|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
21st May 2017, 09:31 AM | #121 |
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
|
You are missing the point Henri; we aren't disputing the assertion that Churchill wasn't a strategic genius. We are pointing out that this assessment is hardly novel.
The bits about the state of the German forces at Kursk is different. We do disagree with that. Similarly, we also disagree that Chamberlain had any useful knowledge of the German plans for the invasion of Russia due to him being dead when the planning started. |
__________________
OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK |
|
21st May 2017, 09:54 AM | #122 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
Henri, you quote Peter Hitchens (of all people) who chooses to tell us that he can't distinguish between the post war loss of Empire, and being conquered by the Nazis. To Hitchens there's no difference really, so he doesn't know if we won the war or not. This is a remarkable point of view.
Because we lost so much wealth and power in the Second World War, we still have to keep telling ourselves that we won it. Or did we - as my father (who served in a pretty rough bit of it) used to ask from time to time, as he contemplated the state of the country he had helped to save.What drivel. The state of the country is much better than it would have been if the Nazis had conquered it. |
22nd May 2017, 12:50 PM | #123 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
|
Hell, Churchill talents as a strategist were being criticized as early as 1915, when Gallipoli,which was very much Churchill's strategic baby,did not turn out very well and ended up costing Churchill his post as the British Equivilent of Secretary of the Navy.
The role of the Sicilian landings in causing the halt to the Kursk Offensive is debated. Many feel it gave Hitler an excuse to stop an offesinve the was rapidly losing steam anyway and was proving very costly. |
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
22nd May 2017, 12:52 PM | #124 |
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
|
|
__________________
OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK |
|
22nd May 2017, 11:31 PM | #125 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5,229
|
Re: Churchill's strategic genius:
"The soft underbelly of Europe" That is a man who hasn't really looked at a map. |
22nd May 2017, 11:43 PM | #126 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
23rd May 2017, 08:15 AM | #127 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I don't know the exact details of the German forces at Kursk. Much of the information and intelligence given to the Russians by Ultra about numbers and intentions of the Germans is still secret and has never been published. I do know that Kursk was a battle that involved millions of troops, and many tanks, and is a battle that Churchill can't take the political credit for now.
I still maintain that Chamberlain and Halifax were fully aware that Hitler intended to invade Russia. Hitler mentioned it in his Mein Kampf book in the 1920s, and our secret service knew about it from 1934. Chamberlain's strategy of giving Britain another year to get organised for the Battle of Britain, and prepared for war was right judgment by him. Chamberlain's piece of paper about the Czechs, which keeps coming under so much criticism, was just diplomatic language, a bit like Tony Blair's empty waffle nowadays. There is a bit of historical background to this on the internet:
Quote:
|
23rd May 2017, 08:55 AM | #128 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
Do you think that Blair is still PM? I sometimes wonder if you're living in a time warp in which Chamberlain was alive during the Battle of Kursk, and Blair is still in no 10.
Your bit about Hitler attacking Russia is nonsense. I have already explained why; that it mixes general hostility with specific plans, and as we have seen, these plans were drawn up only after Chamberlain's death. Moreover I didn't realise just how incompetent you think the secret service was back then. Hitler published Mein Kampf in the twenties. Only in 1934 does our secret service become aware that it says bad things about Bolshevik Russia! Very poor show, eh? |
23rd May 2017, 08:56 AM | #129 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
Henri, you haven't demonstrated much knowledge of the facts of Kursk, let alone details.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Start here for an overview, then go into the sources. For heaven's sake, stop relying on alleged documentaries that you can't remember the title of and that you saw on the telly 20 years ago, it doesn't serve you well.
Quote:
Also, the idea that Stalin needed warning that Hitler had written in Mein Kampf in 1925 about his plan to invade the Soviet Union. First, it was written 9 years before he actually came to power and 16 years before it actually happened. Mein Kampf gives no useful information to the Soviets - which would be things like tactical and strategic objectives, allocation of forces, allocations of material, resupply plans, timetables. All it does is confirm that this Hitler guy really didn't like either the Russian people, or Bolshevism - which they had already deduced from his rather inflammatory rhetoric and being able to read the same open source material as either Chamberlain and Halifax. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
24th May 2017, 03:37 AM | #130 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There are historians who think that Stalin intended to double cross Hitler before the Russian invasion, as well as the usual Holocaust denier nutso historians. It's just that the British public have never been given any evidence of that. There is something that Stalin sacked his Foreign Minister in May 1938, who had proposed an alliance with the Czechs, and replaced him with Molotov who came to an agreement with the German Ribbentrop to carve up Poland. Personally, I think Stalin was taken by surprise.
There is a bit of background to this on the internet:
Quote:
|
24th May 2017, 04:51 AM | #131 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
If it's not true, then no evidence for it can exist. It has been discussed, and rejected, by many historians. See eg What Stalin Knew David E Murphy.
Quote:
|
24th May 2017, 08:29 AM | #132 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Historians seem to disagree in the same way as economists and psychiatrists disagree among themselves.
In theory America and Russia should have done a sledgehammer on Hitler in 1933 or 1934, but it never happened. America was isolationist, and it had the same 'with what' problems as Britain at the time. The Czechs were a far away country of which few Americans had heard. Also in theory there was nothing to stop the Czechs from taking on Nazi ruthlessness themselves on their own if they had such marvellous tanks, as some people say on this forum. As it turned out several Czech pilots joined the RAF, and the monster German Heydrich was bumped off by Czech agents during the war. It could be that Stalin was only interested in a Russian Empire, including the Baltic states and Eastern Europe, including Bulgaria, which turned out to be the case after the war. The problem the Russians had with that was that the Czechs and the Poles and Rumanians were not reliable Russian allies, as has been proved in recent times. They joined the European Political Union at the earliest opportunity. Chamberlain gave the Poles a guarantee which he never did with the Czechs. That's not appeasement. There is background waffle about this on a Wikipedia website:
Quote:
|
24th May 2017, 08:34 AM | #133 |
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
|
CHAMBERLAIN WAS DEAD WHEN THE GERMANS STARTED PLANNING THE INVASION OF RUSSIA. HE WASN'T ABLE TO CONVEY ANY USEFUL INFORMATION ABOUT THOSE PLANS BECAUSE OF THIS INCONVENIENCING FACT
|
__________________
OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK |
|
24th May 2017, 09:36 AM | #134 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
If you are in doubt about that, why in God's name don't you consult an article about these weapons, of which there are many on the Internet? You will find material like this.
By May 1939, the Germans had received the balance of the TL38s ... which had been part of the original order from Skoda for the Czech Army. Soon after, as a result of favorable field trials, the Wehrmacht ordered the production of 325 additional such vehicles. All would be almost identical to the initial Czech design. The PzKpfw 38(t), which the Wehrmacht placed in its light divisions in the following three months, proved a very potent weapon and soon earned the admiration of its crews as Robuste Fahrzeuge (durable vehicles) ... Following the renewal of major operations in the West on May 10, 1940, Czech-designed tanks of the German Army roll(ed) rapidly across France and toward the English Channel. Using Czech technology enabled the panzer arm of the Wehrmacht to deliver firepower and mobility to the front in the early days of the war.So the Wehrmacht, as well as "some people on this forum", rated these vehicles quite highly. The Czechs were inhibited from risking a Nazi invasion because Chamberlain had given away the Sudetenland which contained the hilly area in which the Czechs had constructed their main defensive lines. |
24th May 2017, 11:21 AM | #135 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
|
Yeah, all those mountains in the Balkans and Italy should have told him something.
As one Historian, commenting at the WW2 Italian campaign, which Churchill basically forced on a skeptical FDR (there was a strong feeling in the US military to stop after Sicily) said that the Soft Underbelly turned out to be a Tough Old Gut. |
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
24th May 2017, 11:36 AM | #136 |
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
|
The soft underbelly of Europe was another phrase that sprung to mind
|
__________________
OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK |
|
24th May 2017, 01:34 PM | #137 |
Mafia Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
|
Litvinov was sacked a year later, in May 1939, so after Munich and after the annexation of the Czech lands by the Nazis. Moreover, Stalin was dismayed at not being invited in Munich: the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia had a Treaty on Mutual Assistance since 1935. As you can read from the protocol, Soviet assistance to CS was conditional on French assistance.
Stalin may well have been surprised at Barbarossa, but that doesn't mean he was surprised that Nazi Germany would attack; it only means he didn't expect it already in 1941. |
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen |
|
25th May 2017, 02:29 AM | #138 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
You are right that Litvinov was sacked by Stalin in May 1939. There is something in a Wikipedia article about him that he tried to send Russian troops to help the Czechs, but this was refused by Poland. The Czech other neighbour Rumania was going Nazi Fascist at the time. Hitler was putting on pressure for Slovakia to split from the Czechs and for Slovakia to have a pro-German Nazi Fascist government.
I still firmly believe that Chamberlain knew Hitler intended to invade Russia. Our secret service knew about it in 1934. It could be that Stalin didn't expect a German attack in 1941, though that was not too bright of him if it's true. The warning signs were there. Our secret service definitely had the warning signs. Even Churchill tried to warn Stalin. It was speed surprise and simplicity, and deception, and even secrecy, by Hitler. Part of the trouble is, as I have said before, that much of the hard documentary evidence in Russia and America, and even Britain, is still secret. In the UK there are these 30 and 50 year rules, and then much of it is redacted, or even destroyed. It's like trying to find out about bugging. There is some background to all this in a recent American newspaper article:
Quote:
|
25th May 2017, 03:29 AM | #139 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Jesus Christ, Henri, *everybody* knew Hitler intended to invade Russia. It was never a secret. The only question was when, where, and how. And Chamberlain could not have known that, because those things didn't get decided until *after he was dead*.
Seriously, what are you trying to get from this? What agreement are you looking for, here? |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
25th May 2017, 04:09 AM | #140 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
This is all complete rubbish. Nobody could have warned Stalin about June 1941 on the basis of somebody reading Mein Kampf in 1934, as you have been told many times. Chamberlain knew nothing. He didn't even know that Hitler intended to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia after he had swallowed the Sudetenland. Chamberlain was deceived, and consented to the annexation of Sudetenland, although it deprived Czechoslovakia of her lines of defence and opened her to complete destruction. Did Chamberlain foresee that? Did Chamberlain foresee the Nazi-Soviet non aggression pact of August 1939? Was that in Mein Kampf?
Did Chamberlain know that Hitler hated Jews, Slavs and communists? Yes. After reading Mein Kampf everyone knew that. But what does it have to do with Churchill discovering the date of Barbarossa? That date was decided by Hitler after Chamberlain had died. Please also identify your sources, which by the way don't look very impressive. |
25th May 2017, 07:47 AM | #141 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
It was Stalin who was deceived by Hitler. Stalin thought he could come to an agreement with Hitler to seize the Baltic states and carve up Poland. In March 1938 the British military chiefs of staff produced a report that concluded that Britain could not possibly stop Germany from taking Czechoslovakia, and that Britain was not prepared for war.
I don't think the mainstream media at the time told the British public what a very narrow shave it was. It was a typical British all must be well attitude. My own father when he was alive once made the remark that Britain could not possibly be defeated because of the British Navy. I don't think he ever counted up the number of Spitfires in service in 1938. It still annoys me that Hitler occupied the Channel Islands. I don't like seeing old film of British policemen saluting Nazi soldiers there. All it needed was for hare-brained Churchill to choose between war and dishonour and we all would have ended up in concentration camps.
Quote:
|
25th May 2017, 07:56 AM | #142 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
That's rather a non sequitur, don't you think? Britain couldn't be invaded because the Royal Navy had such a great superiority over the Kreigsmarine that it was impossible to safeguard an invasion fleet for the 24 hours it would take to cross the Channel; the only hope Germany had was for the Luftwaffe to be so effective at anti-shipping operations that it could deny the Channel totally to British warships, and it simply didn't have even the beginnings of that capability until about 1941. Even then, a fast-maneuvering destroyer was a hell of a difficult thing to sink, and the barges envisaged for an invasion fleet would have been swamped simply by the bow wave of a destroyer making a high speed pass. And then, put a force ashore, and then what? An armoured division needs about 100 tons of supplies per day to operate effectively; that logistical capability didn't exist for Germany at any time.
Whether Britain could have been defeated by German bombers simply obliterating everything south of the Thames is a different question, and one that Spitfire numbers are relevant to. But even so, Germany survived for a couple of years under a level of bombing almost beyond the imagination in 1940, and far beyond German capability in 1938. It's a classic mistake of amateur historians to deduce imbalances in strength by comparing capabilities of two countries at different times. Comparing British capabilities in 1938 with German capabilities in 1940 is one of the commonest examples. Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
25th May 2017, 08:45 AM | #143 |
Mafia Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
|
IOW, they could have been checked and driven back into the sea by Dad's Army?
But Germany developed far too late big strategic bombers like the four-engine Lancaster and B-17. They simply didn't have the capability to obliterate Britain on the same scale as the UK and USA would do to Gerrmany, not during the Battle of Britain and not afterwards. And those 1940 German capabilities included Czech tanks like the 38t. |
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen |
|
25th May 2017, 09:22 AM | #144 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
There's a story I've heard, possibly apocryphal, that Sandhurst war-gamed a German invasion in 1940 in which the forces available to Britain were Snoopy in his Sopwith Camel, Captain Pugwash and the Black Pig, and the Walmington-on-Sea platoon of the Home Guard, and the German invasion still failed. Germany's logistical planning was virtually non-existent; their plans involved requisitioning the entire stock of barges in northern Europe (handwaving away the economic effects), towing them in strings across the channel, working up to full speed before releasing them to turn inland and hit the beach by momentum alone, blowing the bows off with explosive bolts to land the troops, then re-using the same set of beached, bowless barges for a daily cargo lift until they could capture a major port in good enough shape to use it - something they later found wasn't all that difficult to prevent. Plus, the Army demanded a large scale attack on multiple fronts, while the Navy could barely scrape together a plan for a single landing. There never seems to have been a coherent enough plan for any of it to be more than just a colossal bluff.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
25th May 2017, 09:33 AM | #145 |
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
|
Operation Sealion probably would have shortened the war I am reminded of the old saw, "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics". The Western Allies were the only armies with entirely motor-based logistics The Axis and the Russians had lots of mules etc. |
__________________
OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK |
|
25th May 2017, 01:07 PM | #146 |
Mafia Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
|
Where have I heard that before? Oh, here on 15 December 2009:
Googling suggests that the story originates with a certain Alison Brooks, who claims to have been involved. But he has Snoopy just lying on the roof of his kennel. I guess he lost his biplane to the Red Baron. He also has an amusing write-up why Operation Sealion would have been an unmitigated disaster. And this was the same vaunted German war machine that exercised for a year how to capture Eben-Emael. |
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen |
|
25th May 2017, 01:48 PM | #147 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago - Edgewater
Posts: 469
|
Though to be fair - thanks in large part to Lend-Lease - the USSR forces eventually came close to Western forces in this arena...
|
25th May 2017, 01:53 PM | #148 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
26th May 2017, 03:04 AM | #149 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The point any amateur strategist can appreciate is that the Germans would have had to have had air superiority before they made an opposed landing in Britain. It's like D-day. A bridgehead is not much use unless you can stay there.
Guderian's blitzkrieg tactics relied on the Stuka dive bomber. That was very effective in Spain, France and Poland, and probably in Russia, and a danger to British shipping and the British Navy. Against Spitfires, the Stuka was described by the Germans as a flying coffin:
Quote:
Quote:
|
26th May 2017, 03:31 AM | #150 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
The point any logician can appreciate is that this is denying the antecedent. It's perfectly clear that Germany could not have carried out a successful landing without air superiority; this does not, however, imply that Germany could have made a successful landing with air superiority. Stukas were very effective against land armies, but against freely maneuvering warships they were very much less so; the Luftwaffe could not have prevented enough of an all-out assault by the Royal Navy against an invasion fleet to make the result anything less than an outright military disaster for Germany, and based on the RN's record in WW2 it's difficult to imagine they'd do anything less.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
26th May 2017, 04:11 AM | #151 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
|
26th May 2017, 07:29 AM | #152 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
My previous quotes have come from Adolf Hitler-Wikiquote under Google.:
There is an internet article from Maynooth University about the unpublished Nazi Caucasus campaign. It's interesting but a bit hard going. I can't get these websites to link with this forum: In a way Germany won the war. Germany now has a unified Europe with Germany on top. German war criminals like Dr Mengele and Barbie, who I suppose was French, went unpunished and are now dead. Russia gained Eastern Europe for a time which caused ruction with America to this day. |
26th May 2017, 08:00 AM | #153 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
In no way did Germany win the war. Disagreement between Russia and the US was not a war goal, and anyway had already started in the 30s. As a result of the war, Germany was destroyed, invaded, occupied, and divided. Half of it was enslaved and tormented by the Soviet Union for a generation. Germany's present condition is the benefit that accrues to a peaceful democracy that engages with its neighbors in good faith through economic and diplomatic means. Germany today is a new nation, that with the help of its former conquerors--and even against their malign interference--built itself up from the rubble of the Germany that was destroyed. It bears no responsibility for the war entered into, and utterly lost, by the evil regime that preceded it.
It is hard to imagine a nation losing a war more completely and decisively than Germany did. Carthage, maybe? |
26th May 2017, 08:24 AM | #154 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
Read about the Nazi occupation, compared to the EU alliance, and be ashamed of yourself for the idiocy you are expressing.
Are you by any chance a supporter of Brexit? If it wasn't for us they'd be talking Kraut in Berlin now! Oh, they are talking it, are they? So Hitler must of won the war then. |
26th May 2017, 11:55 AM | #155 |
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
|
|
__________________
OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK |
|
26th May 2017, 03:17 PM | #156 |
Mafia Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
|
Ahem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Barbie:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen |
|
26th May 2017, 04:34 PM | #157 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
28th May 2017, 02:23 AM | #158 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I don't know much about Barbie. I remember the case in the newspapers, when it happened, but I didn't take much notice at the time. The newspaper reports never mentioned that Barbie murdered people by throwing them into a lime pit.
There is a bit of background to all this in a book called The Secret Hunters by Anthony Kemp published in 1986. This is a quote from Prince Galitzine:
Quote:
|
28th May 2017, 03:00 AM | #159 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That article about the Germans in the Caucasus comes from D. Galbraith at Maynooth university, which is Irish would you believe. It's rather hard going but it seems to be comprehensive:
http://www.academia.edu/11902948/1_D...-_October_1943 |
28th May 2017, 05:35 AM | #160 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
Yes I would believe that. It became exceedingly well known as the subject of anti-Catholic agitation in the mid nineteenth century, when the UK government granted funding to it, causing indignation and consternation among extremist Protestants. See link.
It was also the source of the Maynooth CatechismWP, well known to Catholic Irish schoolchildren. ... It was "ordered by the National Synod of Maynooth. . . . for General Use throughout the Irish Church" in 1882 ... In the 20th century in Irish schools it was known as the "Green Catechism" from the colour of its cover. The James Joyce short story "A Painful Case" references this catechism.It was revised and republished in 1951. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|