann]

TBH, considering the quality of Wyndham Lewis's logic and argumentation, does it even matter? It's probably still at the same relevance level as whether he considered Santa or the Easter Bunny the more dangerous one.

I mean, even at the level of what happened in '35 alone, his (and Saggy's) logic is basically:

- if Britain hadn't outright embargoed France and the USSR (which really is what would have taken to prevent the USSR from licensing tank technology from a private company and France from getting a loan from a British bank), then Britain is outright to blame for the Franco-Soviet defense pact, and makes it some kind of anti-German warmonger

- if IN THE SAME YEAR, Britain signed a naval pact with Hitler, pretty much just removing the naval provisions of Versailles, and enabling Hitler to start building ships that were an actual threat to France, and thus indirectly forced France to spend money it couldn't afford on ships to protect itself with... nah, that somehow doesn't matter. It still doesn't make Britain less anti-German or anything.

For that matter, nor do such things count as the:

- 1931 just letting Germany suspend its reparation payments

- 1924 actually forcing France to accept reducing the reparations owed by Germany

- 1923 actually being the only major nation who took Germany's side and condemned the occupation of the Ruhr valley

- 1922 trying to force France to accept less reparations from Germany (rather unsuccessfully though)

Etc.

Basically at point where the quality of someone's logic and evidence is that if Britain didn't outright embargo France (no idea under what pretext would that even happen), then Britain is somehow guilty of anti-German warmongering, while the many instances where Britain actually aided or sided with Germany against France don't count... well, does it even matter what he thought at different times? I don't expect that the quality of his scholarship was any better.

[heymatto70]

Originally Posted by malbui

Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then.

An overlooked Tom Lehrer song. Nice work

[EHocking]

I skimmed.

Has the OP managed to falsify the history of WW II yet?

[Lukraak_Sisser]

What I never understand is why Saggy and other Nazi admirers are so set upon falsifying the history of WW2 by suggesting Hitler did not start that war in order to conquer Europe, avenge the WW1 defeat and kill as many Jews as possible.

After all, it's what the man himself claimed to want to do and then set out to do. Given the pathological fear/hatred of Jews Saggy's other posts show, surely he should be admiring that fact rather than trying to paint Hitler like some poor set upon victim?

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

What I never understand is why Saggy and other Nazi admirers are so set upon falsifying the history of WW2 by suggesting Hitler did not start that war in order to conquer Europe, avenge the WW1 defeat and kill as many Jews as possible.

After all, it's what the man himself claimed to want to do and then set out to do. Given the pathological fear/hatred of Jews Saggy's other posts show, surely he should be admiring that fact rather than trying to paint Hitler like some poor set upon victim?

As noted. Yet Hitler wasn't shy in stating what he hoped to do - but for some reasons those who love him refuse to see it.

Yet it remains there in open.

[HansMustermann]

I don't think they're refusing to believe it themselves. It's more like, if you will, like another Nazi once said:

“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

― Hermann Goering

Seems to me like basically that's what these chucklenuts are doing: painting it as, no, see it's Germany that was under attack, and denounce those who were actually trying to achieve some peace on the continent.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by EHocking

I skimmed.

Has the OP managed to falsify the history of WW II yet?

No, not even close: just a bunch of cherry-picked anti-semitic, Nazi fanboi ramblings.

Mebbe Saggy should just go read Norman Spinrad's The Iron Dream over and over and over, with an occasional break for The Man in the High Castle...

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

No, not even close: just a bunch of cherry-picked anti-semitic, Nazi fanboi ramblings.

Mebbe Saggy should just go read Norman Spinrad's The Iron Dream over and over and over, with an occasional break for The Man in the High Castle...

an apt joke I saw the other day.

Don’t ask a woman what her age is.
Don’t ask a man what his salary is.
Don’t ask a German why his grandfather comes from Argentina.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

The underlying philosophy behind France and the UK's reluctance for military action was WWI. WWI left deep scars in the men who fought, and then fifteen to twenty years later found themselves in positions of power in those countries. And believe even the older men in power in France and the UK lost friends and family in that war.

So nobody wanted another one.

There was also a more pragmatic/cynical reason based on the experience of WWI. The war had seen the European powers weakened while the USA prospered and the USSR was born from the chaos. The great fear was that another European war would only benefit those same peripheral powers while draining the British and French dry, which is of course precisel;y what did happen.

Now while the British and French had concluded the bet way to maintain the position of Europe in the world was to keep the peace, Hitler concluded that Europe had to be welded together under a single ruthless leadership to compete, while ruthlessly exploiting the resources of the east.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Hans

As noted. Yet Hitler wasn't shy in stating what he hoped to do - but for some reasons those who love him refuse to see it.

Yet it remains there in open.

The Holocaust Denier's mantra: "It never happened and even if it did, they had it coming".

[ComsatAngel2017]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

The man is laughing because this is a script from ITMA.

The clue is in the title. Readers under the age of 90 who do not hail from the UK may not have understood. ITMA was a wartime radio broadcast.

[ComsatAngel2017]

Ah yes the 'Dolchstoss'. How the German army suffered Jewish sabotage 3 months of unending defeat, loss and retreat, being ground to powder by the British, French and American (and Belgian) armies, and how they lost every battle waged against the Allies. I still don't understand how the battle of Amiens was, in fact, won by some Jewish saboteurs in Germany, and not by a combined-arms offensive by the British with aircraft, tanks, artillery and infantry.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by ComsatAngel2017

The clue is in the title. Readers under the age of 90 who do not hail from the UK may not have understood. ITMA was a wartime radio broadcast.

It was the tommy Handley show dressed up as a sitcom.
ITMA was short for 'It's That Man Again'
It ran for 10 years from 1939 and only ended when Tommy Handley died.

Quote:

ITMA was an important contributor to British morale during the war, with its cheerful take on the day-to-day preoccupations of the public, but its detailed topicality – one of its greatest attractions at the time – has prevented it from wearing well on repeated hearing. The show's lasting legacy is its influence on subsequent BBC comedy. ITMA's innovative structure – a half-hour comedy with musical interludes and a cast of regular characters with popular catchphrases – was successfully continued in comedy shows of the 1950s and 1960s, such as Take It from Here, The Goon Show and Round the Horne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_That_Man_Again