The German campaign of conquering Britain

[perseus]

Coming back to the Battle of France it was frightening to realise (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.

The command structure of the allies wasn't as rigid as you imply Doppleganger. Wasn't Gort's decision on the 25th May 1940 to move two divisions from the south to support Brooke's defensive left blatantly against orders from the French and London? This ended any last hope for a counter attack southwards and Gort's career. Using his initiative in this way was one of the pivotal decision's of WW2, similar to the Hitler's infamous 'Halt order'. Without, being able to hold a viable defence at Dunkirk, Britain's position would have been military substantially weaker, and Churchill even more so in political terms.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

The command structure of the allies wasn't as rigid as you imply Doppleganger. Wasn't Gort's decision on the 25th May 1940 to move two divisions from the south to support Brooke's defensive left blatantly against orders from the French and London? This ended any last hope for a counter attack southwards and Gort's career. Using his initiative in this way was one of the pivotal decision's of WW2, similar to the Hitler's infamous 'Halt order'. Without, being able to hold a viable defence at Dunkirk, Britain's position would have been military substantially weaker, and Churchill even more so in political terms.

Wasn't Gort C-in-C BEF?

 

[Doppleganger]

The command structure of the allies wasn't as rigid as you imply Doppleganger. Wasn't Gort's decision on the 25th May 1940 to move two divisions from the south to support Brooke's defensive left blatantly against orders from the French and London? This ended any last hope for a counter attack southwards and Gort's career. Using his initiative in this way was one of the pivotal decision's of WW2, similar to the Hitler's infamous 'Halt order'. Without, being able to hold a viable defence at Dunkirk, Britain's position would have been military substantially weaker, and Churchill even more so in political terms.

As Ollie stated Lord Gort was commander of the BEF, and effective communications between himself and the French had broken down by 25th May. As commander I thought that would give him some latitude to do what he liked within reason. What I meant in my statement was that the German Army had a tradition called 'Auftragstaktik', in which officers at all levels were required to think for themselves and not merely follow orders. This tradition almost encouraged disobedience and meant that the conditions whereby Guderian and Rommel could disobey orders was much more prevalent than in an Allied army of the time.

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

 

[perseus]

Gamelin then Weygand was in overall Military command, Gort was in change of a small component of the allied force, subordinate to them or London if overruled. These commanders were supposed to do what their governments told them, such as support the French in a breakthrough to the south.

Obviously Monty hadn't read this script either, he advised Patton to just "ignore Alexander (his head) if you don't like an order, that what I do" (or words to similar effect.

 

[Del Boy]

.Well - while i was away the mice have been out to play! So much water under the bridge !

We had, also, MontyB's helpful 'not -wanting -war 'quotes - all dated 1940. Funny that, I was under the impression that WW11 started 3 Sep 39! Idon't suppose for one minute that they were pro-war in 1945!

As for all the guff from Hitler's supporters and apologists, I'm afraid I have to be boring and spike their guns by once again publishing the only relevant fact put forward by anyone, and so far nicely avoided by a variety of really neat swerves from Ollie.

For your delectation - here it is again. Listen and learn.





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 - WHAT PART OF TRUTH DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?



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

COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Doppleganger]

Gamelin then Weygand was in overall Military command, Gort was in change of a small component of the allied force, subordinate to them or London if overruled. These commanders were supposed to do what their governments told them, such as support the French in a breakthrough to the south.

Obviously Monty hadn't read this script either, he advised Patton to just "ignore Alexander (his head) if you don't like an order, that what I do" (or words to similar effect.

Fair enough Perseus. I didn't want to say that Allied commanders never disobeyed orders, more that it was more expected of German officers and NCOs and that the doctrine existed which encouraged a degree of latitude and questioning of unsound orders.

"For generations, commanders in the Prussian and German Armies had been schooled to direct operations according to the principle of Auftragstaktik. This principle constrained commanders to giving broad, mission-oriented directives to their juniors, who were then allowed maximum latitude in accomplishing their assigned tasks. Senior leaders trusted implicitly in the professional discretion of their subordinates, and German operations characteristically evinced a degree of imagination, flexibility, and initiative matched by few other armies. So deeply ingrained was this philosophy that actions contrary to orders were seldom regarded as disobedience, but rather as laudable displays of initiative and aggressiveness. According to a German military aphorism, mules could be taught to obey but officers were expected to know when to disobey."

Taken from:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/wray/wray.asp#elastic

 

[MontyB]

We had, also, MontyB's helpful 'not -wanting -war 'quotes - all dated 1940. Funny that, I was under the impression that WW11 started 3 Sep 39! Idon't suppose for one minute that they were pro-war in 1945!

How are they not helpful, they indicate that even as late as mid-1940 Hitler had no plans nor desire to conquer Britain which is in fact the topic of the thread now I think it safe to assume that if he didn't have these plans in 1940 then chances are he didn't have them in 1939 either.

Now lets look at this objectively.
Franz Halder - Took part in the planning of operation Sealion, Warned against attacking France and was German Chief of Staff at the time.

Walter Warlimont - In 1939 was deputy head of the Operations office and in this role took part in military conferences and drafted most of Germany's major operational plans and directives.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
Günther Blumentritt - Chief of staff in the 4th Army during the invasion of France under von Kluge and Chief of operations under von Rundstedt during the invasion of Poland.

Now if you can provide some evidence that these three people knew less than Winston Churchill about German plans for an invasion of Britain or what Hitler was thinking at the time I would like to see it.

Personally cannot see how a negotiated peace was possible after the invasion of Poland that would have kept any happy, I do not believe that Germany would have accepted anything that didn't meet their aims and no matter what the outcome Poland wasn't going to be happy and most of all I don't think Britain under Churchill would have accepted any peace deal.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[Ollie Garchy]

WINSTON CHURCHILL. 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.

1. Churchill did not hold political office during most of the 1930s.

2. Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty after the outbreak of WWII.

3. Churchill became PM on 10 May 1940.

a) As a private citizen, Churchill was entitled to whatever opinions he wished. On 8 August 1939, however, he was not acting as an elected representative of the English people. His verbose rambling was therefore not part of any official political statement. It was just his viewpoint.

b) If Churchill was so interested in saving Poland -- "Britain and France are determined to shed no blood except in defence of their allies" -- why tolerate the Soviet invasion of Poland? Why did he not push for a war against the USSR after he entered Chamberlain's government?

c) Poland was not a formal ally of Britain's until a pact of mutual assistance was signed on 25 August 1939. The latter came only days after the Nazi-Soviet Pact became public and Hitler had presented renewed demands for a solution to the Danzig and Corridor problem. The British-Polish treaty was a clear rejection of territorial revision in the east -- and incidentally by definition an aggressive act aimed against the German Reich. The British act was a type of gunboat diplomacy: "the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the aid of conspicuous displays of military power—implying or constituting a direct threat of warfare, should terms not be agreeable to the superior force".

The most important point: It was as plain as day in August 1939 that Germany was going to force its will on Poland. The British-French attempt to gain Stalin's support had failed, and both dictators now turned to carving up Poland. Never forget that Polish forces had waged two simultaneous wars against Russia and Germany after 1918 in pursuit of territorial aggrandizement. Poland's only option was to side with either Stalin or Hitler. Britain's guarantee stiffened Polish resistance at the worst time possible, and the minor state was literally crushed between two world powers. Enter Britain...and WWII.

 

[perseus]

Senior leaders trusted implicitly in the professional discretion of their subordinates, and German operations characteristically evinced a degree of imagination, flexibility, and initiative matched by few other armies. So deeply ingrained was this philosophy that actions contrary to orders were seldom regarded as disobedience, but rather as laudable displays of initiative and aggressiveness. According to a German military aphorism, mules could be taught to obey but officers were expected to know when to disobey."

At a junior level this training was certainly evident even down to NCOs and even below, it didn't matter how many heads you cut of the hydra, it still functioned. In contrast, if the officer were killed in a British platoon the entire formation could crumble or give up. I enjoyed the film Dunkirk that illustrated this problem.

 

[AlphaHound]

Big Question!

Germany lost for one simple reason, Operation Barbarossa. They though the UK inefective at hurting them (they couldnt get to us because of the RAF and Navy) and so launched an attack on the USSR. That opened a second front. The Russian campaing proved very costly and consumed nearly all of its army. The UK provided a huge aircraft carrier (island) from which USAF and RAF bombers slowly destroyed Germany's ability to re-build tanks, planes and ammo.Eventually D-day marked the end, because no army can fight on all sides without resupply and replacement troops. Em simple really?

 

[Del Boy]

1. Churchill did not hold political office during most of the 1930s.

2. Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty after the outbreak of WWII.

3. Churchill became PM on 10 May 1940.




a) As a private citizen, Churchill was entitled to whatever opinions he wished. On 8 August 1939, however, he was not acting as an elected representative of the English people. His verbose rambling was therefore not part of any official political statement. It was just his viewpoint.



THROUGH THE 1930's CHURCHILL SERVED AS A RT. HON. MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, REPRESENTING HIS CONSTITUENCY AND WAS THEREFORE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE. YOU FORGET THAT ENGLAND WAS A DEMOCRACY, NOT A TYRANNICAL DICTATORSHIP. MOST OF HIS SPEECHES WERE MADE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, AND THEREFORE OFFICIALLY RECORDED IN HANSARD. THE SPEECH IN QUESTION WAS BROADCAST TO U.S. ON 8 AUG 39 AND THEREFORE BBC ARCHIVE MATERIAL.

EARLY IN THE 1930'S HE SAW THAT THE WORLD WAS HEADING FOR CATASTROPHE, AND WAS CONVINCED THAT THIS COULD BE AVERTED.
WHEN HITLER WAS ON THE RAMPAGE IN EUROPE, HE DID ALL HE COULD TO WARN BRITAIN, U.S., AND WESTERN EUROPE OF THE DANGERS. WHEN NONE WOULD LISTEN, PRECISELY AND CLEARLY HE WARNED OF THE DANGER OF APPEASEMENT AND GERMAN RE-ARMAMENT. HIS BELIEF WAS THAT A FIRM STAND WOULD AVOID WAR.

THIS WAS HIS FINEST HOUR.

AT MUNICH, WHEN THE INDEPENDENCE OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA WAS SHAMEFULLY BETRAYED TO APPEASE HITLER'S AGGRESSIVE APETITES, WAS THE TURNING POINT. CHAMBERLAIN TURNED OUT NOT TO BE THE MAN WHO COULD SAVE THE PEACE, AND INCREASINGLY, BOTH HE, AND THE BRITISH PEOPLE BECAME AWARE THAT THEY HAD BEEN DUPED AND THAT WINSTON HAD BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG.

THIS ACCOUNTED FOR THE INSISTENT DEMAND FOR HIS RETURN TO OFFICE.

NO-ONE EVER HAD A BETTER C.V., WHICH HE DELIVERED ON WITH GLORY.



The most important point: It was as plain as day in August 1939 that Germany was going to force its will on Poland..........

EXACTLY - GAME OVER - YOU MAKE MY POINT AND CHURCHILL'S POINT . WW11 AND THE ASSOCIATED BLOOD-LETTING WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HITLER AND HIS HIDEOUS REGIME, AND NO AMOUNT OF OLLIE'S SKILLFUL LAP-DANCING IN HIS HONOUR WILL EVER WASH THAT AWAY.



COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Del Boy]

How are they not helpful, they indicate that even as late as mid-1940 Hitler had no plans nor desire to conquer Britain which is in fact the topic of the thread now I think it safe to assume that if he didn't have these plans in 1940 then chances are he didn't have them in 1939 either.

Now lets look at this objectively.
Franz Halder - Took part in the planning of operation Sealion, Warned against attacking France and was German Chief of Staff at the time.

Walter Warlimont - In 1939 was deputy head of the Operations office and in this role took part in military conferences and drafted most of Germany's major operational plans and directives.

Günther Blumentritt - Chief of staff in the 4th Army during the invasion of France under von Kluge and Chief of operations under von Rundstedt during the invasion of Poland.

Now if you can provide some evidence that these three people knew less than Winston Churchill about German plans for an invasion of Britain or what Hitler was thinking at the time I would like to see it.

Personally cannot see how a negotiated peace was possible after the invasion of Poland that would have kept any happy, I do not believe that Germany would have accepted anything that didn't meet their aims and no matter what the outcome Poland wasn't going to be happy and most of all I don't think Britain under Churchill would have accepted any peace deal.

No, MontyB - you misread me, take another look. I said they were helpful, and then simply recorded my initial re-action.

I considered your point, but it supposes (only) that those views were necessarily the same as at Sep 1939, and therefore the burden of proof would lie with you rather than myself being asked to disprove. Right?

However, let me say this, these views you put forward are retrospective, obviously, whilst Churchill's broadcast to US was obviously widely followed and it allowed a period of some full 25 days before 3 Sep 39, for re-action or DENIAL from any quarter whatsoever. NONE appears to have emerged, not even from those names you have put forward. Strange timimg on their part, no????

Anyway, MontyB, as I intimated, nice point, appreciated.

(Incidently, this particular speech from Churchill was posted to counter Ollie's claim that Britain wanted war with germany, and that Britain was responsible for WW11. Game set and match to my view ther, I believe.)



COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Delboy, ad hominem attacks are fun. Do you want to go to phase two?

But, before we have more fun, be so kind and answer these two questions:

1. Why should Germany have done what Churchill demanded? Were they obligated?

2. Why are German peace proposals automatically rubbish while British peace proposals are automatically genuine?

 

[MontyB]

Just to add to the confusion here are two more quotes from leading German military figures.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At first Hitler developed in detail his general views, political and strategical, about how to continue the war against his principal enemy. Herein he also mentioned the issues in the Mediterranean. After that he turned to the question of invading England. Hitler said that during the previous year he could not afford to risk a possible failure; apart from that, he had not wished to provoke the British, as he hoped to arrange peace talks. But as they were unwilling to discuss things, they must face the alternative.
- Kurt Student -- Jan 1941
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

and

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As the first steps to prepare for an invasion were taken only after the French capitulation, no definite date could be fixed when the plan was drafted. It depended on the time required to provide the shipping, to alter ships so they could carry tanks, and to train the troops in embarking and disembarking. The invasion was to be made in August if possible, and September at the latest. The military reasons for its cancellation were various. The German Navy would have had to control the North Sea as well as the Channel, and was not strong enough to do so. The German Air Force was not sufficient to protect the sea crossing on its own. While the leading part of the forces might have landed, there was the danger that they might be cut off from supplies and reinforcements.

- [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Gerd von Rundstedt (An interview with Basil Liddell Hart 1948}[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

I am not sure what I think of Churchill's position and role at this point certainly his proactive speeches would indicate that Britain was not going to attack Germany however I think it fair to say that it was stating a weakness as a strength because Britain was not in a position to attack Germany.

[/FONT]

2. Why are German peace proposals automatically rubbish while British peace proposals are automatically genuine?

Just out of interest what peace could have been achieved that would have been satisfactory to all parties?

I believe that after Sept 1st there was no chance of a peace that suited everyone as Britain and France were not about to give Germany a win and Germany could not have accepted Allied terms.

 

[Del Boy]

Delboy, ad hominem attacks are fun. Do you want to go to phase two?

But, before we have more fun, be so kind and answer these two questions:

1. Why should Germany have done what Churchill demanded? Were they obligated?

2. Why are German peace proposals automatically rubbish while British peace proposals are automatically genuine?

Certainly old chap - my pleasure. Phase 1 to me I presume. Gracious of you, I'm sure. Right, now - phase 2.


1. Please elucidate.

2. Why ask me?

How strange. Let me guess; is it because you want to give me an usolicited lecture, old bean?

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Just out of interest what peace could have been achieved that would have been satisfactory to all parties?

I commend you on raising the best question that I have heard in weeks. Personally, the following two points might help answer this question:

(1) Hitler & German Conservatives: The minimum foreign policy aims of German convservatives called for the complete revision of Versailles, minus Elsaß-Lothringen. Hitler agreed with the conservatives but added that Südtirol (with a predominantly German population) should remain in Italian hands. In this sense, Hitler was less demanding than German conservatives.

But Hitler, as pointed out, deviated significantly from general conservative thought when it came to eastern Europe. He wanted to annex the Ukraine and dominate western Russia. This formed the truly radical foreign policy element of his worldview.

(2) Chamberlain, Vansittart & Churchill: In a sense, Chamberlain represented a more balanced British approach to European politics. This faction argued that the Treaty of Versailles conflicted with the concepts developed in the League of Nations. That is, it was wrong to deny national aspirations to Germans while simultaneously supporting the grandiose (and often bizarre) dreams of tiny hitherto unknown national groupings such as the Czechs, etc. They furthermore agreed that Germany fell under the category of nation-state and should be accorded all of the rights listed in the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Vansittart generally agreed with the Chamberlain faction -- that Versailles was a destabilizing factor in European politics, but he pointed out that Britain had acted too cautiously during the 1920s. The chances for European peace were lost. The events of 1933 changed his mind. Hitler, he argued, could not be believed and must be resisted. This view did not, however, dehumanize Germans or deny the legitimacy of their national security or national interests. Then, he changed his mind and started to write attacks on the German race that were worthy of Streicher.

Churchill would have none of this. Churchill once said that the Germans were "either at your throat or at your heels". This utterly childish and racist way of looking at Germans classified an entire race as subhuman and sub-British. They were the lurking Hun, forever waiting to ambush civilization. And the designation "Hun" was nothing more than a metaphor for barbarian. These barbarians should, it must be noted, therefore suffer the fate of all Britain's colonial subjects -- foreign domination and control. They were too childlike to be treated as a real European state. The only good thing about Churchill, in my opinion, is that he disagreed with Roosevelt's vision of extirminating the German race. [Probably because Churchill understood that the Anglo-Saxons had been a German tribe, and that his racial theories concerning German national characteristics were grounded on nothing more than fantasy].

German and British Interests: A German-British agreement was impossible during the late 1930s, and French interests had made European peace impossible during the 1920s and pre-WWI period. What a tragedy.

 

[Del Boy]

Ollie old chap. This is a nonsense in that as soon as your own conclusions, opinions and assessments come into pay you go off the rails. Everybody resding your posts should watch out for the red-herring propoganda.

I will deal with this later.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Ollie old chap. This is a nonsense in that as soon as your own conclusions, opinions and assessments come into pay you go off the rails. Everybody resding your posts should watch out for the red-herring propoganda.

I will deal with this later.

As always, it is plainly obvious that you barely comprehend any of my arguments. But a certain logic is emerging. When I provide sources, you argue that the historians in question -- mostly your countrymen -- are all Nazis. When I write an opinion without documentation, I am just considered stupid. What grand debating skills and deep research. "Churchill say...".

Let me write your comment to my previous post for you. I am sure everyone who reads this will have a good hearty laugh:

Delboy's View of German/British Interwar Relations​

(1) German Views: All Germans, from A to Z, wanted world domination and the extirmination/enslavement of everyone. In terms of Britain, they wanted to invade, kill, plunder and enslave. They planned it in detail.

(2) British Views: Chamberlain was stupid. He could not see the truth as presented by Churchill. Vansittart's later opinion was right on. But only Churchill could see the plain truth. Even though he respected and loved the German people, he knew that they were evil and wanted to destroy planet earth and Britain in particular. They had to be stopped.

Conclusion: There were no German-British relations, just Germans trying to trick the British.


Now Delboy, here is the challenge: list one modern historian who supports this view (a few names would be nice). Please list the name and the title of their books or articles. I will then either try to read them or find book reviews. [by the way, modern means the last ten years...but I will accept books from the 1980s. And historians are people who have been educated at recognized academic institutions.]

 

[Del Boy]

As always, it is plainly obvious that you barely comprehend any of my arguments. But a certain logic is emerging. When I provide sources, you argue that the historians in question -- mostly your countrymen -- are all Nazis. When I write an opinion without documentation, I am just considered stupid. What grand debating skills and deep research. "Churchill say...".

Let me write your comment to my previous post for you. I am sure everyone who reads this will have a good hearty laugh:

Delboy's View of German/British Interwar Relations​

(1) German Views: All Germans, from A to Z, wanted world domination and the extirmination/enslavement of everyone. In terms of Britain, they wanted to invade, kill, plunder and enslave. They planned it in detail.

(2) British Views: Chamberlain was stupid. He could not see the truth as presented by Churchill. Vansittart's later opinion was right on. But only Churchill could see the plain truth. Even though he respected and loved the German people, he knew that they were evil and wanted to destroy planet earth and Britain in particular. They had to be stopped.

Conclusion: There were no German-British relations, just Germans trying to trick the British.


Now Delboy, here is the challenge: list one modern historian who supports this view (a few names would be nice). Please list the name and the title of their books or articles. I will then either try to read them or find book reviews. [by the way, modern means the last ten years...but I will accept books from the 1980s. And historians are people who have been educated at recognized academic institutions.]

You are gibbering again - you are paranoid. You are now posting complete rubbish. You are conducting a conversation with yourself. This is the first sign of ????. Funny thing - Hitler had the same problem.

I will leave your post to stand for all to see your paranoia for what it is.

You obviously did not read my last post, you clown, short tho' it was.

I said I would return to your post later, and I intend doing so. I am reluctant to expose you so on these issues, because obviously you hold them dear, and I am more used to encouraging rather than disillusioning.
However I will take your crazy campaign apart, stick by stick, if you insist in pursuing your house of straw.

Ridicule will not help your cause, any more than talking down, swamping, and web-site ping-pong have. This is because fact and truth stand against you, and you are not very good at confronting them.

Just like McArthur, I will return. I'm a little busy at the moment.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Del Boy]

As always, it is plainly obvious that you barely comprehend any of my arguments.

STRANGE, I HAVE NOT YET ANSWERED THEM!

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

But a certain logic is emerging. When I provide sources, you argue that the historians in question -- mostly your countrymen -- are all Nazis.

STRANGE, I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED THIS, DOES OLLIE KNOW SOMETHING I DON'T.

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


When I write an opinion without documentation, I am just considered stupid. What grand debating skills and deep research. "Churchill say...".



STRANGE, OLLIE DOESN'T LIKE FACTUAL RECORDED QUOTES ON SPECIFICS FROM AN IMPORTANT SOURCE.

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



Let me write your comment to my previous post for you.

STRANGE,I HAVEN'T POSTED IT YET.

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



I am sure everyone who reads this will have a good hearty laugh:

STRANGE, I AGREE WITH OLLIE ON SOMETHING AT LAST.

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

Delboy's View of German/British Interwar Relations
(OLLIE'S MAD VERSION)​

(1) German Views (OLLIE'S MAD VERSION) All Germans, from A to Z, wanted world domination and the extirmination/enslavement of everyone. In terms of Britain, they wanted to invade, kill, plunder and enslave. They planned it in detail.

THIS IS INFANT NONSENSE AND OF COURSE ARE ACTUALLY OLLIE'S VIEWS FOR I HAVE NEVER AT TIME POINTED A SINGLE FINGER AT GERMANY OR GERMANS. WHERE DID OLLIE DIG THIS C*** UP FROM. ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE, ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE, ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS, LIKE MOST OF OLLIE'S CONCLUSIONS.

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


(2) British Views (OLLIE'S MAD VERSION): Chamberlain was stupid. He could not see the truth as presented by Churchill. Vansittart's later opinion was right on. But only Churchill could see the plain truth. Even though he respected and loved the German people, he knew that they were evil and wanted to destroy planet earth and Britain in particular. They had to be stopped.

Conclusion (OLLIE'S MAD VERSION): There were no German-British relations, just Germans trying to trick the British.


OLLIE'S VERSION OF THE SITUATION, OF COURSE. VERY SAD THO'. CHURCHILL OF COURSE AT NO TIME THOUGHT THE GERMAN PEOPLE WERE EVIL, ASA i WILL TAKE TIME TO ESTABLISH, AS OLLIE IS NOW KEEN ON CHURCHILL'S VIEWS. AFTER ALL, WE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE THE TRUE ONES.
BY THE WAY - WHO IS VANSITTART?


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


(OLLIE'S MAD VERSION)

Now Delboy, here is the challenge: list one modern historian who supports this view (a few names would be nice). Please list the name and the title of their books or articles. I will then either try to read them or find book reviews. [by the way, modern means the last ten years...but I will accept books from the 1980s. And historians are people who have been educated at recognized academic institutions.]

WHY SHOULD I QUOTE HISTORIANS WHO SUPPORT THIS VIEW, WHEN I ABSOLUTELY REJECT IT??

ARE YOU WELL AND TRULY OVER THE TOP? THEY ARE THE VIEWS OF YOU AND YOUR VENTRILOQUIST'S DUMMY, REMEMBER.

GET OFF YOUR HORSE AND STOP TALKING TO YOURSELF.

WHEN I HAVE TIME I WILL CONTINUE TO DECIMATE YOUR IDIOCY.



COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.