The German campaign of conquering Britain

[Ollie Garchy]

I have to agree that there is little evidence for France and Britain wanting direct war with Germany in 1939.

Are you saying that the dominant theory of WWII origins cannot be investgated? Ie. subjected to falsification. If so, then the theory becomes dogma. If not, we should be able to focus on the major elements and look at their value.

Here are a few issues of dispute.

(1) First of all, Hitler had no military timetable. It would actually be easy to demonstrate such a plan. You pull it out and lay it on the table. Where is it? At the Nuremberg Trial, the prosecuters tried hard to demonstrate one. They ended up using the memory of a Junior officer who attended a military meeting in 1937. Sorry, but this "evidence" is only hearsay. The Hoßbach or Hossbach memorandum is weak at best and proves nothing.

(2) German military strength: The British and French were militarily more powerful than Germany in 1939. "The time is long past when it was possible to see the protracted debate over British foreign policy in the 1930s as a struggle between Churchill, an angel of light, fighting against the velleities of uncomprehending and feeble men in high places. It is reasonably well-known today that Churchill was often ill-informed, that his claims about German strength were exaggerated and his prescriptions impractical, that his emphasis on air power was misplaced". [Gordon Craig]

(3) Britain & Empire: The British clung to their dominant paradigm that Britain had the moral authority to rise above all others and act as mediator and arbiter -- in their interests, of course. For this reason, Polish or Czech persecution of their German minorities was ignored. German persecution of Polish or Czech minorities was jumped on as evidence of pure evil. British persecution of millions of people was actually "whitewashed" and called the "White Man's Burden". [See the works of Edward Said in connection with the paternalistic paradigm of Empire].

(4) Britain had a military timetable based on an "ideology" of global war. In a general sense, the British way of war was always to bring in the weight of empire and important allies against an enemy. This much is obvious and can be drawn from past conflicts and the imperial strategy of the 1930s. The critical thing is to mention that British conflicts always assumed a global character for this reason.

The British did not fear invasion during the 1930s...only for a short period in 1940 as plan after plan failed. British policy, developed during the 1930s, was to embroil Germany in a long war of attrition. "British strategy was global rather than local...Britain was manifestly vulnerable to the interruption of her sea traffic by states with pretensions...When war broke out in Europe in September 1939...The outlook at first was set fair...The German navy was tiny...The German navy knew that there was no prospect of fighting any kind of face-to-face battle with the enemy fleet. Neither were the prospects for submarine warfare against British trade much better. The German submarine arm had only eighteen operational boats in the Atlantic, against an enemy who began at once to convoy all shipping and to provide escort vessels equipped and trained for anti-submarine warfare...Erich Raeder regarded the outcome as a foregone conclusion, hoping only that his forces would know 'how to die gallantly' when the time came". [Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won, pp. 33-35.]

The critical thing for the British military and Churchill was to bring in major allies against Germany. France, with an army as large as that of Germany, seemed an exceptionally strong ally. Initial strategy in 1939 maintained that France would hold the line while Britain would bring in the resources of Empire. London also hoped to bring in the United States and then win by sheer weight of numbers.

As anyone can see from this, any type of localized issue in regards to a major power could push Britain to wage a global conflict. The insular British position made it strong but with a severely warped global perspective. Britain thought in terms of incremental increases. That is, the German seizure of Poland or any other area such as the Sudetenland (even if the latter was ethnically German) was considered intolerable. We will get to that issue in a minute. But it is important to stress that British policy could not tolerate German acquisition of any resources at all. [Alexander, Martin S. and William J. Philpott (eds), Anglo-French Defence Relations between the Wars. Studies in Military and Strategic History Series (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002) 231 pp.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, the minute such a war was started, Britain could no longer afford to retreat. It was for this reason that all German peace initiatives (24 or so and the Hess flight -- the documents still being kept under lock and key) were rejected. This policy was absolutely catastrophic for Europe.

All of this was based on a simple idea: "In the 1930s it was commonly assumed that Germany would violate Versailles and rearm in the air, posing the sort of annihilating threat first painted by Wells. The British Air Ministry expected the Germans to use bombing in a 'ruthless and indiscriminate' fashion because that was the German way. Even before the Nazi revolution, Germany was regarded as the disruptive force in world affairs. Hitler played a part already written for him". Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won, p. 356.

Temporary Conclusion: The Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 did not start WWII. The British-French declaration of war against Germany did. Why? That's the issue here.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Two more short points:

1. In the summer of 1939, the Nazi goverment took great offence to British support of Poland. So what! In 1870, Napoleon III took great offence to Prussian penetration of Spain. By 1914, Britain took great offence to German penetration of the Ottoman Empire. In the same year, Germany and the Austrians took great offence to Russian penetration of the Balkans. The British and French fought over imperial possessions in Africa and elsewhere, etc. All of this is a part of the imperialist discourse.

1. Thanks for discussing this, guys.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

I have a few minutes, so here goes nothing: [Source: British Blue Blook]

(1) The British War Bluebook, No. 14: German Government Memorandum handed to the Polish Government on April 28, 1939:

"The agreement which has now been concluded by the Polish Government with the British Government is in such obvious contradiction to these solemn declarations of a few months ago that the German Government can take note only with surprise and astonishment of such violent reversal of Polish policy. Irrespective of the manner in which its final formulation may be determined by both parties, the new Polish-British Agreement is intended as a regular pact of alliance, which by reason of its general sense and of the present state of political relations is directed exclusively against Germany. From the obligation now accepted by the Polish Government it appears that Poland intends in certain circumstances to take an active part in any possible German-British conflict in the event of aggression against Germany, even should this conflict not affect Poland and her interests. This is a direct and open blow against the renunciation of all use of force contained in the 1934 declaration".

(2) The British War Bluebook, No. 15: Speech made by M. Beck, the Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs in Parliament on May 5, 1939:

"And this in turn is important for an appreciation of the objects of German policy, since if, contrary to previous declarations, the Government of the Reich interpreted the Polish-German declaration of non-aggression of 1934 as intended to isolate Poland and to prevent the normal friendly collaboration of our country with Western Powers, we ourselves should always have rejected such an interpretation".


(3) The British War Bluebook, No. 25: Speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Chatham House on June 29, 1939.

"We are told that our motives are to isolate Germany within a ring of hostile States, to stifle her natural outlets, to cramp and throttle the very existence of a great nation. What are the facts? They are very simple and everybody knows them. Germany is isolating herself, and doing it most successfully and completely. She is isolating herself from other countries economically by her policy of autarky, politically by a policy that causes constant anxiety to other nations, and culturally by her policy of racialism. If you deliberately isolate yourself from others by your own actions you can blame nobody but yourself, and so long as this isolation continues, the inevitable consequences of it are bound to become stronger and more marked. The last thing we desire is to see the individual German man, or woman, or child suffering privations; but if they do so, the fault does not lie with us, and it depends on Germany and Germany alone whether this process of isolation continues or not, for any day it can be ended by a policy of co-operation. It is well that this should be stated plainly so that there may be no misunderstanding here or elsewhere".


How do we understand this exchange? Quite simply. And I am going to put this in simple terms. Germany wanted Poland to accept the following: "The return of Danzig to the Reich. An extra-territorial railway line and autostrada between East Prussia and the Reich. In exchange, the recognition by the Reich of the whole Polish Corridor and the whole of Poland's western frontier; the conclusion of a non-aggression pact for twenty-five years; the maintenance of Poland's economic interests in Danzig and the settlement of the remaining economic and communications problems arising for Poland out of the union of Danzig with the Reich. At the same time, the German Government expressed their readiness to respect Polish interests in ensuring the independence of Slovakia". Not much, really.

The British government decided to prop up Warsaw and support the Poles no matter what happened. In 1914, Germany offered Austria-Hungary similar support against Serbia. In the latter case, such support has been attacked by historians as utterly rigid and provocative. It was made to force Russia to accept diplomatic defeat and loss of face. The situation looked very similar in 1939. London obviously hoped that Hitler would become nervous, step back, and accept a diplomatic defeat. This was pure poker. Instead of backing down, Hitler and Ribbentrop worked hard at terminating Poland through a Nazi-Soviet invasion. In the course of a few months, a tough British stand in Germany's (and Russia's) sphere of influence led to the catastrophic isolation of Poland. But Hitler never could have accepted a close British-French-Polish alliance against Germany. Why should he have? What state would actually sit back and tolerate the penetration of a major sphere of influence. The Americans have their Monroe Doctrine. The Germans historically thought of eastern Europe as their backyard and, like the Americans, could not tolerate hostile states on every border. The British WERE trying to isolate Germany. Plain & simple. Think of the counterfactual. Britain stands back. Does nothing. Germany gains control of Danzig and a way through the corridor. So what. [Britain should have courted the Soviets in 1939. The only problem here is that the Sovs would have overrun all of Europe from the Urals to Gibralter].

If we look at the Chatham House speech, we see a few really important points:

(1) Germany isolating itself is just rhetorical crap. Germany was busy forming alliances or good relations with most of eastern Europe AND even the Soviet Union. Poland was ultimately encircled and destroyed for this reason. Incidentally, German diplomacy also led to the defeat of France.

(2) Germany was anything but autarkic. German trade was increasing in eastern Europe. It was, however, decreasing in terms of machine-tools and industrial equipment to Britain. Considering how Germany was gaining nothing from its attempts at appeasing Britain (see below), and Britain was turning to the USA as a replacement for German capital goods, Britain was also responsible here.

(3) Britain supported Polish repression of Ethnic Germans. An even more important point is just how crudely the Polish punishment of their German minority is expressed. The speech actually argues that Germany's pressure for Danzig FORCED the Polish punishment of ethnic Germans. Wow! That's amazing. And violently provocative. It was like telling the Poles to really go at it...this time with de facto British support. During this period, the Polish authority started killing thousands of ethnic Germans.

Conclusion: We see a blatant British disregard for German interests by mid-1939. We know that London policymakers did not hold much stock in Polish military capability. "Carton de Wiart met with the Polish commander-in-chief, Marshal of Poland Edward Rydz-Śmigły in late August 1939 and formed a rather low opinion of his capabilities. He strongly urged Rydz-Śmigły to pull Polish forces back beyond the Vistula River, but was unsuccessful. The other advice he offered, to have the seagoing units of the Polish fleet leave the Baltic Sea, was, after much argument, finally adopted. This fleet made a significant contribution to the Allied cause, especially the several modern destroyers and submarines". [Wiki]. Nor did any planning exist for Poland's defence. Allied policy remained the eventual rehabilitation of Poland after Germany's defeat. But all of this MUST have been discussed and thought through as early as mid-1939 or maybe even the start of 1939. Otherwise, the belligerent tone of British policy makes no sense.

The simple point is that London tried to USE Poland as a way of gaining a political victory over Hitler. The attempt ended in war. (see next section)

[German appeasement of Britain: Germany did not break any agreement other than the move into the Czech state...ostensibly because of the Slovaks, and remember that Poland and Hungary got their own chunks of the Czech state].

 

[Ollie Garchy]

[An example of British discussion of these issues...in this case of the Czech crisis. Notice the strong use of the word "war". In fact, the word is used over and over again during this entire period.]

Sir N. Henderson (Berlin) to Viscount Halifax

BRITISH EMBASSY, BERLIN, August 22, 1938

Dear Secretary of State,

I hope you don't think it over-insistent or over-presumptuous on my part when I telegraph and write to you so much about Lord Runciman and what he should do. But the stakes for which we are playing are too high to allow me to remain silent on a matter on which I feel so strongly. Besides it is my bounden duty to set before you the German case and their way of thinking and their machinations as I see them.

I feel so strongly also on the big British issue. Have we or have we not got to fight Germany again? The followers of the Crowe tradition in your Department argue and have long argued that it is inevitable. I regard that attitude as nothing short of disastrous. It may prove to be inevitable, but it seems to me a suicidal policy fatalistically to accept it as so. If we fight Germany this year or next over the Sudeten question, we shall probably beat her but it will mean that we shall have to go on fighting her again and again, until one day we may be ourselves beaten. It is the history of the United States of America over again. If it had not been for the Prince Consort, Palmerston and Russell would have plunged us into war with them over the Mason and Slidell case and the U.S.A. would never have forgotten or forgiven us. The cause was not a good enough one and thank goodness it is now unlikely that we shall ever fight the U.S.A. again.

It may well, in spite of all the croakers, be the same with Germany if we can avoid fighting them about such a bad case as the Sudeten. However badly Germany behaves, it does not make the right of the Sudeten any less justifiable. We are on the worst of wickets and to go into battle, without having our Empire behind us - and we surely won't have it wholeheartedly on such an issue - seems to me inconceivable. I think, in spite of the humiliation, that I would rather almost anything than that.

Never again are those blocks of Germans on Germany's frontier going to be misgoverned by Czechs as they have been during the past twenty years. That seems to me also inconceivable and we have no earthly or heavenly right to force them to be so. The Teuton and the Slav are irreconcilable - just as are the Briton and the Slav. Mackenzie King told me last year after the Imperial Conference that the Slavs in Canada never assimilated with the people and never became good citizens.

Moreover however badly the Germans behave, one must also condemn Benes and his military enthusiasts. Their position is quite untenable and as such one has immense sympathy for them. But I cease to have it when they try to behave like Samson and bring down the walls of the Temple to soften the bitterness of their own humiliation. Masaryk would have been great enough to appreciate the hard facts and make the best of them, but Benes is a small man. That is a fact. And now all depends on Lord Runciman.

What is Hitler going to do? When all, as in this country, depends on the decision of a single individual, one must be guided, under Providence, by one's own instinct and impression.

The German army has been told to be ready for battle (100 per cent) as it ever can be this year as from the middle of September onwards: i.e. prepared for all eventualities. The German are not philanthropists and in similar circumstances I expect we would have acted in the same way if we had as little faith as the Germans have in Benes' honesty or even ability in the face of his opposition to do the right thing, and if we were convinced, as the German are, that the Czech General staff wants a showdown now rather that later.

It is for that reason that I believed that it was useless to appeal to Hitler for a modification of his military arrangements. It is one of my duties to put myself under the German skin, if I can, and to report to you how they feel. Their whole experience of Benes is that he cannot be trusted and that whatever he may say, he always gets out of it. And they believe that the Czech military want war now when they believe that they can drag France and ourselves in rather than later, when the international position may be less favourable to them. That being the case if I were a German I would also be prepared for all eventualities, seeing that the Czech military are determined that no concessions shall be made to the Sudeten.

It stands to reason that Hitler himself must equally be prepared for all eventualities. But from there to say that he has already decided on aggressive action against Czecho-slovakia this autumn is, I think, untrue. He still hopes to get what he wants by peaceable means and what he wants now is a Swiss cantonal system for the Sudeten to enable them to live their own life and not to be harried all the time by minor Czech officials. That the plums thereafter will drop ripe from the tree into the German Reich is another question. Every German, however moderate, believes this to be inevitable in the long run and since in politics geography always has the last word, it is more than likely. But for the moment a quiet life for the Sudeten would, I believe, satisfy Hitler; but if Benes won't give enough, then he may lose all. It is Abyssinia over again with far less moral right on our side.

If Runciman's hand is being forced, so is Hitler's. He avoided a speech at Breslau where he was expected to speak by the thirty or forty thousand Sudeten who attended that festival. He cannot avoid referring to them in his speeches at Nuremberg, which comes just too early to give Runciman all the time he needs to make up his mind.

Consequently if Runciman has not spoken before Nuremberg, Hitler will have to do so. That is the point of my telegram No. 388 which I sent you yesterday and which was in fact based on your letter to Lord Runciman of August 12. It is, I fear, useless our saying to Hitler be patient, though I say it and will go on saying it to every German I see. The German retort is that we would not have been so patient ourselves during these past four months if the Sudeten Germans had been Ulstermen and Benes de Valera. Nor for internal reasons can Hitler be silent. What I anticipate him saying is something on the following lines: "We have trusted the English for four months although we always knew that Benes would never yield except to force. The English won't put the screws on, so we are obliged to do so. We mean business. It is this, that or the other for the Sudeten or nothing. If that is not Lord Runciman's opinion then I shall insist on a plebiscite and the full right of self-determination." He may even add that for the sake of world peace he is willing to hold his hand for a while yet but the end will be the same: that he will choose his own moment and that he gives us and the French full warning of that. And he may threaten the Czechs with worse in the future if they cannot see sense now.

Roughly that is the sort of minimum line I see Hitler's mind moving along. I cannot believe that he will do more if we tell him that we shall certainly fight him if he does move. But what do we gain? More postponement and a rising market. That is the policy we have been following for years, with our eyes tight closed to realities, to evolution and those geographical facts which always have the last word whatever we little humans do or say.

That is not defeatism. Defeatism to my mind is saying that we must fight Germany again, when there is still a chance and a big one that we need never do so. It is repugnant to me to run bad horses and back losing ones all the time. I would fight Germany tomorrow for a good cause but I refuse to contemplate our doing so for the Sudeten. If they were Hungarians of Poles or Roumanians or the citizens of any small nation, all England would be on their side. They are Germans, so we shut our eyes to realities and are influenced by other considerations, some honourable, some chivalrous but many egotistical or inspired by fear.

Yours in great haste,

Nevile Henderson

[Source: Documents on British Foreign Policy, (London, 1949), Third Series, vol. II, no. 665, pp. 131-4.]

 

[Doppleganger]

Are you saying that the dominant theory of WWII origins cannot be investgated? Ie. subjected to falsification. If so, then the theory becomes dogma. If not, we should be able to focus on the major elements and look at their value.

Firstly Ollie I always enjoy reading your posts and replying to them. I guess I believe that directly Britain and France did not want war but indirectly they did not mind, particularly if the Soviet Union was embroiled. It was arguably in both powers best interests to see Germany and Russia weaken themselves on each other.

(1) First of all, Hitler had no military timetable. It would actually be easy to demonstrate such a plan. You pull it out and lay it on the table. Where is it? At the Nuremberg Trial, the prosecuters tried hard to demonstrate one. They ended up using the memory of a Junior officer who attended a military meeting in 1937. Sorry, but this "evidence" is only hearsay. The Hoßbach or Hossbach memorandum is weak at best and proves nothing.

It's clear that Hitler did not really have any military timetable as such. The war against Poland demonstrated this. The Germany Army wasn't ready for war and only the revolutionary tactics laid down by Guderian and encouraged by Hitler saved German blushes. The Polish Army in 1939 was the 4th strongest army in the world in terms of manpower. Without these new tactics the Wehrmacht would have found itself embroiled in a new war of attrition that it could ill afford. Even though they had new tactics which worked spectactularly well, German equipment was not ready. The Panzer divisions were largely equipped with training machines not designed nor suited for front line use. There were shortages of ammunition in key formations and large parts of the army were not motorized in line with Guderian's plans, nor would they ever become motorized for that matter. Finally, the close cooperation between the service arms required for Guderian's tactics required some major operational and personal differences to be overcome which were not resolved fully until a year later.

The German Army was not ready for war in late 1939, basically because Hitler did not expect France and Britain to go to war over Poland.

(2) German military strength: The British and French were militarily more powerful than Germany in 1939. "The time is long past when it was possible to see the protracted debate over British foreign policy in the 1930s as a struggle between Churchill, an angel of light, fighting against the velleities of uncomprehending and feeble men in high places. It is reasonably well-known today that Churchill was often ill-informed, that his claims about German strength were exaggerated and his prescriptions impractical, that his emphasis on air power was misplaced". [Gordon Craig]

I entirely agree with you on this point. As I explained briefly above, the German Army in 1939 had serious shortcomings in most areas. They had inferior numbers of manpower, ammunition stocks and fuel supplies compared to the Allies ranged against them. As almost everyone expected a new war to largely follow the patterns of the Great War, Britain and France had organised their doctrine around this, hence the large defensive fortifications of the Maginot Line and the matching defensive doctrine and training prevalent in the French Army of the time. Incidentally the French Army, before the outbreak of war in 1939, was generally considered the finest army in the world. They expected Germany to re-use the Schiefflien Plan and were 'ready' for that.

(3) Britain & Empire: The British clung to their dominant paradigm that Britain had the moral authority to rise above all others and act as mediator and arbiter -- in their interests, of course. For this reason, Polish or Czech persecution of their German minorities was ignored. German persecution of Polish or Czech minorities was jumped on as evidence of pure evil. British persecution of millions of people was actually "whitewashed" and called the "White Man's Burden". [See the works of Edward Said in connection with the paternalistic paradigm of Empire].

Agreed again. There was definately the pervasion of the old Colonial attitude present in the British establishment of the day. A moral superiority if you like. The attitude towards German acquisition of colonies not 30 years beforehand was ample proof of this. The resultant Allied victory of WW1 served only to prolong this attitude.

(4) Britain had a military timetable based on an "ideology" of global war. In a general sense, the British way of war was always to bring in the weight of empire and important allies against an enemy. This much is obvious and can be drawn from past conflicts and the imperial strategy of the 1930s. The critical thing is to mention that British conflicts always assumed a global character for this reason.

The British did not fear invasion during the 1930s...only for a short period in 1940 as plan after plan failed. British policy, developed during the 1930s, was to embroil Germany in a long war of attrition. "British strategy was global rather than local...Britain was manifestly vulnerable to the interruption of her sea traffic by states with pretensions...When war broke out in Europe in September 1939...The outlook at first was set fair...The German navy was tiny...The German navy knew that there was no prospect of fighting any kind of face-to-face battle with the enemy fleet. Neither were the prospects for submarine warfare against British trade much better. The German submarine arm had only eighteen operational boats in the Atlantic, against an enemy who began at once to convoy all shipping and to provide escort vessels equipped and trained for anti-submarine warfare...Erich Raeder regarded the outcome as a foregone conclusion, hoping only that his forces would know 'how to die gallantly' when the time came". [Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won, pp. 33-35.]

The critical thing for the British military and Churchill was to bring in major allies against Germany. France, with an army as large as that of Germany, seemed an exceptionally strong ally. Initial strategy in 1939 maintained that France would hold the line while Britain would bring in the resources of Empire. London also hoped to bring in the United States and then win by sheer weight of numbers.

As anyone can see from this, any type of localized issue in regards to a major power could push Britain to wage a global conflict. The insular British position made it strong but with a severely warped global perspective. Britain thought in terms of incremental increases. That is, the German seizure of Poland or any other area such as the Sudetenland (even if the latter was ethnically German) was considered intolerable. We will get to that issue in a minute. But it is important to stress that British policy could not tolerate German acquisition of any resources at all. [Alexander, Martin S. and William J. Philpott (eds), Anglo-French Defence Relations between the Wars. Studies in Military and Strategic History Series (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002) 231 pp.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, the minute such a war was started, Britain could no longer afford to retreat. It was for this reason that all German peace initiatives (24 or so and the Hess flight -- the documents still being kept under lock and key) were rejected. This policy was absolutely catastrophic for Europe.

All of this was based on a simple idea: "In the 1930s it was commonly assumed that Germany would violate Versailles and rearm in the air, posing the sort of annihilating threat first painted by Wells. The British Air Ministry expected the Germans to use bombing in a 'ruthless and indiscriminate' fashion because that was the German way. Even before the Nazi revolution, Germany was regarded as the disruptive force in world affairs. Hitler played a part already written for him". Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won, p. 356.

I can't add to this as again I pretty much agree with it.

Temporary Conclusion: The Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 did not start WWII. The British-French declaration of war against Germany did. Why? That's the issue here.

This conclusion depends entirely on your attitude towards reuniting scattered ethnic populations by force. A knowledge of the history of Europe is also required. Britain and France declared war in my eyes because they felt they had to. Nobody in London or Paris cared about Poland. It was a matter of maintaining face and of a need to consolidate political power and influence that, esepcially in the case of the British, had been waning for the last 50 years.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

This conclusion depends entirely on your attitude towards reuniting scattered ethnic populations by force.

First off, thanks for not shredding me for taking the "Galloping Gertie" approach to the origins of WWII. The burden of evidence obviously rests on me. Here is some more stuff:

Some funny/ and not-so-funny quotes:

a) Edward Morgan Forster, Abinger Harvest, 1936: "The Germans are called brutal, the Spanish cruel, the Americans superficial, and so on; but we are perfide Albion, the island of hypocrites, the people who have built up an Empire with a Bible in one hand, a pistol in the other, and financial concessions in both pockets. Is the charge true? I think it is".

b) Winston Churchill: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it".

c) Franklin D. Roosevelt: "How many people in the United States do you think will be willing to go to war to free Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania?" [Ie. who cares about Russian atrocities. Overy sums up Roosevelt's attitudes this way: "He displayed a deep prejudice against Germany, rooted in his childhood...More than once Roosevelt suggested some form of extreme population control -- castration was his recommendation". Good thing the bugger died before the postwar! [Overy, Why the Allies Won, p. 353.]

A couple of issues: (Restatements of the problem. I just want to be clear.)

(1) Why did the British/French not declare war on Slovakia and Soviet Union?

Both of these states participated in Case White -- the invasion of Poland. Why no declaration of war on the Soviet Union? This answer seems good enough: "The reaction of Poland's two main allies, France and Britain, was muted, since neither wanted a confrontation with the Soviet Union at that stage. The British evaded their obligations under the terms of the Anglo-Polish Agreement of 25 August 1939, which had promised Poland full support and assistance if attacked by a European power. When Polish Ambassador Raczynski raised the matter, British Foreign Secretary Halifax bluntly told him that Britain was free to make up its own mind whether to declare war on the Soviet Union. British Prime Minister Chamberlain proposed to his cabinet the release of a strong statement condemning the Soviet invasion and committing Britain to restore Polish statehood; but nothing came of it, and the government issued only general statements of condemnation. Many Poles resented this lack of action from their western allies, which, added to the negligible military assistance (Saar Offensive) provided to Poland during the German invasion, aroused a lasting sense of betrayal".

Molotov, surprised that Britain/France declared war on Germany, stated: "Germany, which has lately united 80 million Germans, has submitted certain neighboring countries to her supremacy and gained military strength in many aspects, and thus has become, as clearly can be seen, a dangerous rival to principal imperialistic powers in Europe - England and France. That is why they declared war on Germany on a pretext of fulfilling the obligations given to Poland. It is now clearer than ever, how remote the real aims of the cabinets in these countries were from the interests of defending the now disintegrated Poland or Czechoslovakia".

Molotov should not have been surprised. "Indeed, so widespread was the view that ultimate blame for the horrors of World War Two must fall on German shoulders alone that even Austria was held exempt. Under an Allied agreement of 1943, Austria had been officially declared Hitler's 'first victim' and was thus assured different treatment from Germany at war's end. This appealed to Winston Churchill's insistence on the Prussian origins of Nazism, a view driven by his generation's obsession with the emergence of the Prussian threat to European stability in the course of the last third of the nineteenth century." [Tony Judt, Postwar (2005) p. 52] Note that the Allies could not grant the "remilitarization of the Rhineland" the same status, since that was the most populous state in Germany. Nor could the Allies call the Sudeten Germans victims. Those folks were ethnically cleansed by Allied decree.

(2) The Soviets killed/sent to gulags a huge number of Poles:

First of all, let us remember that..."today scholars of independent Poland believe that 1.8 to 1.9 million Polish civilians (non-Jews) were victims of German Occupation policies and the war. This approximate total includes Poles killed in executions or who died in prisons, forced labor, and concentration camps. It also includes an estimated 225,000 civilian victims of the 1944 Warsaw uprising, more than 50,000 civilians who died during the 1939 invasion and siege of Warsaw, and a relatively small but unknown number of civilians killed during the Allies' military [emphasis mine] campaign of 1944—45 to liberate Poland".

However..."Soviets occupation between 1939 and 1941 resulted in the death or deportation of least 1.8 million former Polish citizens, when all who were deemed dangerous to the communist regime were subject to sovietization, forced resettlement, imprisonment in labour camps (the Gulags) or murdered, like the Polish officers in the Katyn massacre". The killing continued after 1944-45, as Poland was "bolshevized" in the normal manner.

The data suggests that there is probably a heavy degree of "overlap"...ie. German murders attributed to the Soviets and vice versa. But this problem only strengths the case that I am making. Namely that there was a Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland, with both sides acting the same, but that the British/French chose to declare war on Germany only. This decision, in my opinion, makes it impossible to claim that the German invasion started WWII. Special British and French attitudes however did. London and Paris accepted the Soviet RIGHT to crush and then control Poland.

(3) Churchill & War Expansion: (some morequotes) [Note: This was after a host of German peace proposals. Churchill's only goal was a really big world war].

a) In 1940, Churchill sent British agent "Intrepid" to the United States, where he set up shop in Rockefeller Center, where, with the full knowledge and cooperation of Roosevelt and the collaboration of federal agencies, "Intrepid" and his 300 agents "intercepted mail, tapped wires, cracked safes, kidnapped, . . . rumor mongered" and incessantly smeared their favorite targets, the "isolationists" (i.e., Jeffersonians) as nazis and fascists.

b) Churchill also instructed the British ambassador to Tokyo, Sir Robert Craigie: "the entry of the United States into war either with Germany and Italy or with Japan, is fully conformable with British interests. Nothing in the munitions sphere can compare with the importance of the British Empire and the United States being co-belligerent."

c) In August 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill met at the Atlantic conference. Churchill told his Cabinet "The President had said he would wage war but not declare it and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces. . . . Everything was to be done to force an incident."

d) After the U.S. had officially entered the war, on February 15, 1942, in the House of Commons, Churchill declared, of America's entry into the war: "This is what I have dreamed of, aimed at, worked for, and now it has come to pass."

(4) A comment concerning the overall END Result of WWII: George F. Kennan (US Diplomat & Cold Warrior) wrote in 1951: "I would like to say a word about the total result of these two world wars in Europe. These wars were fought at the price of some tens of millions of lives, of untold physical destruction, of the destruction of the balance of forces on the Continent – at the price of rendering western Europe dangerously, perhaps fatally, vulnerable to Soviet power. Both wars were fought, really, with a view to changing Germany: to correcting her behavior, to making the Germans something different from what they were. Yet, today, if one were offered the chance of having back the Germany of 1913 – a Germany run by conservative but relatively moderate people, no Nazis and no Communists, a vigorous Germany, united and unoccupied, full of energy and confidence, able to play a part again in the balancing-off of Russian power in Europe – well, there would be objections to it from many quarters, and it wouldn't make everybody happy; but in many ways it wouldn't sound so bad, in comparison with our problems of today. Now, think what this means. When you tally up the total score of the two wars, in terms of their ostensible objective, you find that if there has been any gain at all, it is pretty hard to discern."

Churchill would have agreed with Kennan: "'As the blinkers of war were removed', John Charmley writes, 'Churchill began to perceive the magnitude of the mistake which had been made'. Churchill is alleged to have blurted out after finally realizing the scale of his blunder: 'We have slaughtered the wrong pig!'.

It is rather amazing that history no longer agrees with Kennan or Churchill. 60 years after WWII, the media hardly mentions Stalin or even recognizes his atrocities. Instead, the media focuses on "Hitler's Willing Executioners" and the image of Satan-Hitler. This climate makes any amoral examination of Hitler, Nazism or WWII origins rather impossible.

Internet Sources:

http://www.holocaust-trc.org/poles.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_invasion_of_Poland
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1450

 

[Del Boy]

It does appear, then, that the Nazi vision either was crap from the start, or somehow turned to crap in the application. One can take a choice.

Either way, it appears that the whole blame for their disastrous failure and humiliating defeat can be laid at the door of those cheating villainous lying Brits, especially that loser Churchill.

OK - I guess we can live with that.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

It does appear, then, that the Nazi vision either was crap from the start, or somehow turned to crap in the application. One can take a choice.

Either way, it appears that the whole blame for their disastrous failure and humiliating defeat can be laid at the door of those cheating villainous lying Brits, especially that loser Churchill.

OK - I guess we can live with that.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

I would argue that WWII was a result of American policy. If the Americans had not entered WWI, the Europeans would have made peace in 1917 or 1918 and not on the basis of a French vision -- namely the attempt to turn back the clock and make France the dominant power in Europe. France could only hold onto this illusion by trying to keep Germany in a state of permanent demilitarized servitude. The USA then retreated from Europe and left Britain alone in the struggle to contain bizarre French anti-German hate. (*)

Hitler arose as a direct product of French policy in Germany. Without Versailles, Europe would have returned to a semblance of 1913. That is, the French would have continued planning another war against Germany, the Germans would have been busy beating up the Slavs and worrying about the French, a more moderate Russia would have been absorbed by internal strife, the Austrian-Hungarians would have danced themselves into oblivion, and the British would have looked on in confused amusement.

The only countries to profit from WWI/WWII were the Americans...and their protege nations like China. Europe lost big. As historians work on this era, I am sure that someone will come up with the hypothesis that it was all planned by the Council on Foreign Relations.

(*) La Grande Nation could never forgive Prussia for having kicked expansionist Napoleonic ass at Leipzig (1813) and Sedan (1870). The French therefore created the myth of German invasions and rather openly plotted to continue their age-old quest to destroy Germany. While I would argue that France above all nations bears responsibility for WWI and WWII, the Americans made all of it possible. And for what? The French, who hate everyone, also hate America. Why? Because everything American reminds them of the fact that France could not defeat Germany alone.

 

[Del Boy]

Yes I would not argue your appraisal of events which led to Germany sweating under the french cosh after Versailles. However, this cannot lead to the conclusion that America's intervention caused WW11.

Europe was quite capable of creating its own problems, and the rise of Nazism was a cancer that had to be removed.

I believe we have here at the moment a loss of belief in our politicians, and it often seems that firmer, more focused government is called for. The benign dictator syndrom. But we have always to be on the alert. If our consciences alert us to matters that smell bad then we must not be in denial. The Nazis were dramatic, well-staged and well hyped - but their ambitions stunk to high heaven.

Regarding national will, this made them easy to oppose, removing doubt as it did for its opponents.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Yes I would not argue your appraisal of events which led to Germany sweating under the french cosh after Versailles. However, this cannot lead to the conclusion that America's intervention caused WW11.

Europe was quite capable of creating its own problems, and the rise of Nazism was a cancer that had to be removed.

I believe we have here at the moment a loss of belief in our politicians, and it often seems that firmer, more focused government is called for. The benign dictator syndrom. But we have always to be on the alert. If our consciences alert us to matters that smell bad then we must not be in denial. The Nazis were dramatic, well-staged and well hyped - but their ambitions stunk to high heaven.

Regarding national will, this made them easy to oppose, removing doubt as it did for its opponents.

Your use of the word "cancer" to describe Nazism is problematic. Ask yourself why you use this word. What was it about Nazism that made it a "cancer"? List the reasons. Then investigate the points on your list. Investigation simply means reading modern historical works on each specific subject. You will find various schools of thought on each subject.

Investigation also means comparison. If, for example, the killing of civilians is on your list, and you argue that less killing is better than more killing, then the Soviets were the real "cancer" and not the Nazis. I noticed that some people believe that Stalin only killed "his own people", and that makes it ok. Well, I guess the killing of German Jews was then ok by this line of argumentation. I just pray that people who argue like this never become politicians. In any case, Stalin killed millions of non-Russian (or non-Georgian) or non-Soviet people. That argument is a mantra.

Real history is theoretical and there are many theories and sub-theories. Why? Historians assemble an army of facts like any scientist. But even this army is only a finite number sifted according to basic rational and irrational criterion. Real writing kicks in after the facts are collected. The historian attempts to explain what happened and why. These explanations are sets of hypotheses and not laws. The hypotheses then go through a process of falsification. Does the explanatory model stand against countervailing facts?

Political and military history is the recorded interaction of infinite human thoughts and actions. The word "recorded" is important because that which is not written down is unknowable. If standard French interpretations of German history, for example, argue that the Germans have always planned and executed numerous invasions of France, they have to find these plans and then demonstrate average German complicity. Simply stating French propaganda is not evidence. In any case, there are no objective historical laws. That is a fallacy...which is also true of the negation, but who gives a crap. Language sucks.

This is a MAJOR problem in WWII studies. And the heavy use of Allied propaganda to explain German historical phenomenon is a good reason why. But propaganda is still useful. It shows us what a particular society wants to believe about an opposing nation. It helps us understand why governments then act in a particular way.

Allied propaganda was reflexive and tells us a great deal about the Allies, but next to nothing about the Axis. The Allied classics like "world domination" had no basis in reality. The views that Germany was "militaristic" and "wanted world dominion" were formed to inspire hate. They still work. But they cannot be seriously debated because there is no starting point, no evidence and they cannot be falsified. In what way were Germans "militaristic"? How did they "want world domination"? These are quasi-religious statements that have nothing to do with science. People still believe them, it seems, but people also believe in UFOs, unicorns and gods.

You CAN on the other hand prove that the Allies wanted world domination. In fact, the Kremlin openly called for Bolshevik world domination (Comintern policy), the jingoists of the British Empire almost achieved it (3/4s of the world), and the American bankers wanted capitalist world domination (Atlantic Charter). "World domination" was simply the projection of Allied desires onto Germany...which in itself was amazing because Germany is only an abstraction that covers millions of communists, anarchists, socialists, liberals, conservatives, etc. The Allies looked into the abyss for too long...there own image stared back at them.

Some pithy Friedrich Nietzsche quotes:

(1) "The moment Germany rises as a great power, France gains a new importance as a cultural power".

(2) "Anyone who has declared someone else to be an idiot, a bad apple, is annoyed when it turns out in the end that he isn't".

(3) "Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies".

(4) "Fear is the mother of morality".

[By the way, my France argument was a joke...my real view is that WWII was a mistake, just like WWI. Hence "Galloping Gertie". Both were caused by the paradigm of empire, cultural intolerance, and geopolitics. For me, the Nazis were just parochial Communists. And the democracies are more totalitarian than both of these put together. The only difference between Nazism/Communism and Democracy is that the stick that beats the people is called the people's stick. I should change my name from "Ollie Garchy" to "The Misanthrope".]

 

[senojekips]

I just love it when people go quoting philosophy and digging up past events, in an effort to justify the unjustifiable.

There is no reason on earth that could justify Adolph Hitler's plans to Germanify Europe and murder the Jews, Gypsies and mentally deficient. (amongst other things).

"You can't see the forest for the trees"

I don't deny for a minute that Adolph had some good ideas, he could have made Germany an economic powerhouse well ahead of it's time, but no, he wanted to be remembered for "greater" things, and dragged the world into a devastating war.

 

[Del Boy]

Ollie Garchy

My apologies, friend, your case is nicely put & wordy but unfortunately does not hold water at all. I was 4 years old when WW11 started, and i was very heavily involved at once. I grew up with it and observed. I had first hand uncorruptible evidence straight from the horses mouths regarding the nature of Nazism. You ask that I investigate my prejudices - well, i have examined them for 68 years, ever since 1939. I have examined them in Britain, in Germany, in the rest of Europe, in USA, in Arabia, in Poland, and always at first hand.

Your argument is well put and clever but it amounts to a handful of chaff.
However we measure communism, that is not the measure that counts. Perhaps both idealogies were cancers. Personally I do not feel capable of measuring Stalin's legacy yet - despite the horrors.

But I certainly can carefully and calmly offer the meaure of Nazism without any shadow of doubt. It was a cancer on humanity that no conscience could justify in any way whatsoever. The over- used word, evil, was never more relevant.

Over the years I have learned to carefully seperate Nazism from Germany, and I believe it ill serves the latter to associate the two in this day and age.

For the same reason I do not wish to detail my case, what point in going over what the whole world already knows; if ever there was a war of right and wrong, here you have it. The Nazi project was happily concieved, happily applied, happily defended by the perpetrators, who were pleased to present their work, and it was absolutely ghastly, a stain upon Europe for ever.

In defending that situation, I believe that your argument is unworthy of you and demeans you in your efforts to put it forward. Germany has purged itself of the horror, let it lie.

I present this as a political view, not a military one, and as I have no wish to appear unfriendly I will strive not to pursue the matter, except to say that denial cuts no ice at all with me, for I was there, day by day. I saw it, heard it, felt it, and smelt it.

Please don't deride my argument as purely an emotional one, as to list the facts as I have experienced them is somewhere I would rather not go, out of respect to yourself and to Germany.

My apologies again for having to take up the cudgels and disagree.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Actually, only Doppleganger seems to understand my point. I will put it as simply as I can:

1. You guys believe that starting a war is evil. Most people do.

2. You also believe that Hitler was evil. Most people do.

Therefore: Since Hitler was evil, and starting wars is an evil act, Hitler started the war. The actual facts no longer matter. Nor does British or French policy or actions. Nor does Soviet collusion. Nor does anything matter. The matter is settled before you look at it.

If that is the case, why even offer any opinion at all, or any evidence. Hitler "wanted" world domination. Period. He also "wanted" to destroy England, turn everyone who survived into slaves and then wipe every non-blonde German off the face of the earth. No evidence required. We just know it to be true. A priori.

If you actually believe this, fine. I have provided a nice piece of "visual history" to help you applaud the efforts of the "finest generation" and, well, just feel good about yourselves. "History" as a warm fuzzy.

A nice clip:

http://video.google.de/videoplay?do...487&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I, on the other hand, will go back to thinking about real history.

 

[senojekips]

Say what you like, but there is no argument can justify the deaths of nearly 30 million persons. End of story.

Read again 30 MILLION.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Say what you like, but there is no argument can justify the deaths of nearly 30 million persons. End of story.

Read again 30 MILLION.

Prove it! Don't just give me random numbers and moral claims. Give me evidence.

Anyway, your argument is this:

1. Hitler's war killed 30 million people (strange number)
2. Therefore, the Allies had to stop him.

That is more bizarre than the Teletubbies.

 

[MontyB]

Prove it! Don't just give me random numbers and moral claims. Give me evidence.

Anyway, your argument is this:

1. Hitler's war killed 30 million people (strange number)
2. Therefore, the Allies had to stop him.

That is more bizarre than the Teletubbies.

Ok I will start by saying that I think you are playing with smoke and mirrors.

Now rather than perpetuate this Stalin is worse than Hitler and the British really lost WW2 battle how about I ask a question to get us back on track.

At what point did war with Germany become inevitable?

I am sure you can claim that German territorial expansion would have stopped with Russia but the world was assured that the Sudetenland was enough but then came the rest of Czechoslovakia and Poland, seriously do you believe that France and Britain were going to sit still while Hitler "assured" his way through Europe?

I have no doubt that neither the French nor the British gave a flying rats arse about Poland in general but at some point they had to say enough was enough and put a stop to Germany's expansion even if they only did so for their own benefit.

 

[senojekips]

Two can play that stupid game, "You prove that it's wrong". If you want evidence, go and take a look at some of the war cemeteries.

Thirty million is not a strange number at all, it is a 3 followed by seven zeros, 30,000,000. It may well be described as "horrific", but never strange. Nor is the fact that it is well understated with actual claims exceeding 50 million world wide. .

What is strange, is that persons such as yourself refuse to acknowledge the truth. Next you'll be denying that the war happened at all.

http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html

Country Military Civilian Deaths USSR 13,600,000 7,700,000 21,300,000 China 1,324,000 10,000,000 11,324,000 Germany 3,250,000 3,810,000 7,060,000 Poland 850,000 6,000,000 6,850,000 Japan - - 2,000,000 Yugoslavia 300,000 1,400,000 1,706,000 Rumania 520,000 465,000 985,000 France 340,000 470,000 810,000 Hungary - - 750,000 Austria 380,000 145,000 525,000 Greece - - 520,000 United States 500,000 - 500,000 Italy 330,000 80,000 410,000 Czechoslovakia - - 400,000 Great Britain 326,000 62,000 388,000 Netherlands 198,000 12,000 210,000 Belgium 76,000 12,000 88,000 Finland - - 84,000 Canada 39,000 - 39,000 India 36,000 - 36,000 Australia 29,000 - 29,000 Albania - - 28,000 Spain 12,000 10,000 22,000 Bulgaria 19,000 2,000 21,000 New Zealand 12,000 - 12,000 Norway - - 10,262 South Africa 9,000 - 9,000 Luxembourg - - 5,000 Denmark 4,000 - 4,000 Total - - 56,125,262

I'm sorry that many of the figures are only rounded out to the nearest 100,000 or so, but I haven't got time to count them all again.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Ok I will start by saying that I think you are playing with smoke and mirrors.

Now rather than perpetuate this Stalin is worse than Hitler and the British really lost WW2 battle how about I ask a question to get us back on track.

At what point did war with Germany become inevitable?

I am sure you can claim that German territorial expansion would have stopped with Russia but the world was assured that the Sudetenland was enough but then came the rest of Czechoslovakia and Poland, seriously do you believe that France and Britain were going to sit still while Hitler "assured" his way through Europe?

I have no doubt that neither the French nor the British gave a flying rats arse about Poland in general but at some point they had to say enough was enough and put a stop to Germany's expansion even if they only did so for their own benefit.

Do you guys even read my posts? Or do you just skim over them and make stuff up? Come on, dudes! I feel like an evolutionary biologist debating Kent Hovind.

German expansion? Soviet expansion? I give up. But, how about the original question. The original question was "Germany's campaign of conquering Britain". I guess everyone now agrees that Britain actually declared war on Germany to stop a perceived German expansionism. In that, at least, I have been successful. Everyone now agrees that Britain and France officially started the war, although some still think it was to save the Sudeten Germans from Reich Germans. Please, enlighten me further.

The stats game. Oh, I don't really want to play that one today. Counting military deaths as German atrocities, wow. What can I say to that? And attributing Japanese atrocties in China to Germany. Amazing. How do you argue that one? I am interested. Not even the Simon Wiesenthal Center goes that far. The argument that Hitler's invasion of Poland CAUSED all of this is beyond stupid. Britain and France's declaration of war, Stalin's invasions of eastern Europe, Italy's invasions, Germany's allies helping out, Japanese military adventures, Roosevelt itching for war...none of these, according to you, have any importance. Hitler was responsble for everybody's actions after Britain and France declared war. Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that Australia or Canada had to stand up to Hitler? How about Iraq, they declared war on Germany as well. So did Brazil. Man, Poland is one important country.

Anyway, how does the argument work? Hitler killed 30 million (sic) between 1 September 1939 and 8 May 1945. He therefore had to be stopped prior to September 1939. I am sorry, I cannot figure that one out. Again, enlighten me, please.

[By the way, the Freudian slip was classic. When did I write that Britain lost the war? Is that what this is all about? Jesus, Germany lost the war. Ok. You feel better?]

 

[senojekips]

Come on, dudes! I feel like an evolutionary biologist debating Kent Hovind.

Yes,... I can imagine you seeing yourself in such a light, somewhat like the fanciful ideas that Hitler had of himself, and, Yes, the truth is that I do just skim over most of your more peculiar reasoning.

Like I said earlier "You can't see the forest for the trees". You are attempting to give terrifically deep answers to a very shallow argument. I can't work out whether you are actually trying harder to convince people that either, your argument holds water, or just that you are incredibly smart. I hate to tell you that you are failing dismally on both counts.

Hitler had demonstrated long before the declaration of war that he was a megalomaniac with expansionist policies. Why don't you admit it, you are just peeved that the Brits had the guts to stand up and convince others that Hitler needed to be stopped. No doubt it would suit your purposes admirably to have all of Europe and God knows where else, all speaking German. If you expect me, or the rest of the Allied nations to apologise for putting a stick in his wheel, or agree with your "strange" ideas you're going to have a long, long wait.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Yes,... I can imagine you seeing yourself in such a light, somewhat like the fanciful ideas that Hitler had of himself, and, Yes, the truth is that I do just skim over most of your more peculiar reasoning.

Like I said earlier "You can't see the forest for the trees". You are attempting to give terrifically deep answers to a very shallow argument. I can't work out whether you are actually trying harder to convince people that either, your argument holds water, or just that you are incredibly smart. I hate to tell you that you are failing dismally on both counts.

Hitler had demonstrated long before the declaration of war that he was a megalomaniac with expansionist policies. Why don't you admit it, you are just peeved that the Brits had the guts to stand up and convince others that Hitler needed to be stopped. No doubt it would suit your purposes admirably to have all of Europe and God knows where else, all speaking German. If you expect me, or the rest of the Allied nations to apologise for putting a stick in his wheel, or agree with your "strange" ideas you're going to have a long, long wait.

Did Mommy help you write that?