The German campaign of conquering Britain

[senojekips]

You are so far up yourself and the importance of your own opinions you absolutely pitiful. I'm glad you posted your reference site, it will give me some material.

Obviously you have no idea of what I think, and it appears even less idea of how the world views your ideas.

"Oh, look at the marching team, what a pity my son Ollie is the only one in step".

The man was a certifiable lunatic and so are his followers. History is my proof.

 

[Del Boy]

Ollie - why don't you retire gracefully from the field andstop digging a deeper and deeper hole.

You just can't compete with senojekips.

Maenwhile - re. your treatise on Winston - I will let the Geat Man speak for himself:-


Broadcast to the US from London 8th August 1939.


If Herr Hitler does not make war, there will be no war. No one else is going to make war. Britain and France are determined to shed no blood except in defence of their allies. No one has ever dreamed of attacking Germany. If Germany desires to be reassured against attack by her neighbours, she has only to say the word and we will give her the fullest guarantees in accordance with the principles of the Covenant of the League. We have said REPEATEDLY we ask nothing for ourselves in the way of security that we are not willing freely to share with the German people.

THEREFORE, IF WAR SHOULD COME THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT UPON WHOSE HEAD THE BLOOD-GUILTINESS WILL FALL.

Thus lies the great issue at this moment, and none can tell how it will be settled.


WINSTON CHURCHILL.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

OLLIE -SHUT THE F*** UP!

 

[senojekips]

Oh, come on now Del Boy,... that's hardly fair. Ollie is an admirable opponent, it is purely my fault that I too cannot ignore the lessons of history. Therefore we cannot agree.

You know the old saying. "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". Ollie obviously hasn't heard it yet, perhaps it's not true in Germany?

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Obviously you have no idea of what I think, and it appears even less idea of how the world views your ideas.

Monocausality:​

1. You are arguing for a monocausal explanation of WWII origins.

2. You state that the world accepts this monocausal explanation without question.

3. You argue that my rejection of this view makes me a Nazi.


Monocausal: "having one cause".

Monocausal explanations in historical studies: "nothing is more dangerous than a simple, monocausal explanation of past experiences and present problems". (The Organization of American Historians)

The Organization of American Historians: "The Organization of American Historians, founded in 1907 as the Mississippi Valley Historical Association, is the largest professional organization for the investigation, study and teaching of American History. It serves a membership of 11,000 college and university professors, high school teachers, students, archivists, public historians, and institutional subscribers such as libraries, museums, and history societies, as well as individual and institutional foreign members".

Are they also Nazis?

Here is another excerpt:

"The study of history involves more than the passive absorption of facts, dates, names, and places. Real historical understanding requires students to engage in historical thinking: to raise questions and to marshal evidence in support of their answers; to go beyond the facts presented in their textbooks and examine the historical record for themselves; to consult documents, journals, diaries, artifacts, historic sites, and other evidence from the past, and to do so imaginatively--taking into account the historical context in which these records were created and comparing the multiple points of view of those on the scene at the time".(emphasis mine)


http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/standards/nhs1.html

 

[MontyB]

Oh, come on now Del Boy,... that's hardly fair. Ollie is an admirable opponent, it is purely my fault that I too cannot ignore the lessons of history. Therefore we cannot agree.

You know the old saying. "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". Ollie obviously hasn't heard it yet, perhaps it's not true in Germany?

Guys this isn't the political forum theoretically it is possible to have interesting debate on a subject without the need to start calling each other Nazi's, Communists, Liberals etc. While I don't necessarily agree with Ollie's point of view and find much of his argument "revisionist" at best it does at least stimulate my brain cells enough to go and find out more and I like that.

As far as the topic of the thread goes I am going to partially agree with Ollie in that Germany did not have plans on paper to invade Britain at the start of WW2 however just because the planning wasn't there does not mean the intention wasn't either and had the Norwegian campaign not decimated a sizable chunk of the German navy things may have panned out differently.

As for Churchill its a little more difficult, militarily he was a horrible liability but from a political stance he did an outstanding job in galvanising a nation to fight a war from an almost impossible situation.

 

[senojekips]

Monty, your point is taken.

Ollie,.... Monocausality? Not at all, but predominant cause, most certainly! Here you have fallen into what you accuse me of by trying to put my reasoning neatly into one little box. It just ain't so. To you, and others reading this thread that may well appear so, but the truth of the matter being that I can't be bothered going into great detail and explaining all of the causes and effects and providing references, because this has already been "done to death" and history has become the judge, and I think that it has ruled very heavily against your case.

I am not going to change history, and neither are you.

Regarding your question on NAZIs and NAZI apologists, there is a "simple" (I know,... you won't like that) answer. "If it looks like duck, and it quacks like a duck, the chances are that it IS a duck.

 

[Del Boy]

QUOTE FROM OLLIE

"comparing the multiple points of view of those on the scene at the time".(emphasis Ollie's) -

Ollie - I would recommend this emphasis to you.

Furthermore,one would have to qualify the use of the word 'imaginatively'...


Taking all into account I have to hold to the widely held theory that 'if it looks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi and smells like a Nazi, then it's a safe bet that it is a Nazi. And why should such a view be considered inappropriate, in any discussion of a subject such as this.

It is a widely held theory that some would consider such a category to be a matter of pride, and that is what we are discussing here, the promotion of Hitler's Nazi regime, in the full light of all its terrible horror, of which its supporters were so proud and now cannot claim ignorance of the cold facts.

The cold facts remain Ollie's stumbling block, and he strives to avoid or dismiss them.

One example among many - I posted yesterday a quotation from Winston S Churchill's broadcast to U.S. of 8 Aug 39.

This is probably the most factual and significant historical starting point we have. Ollie has hard views on this particular point but faced with the irrefutable historical fact he fails to respond.

I have attempted to dissect Ollie's arguments one at a time, bit by bit, bone by bone, concentrating the focus on each point he has pursued strongly.

His response always to swamp the thread with a multitude of links etc., in order to swerve from the point. I admit he is slippery, I am patient.

Anyone who feels intimidated by the mass of his offering should ask him to comment on Churchill's broadcast to the U.S.

Let us remove the top layer and see what lies beneath the picture he is painting. Let us investigate his claims, not allowing him to scramble to hide behind the skirts of academia, but by putting the facts under the microscope, in detail and singly.

To this end I am re-submitting Churchill's broadcast quotation in refuting Ollie's claim that Britain was responsible for WW11, that Britain wanted WW11 and that America is also guilty on both counts.

Not rocket science, is it?

COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Del Boy]

.


Broadcast to the US from London 8th August 1939.


If Herr Hitler does not make war, there will be no war. No one else is going to make war. Britain and France are determined to shed no blood except in defence of their allies. No one has ever dreamed of attacking Germany. If Germany desires to be reassured against attack by her neighbours, she has only to say the word and we will give her the fullest guarantees in accordance with the principles of the Covenant of the League. We have said REPEATEDLY we ask nothing for ourselves in the way of security that we are not willing freely to share with the German people.

THEREFORE, IF WAR SHOULD COME THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT UPON WHOSE HEAD THE BLOOD-GUILTINESS WILL FALL.

Thus lies the great issue at this moment, and none can tell how it will be settled.


WINSTON CHURCHILL. 8TH AUGUST 1939.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

OLLIE - COMMENT ON THIS HISTORICAL FACT PLEASE.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Edited. Post was Garbled.

I knew the Mr. Bubbles faction would accuse me of being monocausal. Hell, they have not read a thing that I have written.

Nor is the designation "revisionist" appropriate. My beliefs are a mixture of the 30-Years War Thesis School, the AJP Taylor Thesis, and the subtheories of many historians. I call myself a post. [Actually, I was trying to fill in something when my wife forced me to go shopping. I guess I just pressed enter without looking. A post-what is the issue. I cannot figure that one out yet. I need more time. The wife is nagging again, so I gotta run.]

Anyway, think of this: Historical research is revisionist by definition. New documents or ways of thinking always revise the orthodox view. I am for example an adherent of the post-revisionist school in Cold War studies, as are most people. The only example of "evil revisionism" is in relation to the Holocaust. And I will literally fly over to Britain or Australia and tweak your nose if you argue that I support the Holocaust. (Then I would have a nice pint of bitter or a Fosters).


I knew that you would call me monocausal, because I mentioned that you would. Sounds complicated. It is. And the view that Hitler alone started the war is, sorry, a monocausal explanation. It is also by default illogical.

 

[senojekips]

Well, Ollie if you knew that I was going to accuse you of being monocausal, why in God's name did you make such a stupid and unfounded statement?

Revisionist views: Well, I don't know about Germany, but in many English speaking countries we have a saying. "Those who don't learn from the past will be doomed to re live it" It has served us well so far,.... until we get people trying to change our views of it.

I have deliberately steered right away from the holocaust because, (1) It has little bearing on the subject except as an object lesson as to the evil of Hitler and his cronies. (2) You have given me no reason to associate your views with it.

In regard to this debate, and only in that regard, I see you as a NAZI apologist, nothing more and nothing less.
Also I will admit that the NAZI ideology was not all bad, but the parts of it that were bad, were pure evil. Hitler did for Germany, what no one else could at the time, but that is another story for another thread.
Lastly should you ever find yourself in my locality I would gladly buy you that bitter. I dunno that we would have a great deal in common, but I'm sure it would be interesting, I may get excited at times, but in the grand scheme of things this is all "very small fish"

 

[Del Boy]

Last 2 posts - OK by me - good posts.

I agree with senojekips summary, but would add that moving the responsibility for WW11 in the final analysis from the Hitler regime simply cannot be factually correct. Do I hold - Britain good - Hitler bad? Certainly. Ollie's interest in the subject is understandable, and his motives may be as honest as the day is long, but the great problem is what follows his endeavours when they leave his hands. Another vehicle for evil on back on the world stage.

Unfortunately the world stage I have to accept as part of my responsibility, as an ancient Brit, and I must pass on what I have learned before I depart. I cannot afford to allow bending of what I know, have constantly measured and checked. My intuition has become unerring I'm afraid, and given the present state of the world politically I am shocked by attitudes of comfortable denial of where and why the dangers lie. For me it is of no consequence, for my grandchildren, and yours,.... well, who knows.

The lessons of history and of such consequence.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[senojekips]

Edited. Post was Garbled.

I knew that you would call me monocausal, because I mentioned that you would. Sounds complicated. It is.

I know that my eyesight is no longer perfect, but where may I ask, did you say that I would accuse you of being monocausal? If perchance you are merely implying that you were aware of the fact, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, as your comment was almost guaranteed to do that.

With due respect. Did you ever stop to think that your last comment about this being "complicated" has been bought about by your insistence on making the simple appear to be complicated, where there is absolutely no need for it? One of my arguments all along.

And the view that Hitler alone started the war is, sorry, a monocausal explanation. It is also by default illogical.[/quote]

If I read you correctly, you are accusing me of saying that Hitler alone started the war. I have never made that statement, in fact I refuted it in my previous post when I stated that your accusation of monocausality was false I said:

Ollie,.... Monocausality? Not at all, but predominant cause, most certainly!

 

[MontyB]

Well just to add some spice to this battle here are a few quotes from fairly influential participants that would support Ollie's argument that Germany did not want war with Britain.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hitler was in very good humour, he admitted that the course of the campaign had been 'a decided miracle', and gave us his opinion that the war would be - finished in six weeks. After that he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be free for an agreement with Britain.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but 'where there is planing, there are shavings flying'. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church - saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the Continent. The return of Germany's lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere. He remarked that the colonies were primarily a matter of prestige, since they could not be held in war, and few Germans could settle in the tropics.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honour to accept.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Günther Blumentritt (1940)
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] 13th July: The Führer is is greatly puzzled by Britain's persisting unwillingness to make peace. He sees the answer (as we do) in Britain's hope on Russia, and therefore counts on having to compel her by main force to agree to peace. Actually that is much against his grain. The reason is that a military defeat of Britain will bring about the disintegration of the British Empire. This would not be of any benefit to Germany. German blood would be shed to accomplish something that would benefit only Japan, the United States, and others.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]14th July: The Führer confirms my impressions of yesterday. He would like an understanding with Great Britain. He knows that war with the British will be hard and bloody, and knows also that people everywhere today are averse to bloodshed.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- Franz Halder (1940)
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is no doubt in my mind as to the long-cherished and almost guiding political principle of Hitler's to come to terms with England, on a world-wide and lasting basis. Also I think it true that after the collapse of France he returned to this scheme - but far a short while only, and for the last time. It was during this short period, late in June and early in July, 1940, that he showed himself at first entirely unwilling and later on rather reluctant in taking up the problem of the invasion of England. The only explanation of this unusual attitude came to me at the time from a Foreign Office member of his entourage - he told me about Hitler's intentions of approaching England once more by way of a public peace
offer. Hitler's speech, when delivered in the Reichstag on 19th July, seemed to me disappointing. But Hitler in turn
may have been still more disappointed that his endeavour met with no response from the British side.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After this renewed disillusion his further steps were certainly no longer guided by political considerations. On the contrary, it seems to me that subsequent events can be understood only by the underlying idea of how to defeat England in the quickest and most effective way. Hitler pursued this aim in four different ways: the combined air and sea attack against British trade and industry; the air attack as a preparatory step to the invasion of the British Isles; the plan of attacking the British positions in the Mediterranean; and finally the initial preparations for a campaign against Russia, which was deemed England's last resort on the Continent. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It was Jodi who had a considerable share in killing off the 'sea-lion' when, in the late summer, he summarized his views in a memorandum to Hitler. The plan for an invasion of England, he wrote, would mean from the start a great risk - which had been further increased by the unsatisfactory results of the air offensive, due to the bad weather. If the landing did not succeed, this failure would endanger the whole of the achievements of the war thus far obtained. The invasion should therefore be executed only if there were no other way of forcing England to her knees. Such a way, however, offered itself by attacking and usurping the British positions in the Mediterranean - of which Jodi enumerated Gibraltar, Malta and the Suez Canal. The loss of these positions, he concluded, would bring the war to an end.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hitler apparently was only too willing to endorse these considerations against the invasion. From this time
on no more serious efforts were made. Early in December the plan was altogether abandoned - the 'sea-lion' was[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]definitely dead.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Walter Warlimont (1948} [/FONT]

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Well just to add some spice to this battle here are a few quotes from fairly influential participants that would support Ollie's argument that Germany did not want war with Britain.

Good quotes from the statements of "fairly influential participants". They demonstrate a fairly consistent pattern in Nazi thinking. Göring, Ribbentrop, Hess, the German generals and even Hitler seemed stunned by the events of 1939-1940. The overall German war "strategy" took on an ad hoc nature for the rest of the war. Even the invasion of Russia was weakened by a real lack of overall strategic vision.

[Incidentally, men like Göring had become extremely wealthy during the 1930s. They looted Jewish and German businesses (Junkers is an example of a German firm getting "nationalized") and took in huge bribes from the German elite. Göring recognized that the war threatened his new empire. Other men like Hess, Ribbentrop, Rosenberg or Streicher became redundant during the war and lost their authority. They didn't want war].

After the war, using hindsight, the generals understood that Hitler's unwillingness to fight Britain doomed Germany. Strikes against Gibraltar, Malta and Suez, operations that required only a fraction of the forces used against Russia, really would have damaged Britain beyond all repair.

But one very important event revolutionized the course of WWII -- the fall of France in a few weeks. The British now believed that the German military was in fact much larger than it really was, or rather that Churchill's lies during the 1930s had actually been truths (or so they now thought) (*). In any case, the balance of power in Europe seemed utterly gone. And the Germans thought that their incomplete military was somehow invincible. The German generals, who had been planning to get rid of Hitler, now thought that he had been right. Nobody -- not the English and not the Germans -- understood that the Wehrmacht had been rather lucky and was far from ready for a war with the USSR. In a weird way, the German victory in France led to Germany's eventual defeat. (That and Italy).

But the German victory in France was not part of Churchill's plan. And a German invasion of Britain was not a part of Hitler's plan.


I want to add a few reasons why Germany defeated France in 1940 to show how "weird" it was:

1. Lack of real British support. (too little, too late)
2. Stupid British/French strategy. (moving from inner lines to unprepared positions in Belgium)
3. German battle plans being revised at last moment. (by Manstein)
4. The incredible initiative of German officers (Guderian on down)
5. The fact that many Frenchmen actually supported Fascist ideals. (This was really weird)
6. Soviet economic support. (ultra-weird)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_%26_Co

(*) This simply meant that the British were very cautious about landing forces in France between 1942-1944. While I also agree with the British strategy of letting the Russians bleed, I personally think that the Americans were right. They had originally wanted to land troops in France as early as possible. More Allied casualties would have resulted, sure, but Germany would have been totally "screwed".

 

[Doppleganger]

And the Germans thought that their incomplete military was somehow invincible. The German generals, who had been planning to get rid of Hitler, now thought that he had been right.

Many of the German Generals though were not convinced even after the fall of France in 6 weeks. Perhaps some of the Hitler sycophants like Jodl and Keitel and the Generalstab officers like Halder may have convinced themselves but sensible field commanders like Rundstedt and Guderian were far from convinced. For example, there is the oft repeated quote from Guderian when he first learned about the planned German invasion of Russia. "When they spread out a map of Russia in front of me I could scarcely believe my eyes." I think the person most convinced about the German military after the fall of France was in fact Hitler. After all, he claimed the credit for modifying 'Fall Gelb' so that it fell into line with the Manstein Plan.

This belief of Hitler's that he was more intuitive and more able than his Generals was to have grave consequences for the war for Germany. In the coming war against Russia it was Hitler's overconfidence in his own ability that ended Germany's best chance to defeat the Soviet Union in 1941.

Coming back to the Battle of France it was frightening to realize (if you were a German that is) that victory probably only came about because 2 Generals, Rommel and in particular Guderian, disobeyed direct orders and caused the operational collapse of the French and British armies largely by themselves. In other armies with more rigid command structures, such as the British or French for example, this could never have happened.

At the end of the day though, attacking and defeating France was only done because in Hitler's eyes this war had been forced upon him. East was were it was at for Hitler.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Many of the German Generals though were not convinced even after the fall of France in 6 weeks. Perhaps some of the Hitler sycophants like Jodl and Keitel and the Generalstab officers like Halder may have convinced themselves but sensible field commanders like Rundstedt and Guderian were far from convinced. For example, there is the oft repeated quote from Guderian when he first learned about the planned German invasion of Russia. "When they spread out a map of Russia in front of me I could scarcely believe my eyes." I think the person most convinced about the German military after the fall of France was in fact Hitler. After all, he claimed the credit for modifying 'Fall Gelb' so that it fell into line with the Manstein Plan.

This belief of Hitler's that he was more intuitive and more able than his Generals was to have grave consequences for the war for Germany. In the coming war against Russia it was Hitler's overconfidence in his own ability that ended Germany's best chance to defeat the Soviet Union in 1941.

Coming back to the Battle of France it was frightening to realize (if you were a German that is) that victory probably only came about because 2 Generals, Rommel and in particular Guderian, disobeyed direct orders and caused the operational collapse of the French and British armies largely by themselves. In other armies with more rigid command structures, such as the British or French for example, this could never have happened.

At the end of the day though, attacking and defeating France was only done because in Hitler's eyes this war had been forced upon him. East was were it was at for Hitler.

Correct. My synopsis was too simplistic. People like Gehlen actually pointed out that German strategy vs. the USSR was built on an intelligence failure. If I remember correctly, Hitler just brushed off Gehlen's assessments of Soviet military strength as nonsense.

What we have then is this: A British intelligence failure led to war that was decided by a German intelligence failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Gehlen

And now for something completely counterfactual: If the British had not declared war in 1939 and Hitler had decided to concentrate on more military preparations, the following might have happened:

1. Stalin would have attacked Germany in 1943 and his armies would have been smashed by superior German defensive doctrine. The German military would, however, have paid a high price in terms of manpower and equipment. Even if Hitler had attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 or 1942, the end result would have been the same. Lots of totalitarian death and a severly weakened Germany.

2. After waiting and making hollow promises to aid Germany or Stalin, or even sending Hitler resources like oil, Britain and France could have then declared war on Germany and taken out the Third Reich in a single campaign. WWII would have been short and, from the point of view of Britain and France, forever celebrated as the most intelligent war ever fought.

Even if Germany had totally defeated the USSR in four months, the losses would have been significant and the number of troops needed to control the area would have drained German fighting power.

As it was, the western Allies declared war in 1939 and then did nothing. It was the military strategy of the submoron. This strategy led directly to the defeat of France and actually turned Germany into a far greater military and industrial power than it ever was before. French resources added signficantly to German fighting power. Polish resources added nothing. Only Churchill could look back at the events, start blathering about the victory of Dunkirk and then make himself look like a master strategist. He attacked Chamberlain for being a coward, but failed to realize that the declaration of war in 1939 actually caused most of Britain's headaches -- the fall of France, the Norwegian debacle, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic, Greece, Crete, Tobruk, the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse, the whole Japanese catastrophe, etc.

 

[MontyB]

Well if we are getting into hypothetical situations I found this stunning bit of evidence while scouring the net.

http://www.etherzone.com/2006/mako013006.shtml

I am sure there is much to discuss.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Well if we are getting into hypothetical situations I found this stunning bit of evidence while scouring the net.

http://www.etherzone.com/2006/mako013006.shtml

I am sure there is much to discuss.

Ollie Garchy's Quick Review of Greg Hallett​

Even the blurb describes Hallett as anything but an historian: "Greg Hallett trained in various psychological models in parallel with his architecture degree and training. He travelled widely behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, hitchhiking on planes, making bunks out of airmail bags, to party and report between cities. His contacts in Eastern Europe led to deep penetration of the Soviet State, how it functioned and how it was to colonise the West. It was these qualifications that led him to buy buildings in Moscow immediately after the Berlin Wall fell. This led to interviews with the KGB and their revelations about the planned sex-communism and deconstruction of Westerners. What they had planned for the West happened in the West. Equally all modern history can be dated back to 1945. What Hitler planned for the world happened to the world over the next sixty years". Even the blurb is insane.

He dismisses the whole historical record and relies on "eyewitnesses": "Most of history is created from manufactured records, yet the true history provides us with the rich understanding of ‘humanity’s bizarre strivings for wealth and power’, the destruction of each other, the desire for mass murder and the cover-ups that follow". Sorry but scouring crack dens for historical sources is somewhat suspect.

His methodology is bizarre: "There are four methods to get this ‘knowledge of power’. The first is to do exhaustive research from scratch. The second, if you can access them, is to interview ‘living libraries’ – old secret agents who have that smart, distrustful, questioning look in their eyes (that belies too much action and a complete surprise at being alive). The third is to be an active historian changing history with the straw that broke the camel’s back. The fourth is to belong to a secret society and work your way up through the ranks, at which point you can’t reveal the information". In other words, make it up as you go.

He is a gluebag: (memorable quotes)

(1) "History repeats every sixty years plus or minus two years".

(2) "With monogamous heterosexual leaders, wars halve in frequency. As a result, leaders with nothing to hide tend to be eliminated, either frustrated before they get into power, or killed once in power. This is the nature of war. Deaths do not count, not even the deaths of their leaders".

(3) "Enter the cult figure – James Bond, morphic resonances’ main man of the twentieth century. All hail Bond, for through him, we shall bond. His name is laced with British and European history: James, Jesus’ brother, second born in AD1 (or AD0 for the pedantic), conceived in the first week of December 1BC, and born to set the clocks on the 15 September AD0, having the highest qualities of integrity and investigative intuition".

(4) "Pearl Harbor took 16 years to plan and it was either a masterstroke or a complete ****-up".

(5) "Because Hitler had been a house painter, they were held in high regard in Nazi Germany. If anyone didn’t pay a painter in the Third Reich they were in serious trouble. Insulting the Führer or not paying a painter were (equally) reason enough to be thrown into a concentration camp. Those who didn’t pay their painter could also have their houses confiscated. As a result painters were treated with kid gloves and generally not questioned. This preferential treatment gave painters enough leeway to be very effective spies".

(6) "Wallis Simpson was born a man, but then so are a lot of women".

This book brings up one important issue. Who paid for publication? Was it FNZ Inc. or Hallett himself?

Ollie Garchy

http://www.hitlerwasabritishagent.com/hwaba-intro.pdf

 

[MontyB]

I think you may have missed the smiley face at the end of my previous post.

I just tripped over it while attempting to verify a couple of quotes and it struck me as funny given the current discussion.

However I have been reading a few theories on a 64 million year extinction coefficient so maybe there is something in the number 60?.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

I think you may have missed the smiley face at the end of my previous post.

I just tripped over it while attempting to verify a couple of quotes and it struck me as funny given the current discussion.

However I have been reading a few theories on a 64 million year extinction coefficient so maybe there is something in the number 60?.

I didn't miss it. I just had a little fun with a very weird book. Check out the stuff on "scat". Dude, I was just being sarcastic. Thanks, I love crackpot stuff.