The German campaign of conquering Britain

Ollie Garchy

Your response to the last post. Really. is that the best you can do? What happenned to all that reasoned argument?

Your logic twists and turns. you demand facts - when you are presented with them you decide you do not want to go there.

All your premises are wrong.

Hitler was evil ? Certainly.
Starting wars is evil? Not necessarily.

And the relationship between the two statements is irrelevant, they are independent and in no way rely upon each other.

I find it difficult to respond to your claims because I find them all holed below the water-line, and I feel like the war crimes committee in attempting to reply to them. Not because I have nothing to say but because I have far too much to say on each point.

Your information seems so flawed, the sum becomes a handful of chaff blowing in the wind. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind.
If you wish to continue this thread, I will try to be kind. I will present for you facts, hopefully few and perhaps one at a time.

However, my recommendation at this point is that you let it lie, as I have said previously, for the benefit of today's Germany. Also I would not want my opposition to your case to be viewed as whingeing, the usual dismissal when the truth hurts.

Best regards. Del Boy.
 
Last edited:
Ollie Garchy

Your response to the last post. Really. is that the best you can do? What happenned to all that reasoned argument?

Your logic twists and turns. you demand facts - when you are presented with them you decide you do not want to go there.

All your premises are wrong.

Hitler was evil ? Certainly.
Starting wars is evil? Not necessarily.

And the relationship between the two statements is irrelevant, they are independent and in no way rely upon each other.

I find it difficult to respond to your claims because I find them all holed below the water-line, and I feel like the war crimes committee in attempting to reply to them. Not because I have nothing to say but because I have far too much to say on each point.

Your information seems so flawed, the sum becomes a handful of chaff blowing in the wind. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind.
If you wish to continue this thread, I will try to be kind. I will present for you facts, hopefully few and perhaps one at a time.

However, my recommendation at this point is that you let it lie, as I have said previously, for the benefit of today's Germany. Also I would not want my opposition to your case to be viewed as whingeing, the usual dismissal when the truth hurts.

Best regards. Del Boy.

I WONDER WHY I WRITE ANYTHING AT ALL...NOBODY EVEN READS THE STUFF:

You guys have presented no facts at all. What do you mean, facts? You guys do not even understand the issue. So do me a favour, tell me what we are discussing. That might help. I thought we were discussing the supposed German plans for the conquest of Britain.

Simply presenting me with unexplained numbers (like 30 million dead people) explains nothing. What does that mean? Starting WWII to save 30 million not-yet-dead people? Starting WWII to save 6 million not-yet-dead Jews? Come on. That argument is a non-starter because the war itself caused these deaths.

How about the morality issue? Are you telling me that the British and French governments declared war because Hitler was a bad man? Do you really think that politicians go to war for so trivial a reason? Show me one serious government document (not BS propaganda to the public) whereby a major British politician stated that war was necessary because Hitler was bad. I can guarantee you that no such thing exists. So don't even look.

I have been trying to explain that national security conceptions motivated Paris and London to act. And I have presented documentary evidence to prove it. These conceptions were not linked to Hitler or Nazism. They were linked to geopolitical concerns of industrial might, population size, and the major fear that the Germans might start gaining access to regions considered the property of England and France. Britain in particular feared German economic penetration of Rumania. Why? Oil.

The whole basis of Appeasement was that the Allies could give minor concessions to Hitler in the hope that he would accept the overall anti-German character of the Versailles settlement. This shows how big of a factor "badness" really was. But Hitler would have none of it. He defined enhanced national security in terms of the neutralization of Poland and, ultimately, the neutralization of the USSR. That should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the Cold War. The whole premise of American policy during the Cold War was the containment and ultimate severe reduction of Soviet power. But in 1939 we have Allied national security vs. German national security. That is why, in my opinion, the English/French-German war started.

Morality, 30 million not-yet-dead people, Nazi ideology and Poland were non-issues. Do you think that France in particular would have declared war if they knew they would be defeated in 1940? Do you think England would have declared war if they knew that the war would bankrupt the state and lead to the end of their Empire? Hardly. Churchill himself questioned the decision after the war.

London and Paris declared war to keep their artificial European balance of power. They did not care about moral issues. They originally wanted to keep Germany in a state of permanent demilitarized servitude, but then tried to contain all damage to the Versailles system once they realized that it was dying fast. What they ultimately feared was an increase of German power and German political and economic penetration of eastern Europe. This was pure power politics. If you want to make the moral argument, please show me one bit of 1939 evidence -- you cannot use the history of the war itself, or extremely vague moral statements. "The Allies declared war because Hitler was bad and had to be stopped" -- come on.

But it all comes back to Poland. Again and again and again. If you argue that the Allies wanted to save Poland, then you have to confront the Soviet invasion, Soviet morality, and the Soviet postwar. That is why I bring up Stalin. He acted WITH Hitler and made Hitler's move against Poland possible. Both Hitler and Stalin thought that the Allies would back down once Poland was eliminated.

My premises are not wrong. They are debatable in terms of degree. Yours (whatever they are) are not. Since I like the word today, I will use it again. Your arguments are all "Teletubbie" history.

Here is a good quote by an historian:

"In Britain, Chamberlain and his government believed in 1938 that it was possible to meet Germany's ambitions while preserving British security; but by February-March 1939 they had concluded that Germany's real aim was the domination of Europe, which they could not accept...In all this there is no mystery. But all depended on the fateful premiss that German expansion would not halt unless it was forcibly resisted. It is not surprising that most of the discussion on the origins of the Second World War in Europe continues to concentrate on the motives and forces behind the expansion of Germany. On those questions the last word has not been, and may never be, pronounced". Bell, Origins, pp. 300-301.

[By the way, I am having fun...although I should be working. Sure hope the boss ain't looking].
 
To senojekips, Del Boy and others.

I'm going to stick up for Ollie here, not because I agree with all of what he says (because I don't) but because he is asking legitimate questions that you all appear to be masking in rhetoric, ignorance and misinformation. It is very simplistic and ultimately wrong to blame just Germany (and Hitler in particular) for WW2 and all the human misery and titanic upheaval that followed. If we want to be pedantic Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. That happens to be a fact although it doesn't begin to tell the full story. Just as the British and French decision to declare war on Germany had not very much to with guts IMO but more to fear and from a supposed stance of moral and political superiority.

As I said before, to understand WW2 you need to look back into the past for the seeds of the conflict. If one looks hard enough and in the right places it will become clear that Britain is every bit at fault compared to any other European nation, more so than most. Even looking at the linked royal families of Britain, Germany and Russia via the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line will provide clues. Specifically, the way that George V of Britain and Nicholas II of Russia despised and almost demonised their royal cousin Wilhlem II which may have been indicative of a wider attitude towards Germany. Of course, the fact that Wilhelm II was impatient, reckless and somewhat arrogant didn't aid matters either. Perhaps this partly explains the curious attitude of the Western Allies towards the Soviet Union before war forged them as an ally. Why indeed were Stalin's boys not vilified over their part in the partition of Poland? Surely if Britain and France were guaranteeing the independence of Poland they should have declared war on the Soviet Union also?

Do you really think Britain and France cared about the Poles? Is it not clear that neither country had any realistic possibilities to even back up their declaration of support? What Nazi Germany did to the Jews is beyond defending but there was method in their madness. Germany wanted to sit alongside the European Elite as represented by Britain and France. There was no evidence of world domination. Hitler's warped racial attitudes and vision meant that he wanted to move East, not West. IMO had Britain and France left well alone in August to September 1939 there would have been a political solution and we'd be left with 2 military juggernauts staring each other down over Brest-Litovsk. If war had then come between Germany and the USSR (as I believe was inevitable) this would have suited Britain and France to a tee. Indeed, it was a decision borne of arrogance, fear and elitism that caused Britain and France to declare war on Germany. We should have left well alone.
 
To senojekips, Del Boy and others.

I'm going to stick up for Ollie here, not because I agree with all of what he says (because I don't) but because he is asking legitimate questions that you all appear to be masking in rhetoric, ignorance and misinformation. It is very simplistic and ultimately wrong to blame just Germany (and Hitler in particular) for WW2 and all the human misery and titanic upheaval that followed. If we want to be pedantic Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. That happens to be a fact although it doesn't begin to tell the full story. Just as the British and French decision to declare war on Germany had not very much to with guts IMO but more to fear and from a supposed stance of moral and political superiority.

As I said before, to understand WW2 you need to look back into the past for the seeds of the conflict. If one looks hard enough and in the right places it will become clear that Britain is every bit at fault compared to any other European nation, more so than most. Even looking at the linked royal families of Britain, Germany and Russia via the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line will provide clues. Specifically, the way that George V of Britain and Nicholas II of Russia despised and almost demonised their royal cousin Wilhlem II which may have been indicative of a wider attitude towards Germany. Of course, the fact that Wilhelm II was impatient, reckless and somewhat arrogant didn't aid matters either. Perhaps this partly explains the curious attitude of the Western Allies towards the Soviet Union before war forged them as an ally. Why indeed were Stalin's boys not vilified over their part in the partition of Poland? Surely if Britain and France were guaranteeing the independence of Poland they should have declared war on the Soviet Union also?

Do you really think Britain and France cared about the Poles? Is it not clear that neither country had any realistic possibilities to even back up their declaration of support? What Nazi Germany did to the Jews is beyond defending but there was method in their madness. Germany wanted to sit alongside the European Elite as represented by Britain and France. There was no evidence of world domination. Hitler's warped racial attitudes and vision meant that he wanted to move East, not West. IMO had Britain and France left well alone in August to September 1939 there would have been a political solution and we'd be left with 2 military juggernauts staring each other down over Brest-Litovsk. If war had then come between Germany and the USSR (as I believe was inevitable) this would have suited Britain and France to a tee. Indeed, it was a decision borne of arrogance, fear and elitism that caused Britain and France to declare war on Germany. We should have left well alone.

I am interested, D., in what exactly you disagree with here? One thing though. I am starting to get the impression that my explanation of Hitler's policies is getting me into rough water. Please understand that explanation is not support ... although some of my earlier "Rammstein" posts don't help me here.
 
I am interested, D., in what exactly you disagree with here? One thing though. I am starting to get the impression that my explanation of Hitler's policies is getting me into rough water. Please understand that explanation is not support ... although some of my earlier "Rammstein" posts don't help me here.

I should be more clear Ollie. As far as the current "argument" goes I am pretty much in agreement with your line of thought. Your last post I could have written myself for example. What I am in disagreement is with perhaps your attitude towards Hitler and his racial policies in general, or perhaps how much knowledge you percieve Hitler actually had of such events. I suppose more correctly I'm not exactly sure where you stand on this subject and I am moving dangerously close to the 'David Irving view' on things with this line of thought. Of course I'm absolutely sure that you despised the 'final solution' and we both agree on the reasons why Britain and France went to war. We both also know that Hitler wanted to move East and that meant ultimate displacement (for want of a more accurate word) of millions of Slavic peoples.

There are 2 things to consider here. If we view Hitler as a modern-day warlord then warlords from time immemorial have always been doing such things, except the scale and numbers were smaller. If, however, we view Hitler as a modern-day politician and leader then what he did was totally unacceptable by any standards. But I guess another one of your arguments (which I agree with) is why does Stalin seem to get off scot-free by comparison?
 
I WONDER WHY I WRITE ANYTHING AT ALL...NOBODY EVEN READS THE STUFF:

You guys have presented no facts at all. What do you mean, facts? You guys do not even understand the issue. So do me a favour, tell me what we are discussing. That might help. I thought we were discussing the supposed German plans for the conquest of Britain.

?????



Simply presenting me with unexplained numbers (like 30 million dead people) explains nothing. What does that mean? Starting WWII to save 30 million not-yet-dead people? Starting WWII to save 6 million not-yet-dead Jews? Come on. That argument is a non-starter because the war itself caused these deaths.


????? The start of the war is not the actual issue here. We know the start - it was declared.



How about the morality issue? Are you telling me that the British and French governments declared war because Hitler was a bad man? Do you really think that politicians go to war for so trivial a reason? Show me one serious government document (not BS propaganda to the public) whereby a major British politician stated that war was necessary because Hitler was bad. I can guarantee you that no such thing exists. So don't even look.

Yes.
Yes.
Churchill - don't give me crap on this one.




I have been trying to explain that national security conceptions motivated Paris and London to act. And I have presented documentary evidence to prove it. These conceptions were not linked to Hitler or Nazism. They were linked to geopolitical concerns of industrial might, population size, and the major fear that the Germans might start gaining access to regions considered the property of England and France. Britain in particular feared German economic penetration of Rumania. Why? Oil.

Mere diversions from the important issue. The stopping of a tyrant with diabolical ambitions.



The whole basis of Appeasement was that the Allies could give minor concessions to Hitler in the hope that he would accept the overall anti-German character of the Versailles settlement. This shows how big of a factor "badness" really was. But Hitler would have none of it. He defined enhanced national security in terms of the neutralization of Poland and, ultimately, the neutralization of the USSR. That should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the Cold War. The whole premise of American policy during the Cold War was the containment and ultimate severe reduction of Soviet power. But in 1939 we have Allied national security vs. German national security. That is why, in my opinion, the English/French-German war started.

These are merely part of the equation.


Morality, 30 million not-yet-dead people, Nazi ideology and Poland were non-issues. Do you think that France in particular would have declared war if they knew they would be defeated in 1940? Do you think England would have declared war if they knew that the war would bankrupt the state and lead to the end of their Empire? Hardly. Churchill himself questioned the decision after the war.

Exactly - but Churchill knew it had to be done. This was a question of principle and not expediency.



London and Paris declared war to keep their artificial European balance of power. They did not care about moral issues. They originally wanted to keep Germany in a state of permanent demilitarized servitude, but then tried to contain all damage to the Versailles system once they realized that it was dying fast. What they ultimately feared was an increase of German power and German political and economic penetration of eastern Europe. This was pure power politics. If you want to make the moral argument, please show me one bit of 1939 evidence -- you cannot use the history of the war itself, or extremely vague moral statements. "The Allies declared war because Hitler was bad and had to be stopped" -- come on.

As far as Britain was concerned they certainly went to war when it became obvious that Hitler had to be stopped, and it had become patently obvious why. Chamberlain should never have negotiated.
Look, we know why the war started and we know that war was declared on Germany. All for reasons clear on all counts. And what are you looking to establish?

Do you agree that Hitler was pathetically evil, and his regime bowing down before him?

Do you deny that he brought diabolical destruction upon Europe and his own people, all for the sake of his mad ideology.

Answer those 2 basics and then we will take a look at the record.









But it all comes back to Poland. Again and again and again. If you argue that the Allies wanted to save Poland, then you have to confront the Soviet invasion, Soviet morality, and the Soviet postwar. That is why I bring up Stalin. He acted WITH Hitler and made Hitler's move against Poland possible. Both Hitler and Stalin thought that the Allies would back down once Poland was eliminated.


OK, you claim Stalin was an evil. he and Hitler were in each others pockets at the time.

So faced with this evil power, Britain still went to war expecting glory, did they. Wake up, please stop acting the prat.



My premises are not wrong. They are debatable in terms of degree. Yours (whatever they are) are not. Since I like the word today, I will use it again. Your arguments are all "Teletubbie" history.

Here is a good quote by an historian:

"In Britain, Chamberlain and his government believed in 1938 that it was possible to meet Germany's ambitions while preserving British security; but by February-March 1939 they had concluded that Germany's real aim was the domination of Europe, which they could not accept...In all this there is no mystery. But all depended on the fateful premiss that German expansion would not halt unless it was forcibly resisted. It is not surprising that most of the discussion on the origins of the Second World War in Europe continues to concentrate on the motives and forces behind the expansion of Germany. On those questions the last word has not been, and may never be, pronounced". Bell, Origins, pp. 300-301.



talking Teltubbies is not worthwhile debate. And your last quote makes our point, not yours. Except for the stupid opinion of the last irrelevent sentence.



[By the way, I am having fun...although I should be working. Sure hope the boss ain't looking].

OK ON THAT ONE



COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST
 
Last edited:
I should be more clear Ollie. As far as the current "argument" goes I am pretty much in agreement with your line of thought. Your last post I could have written myself for example. What I am in disagreement is with perhaps your attitude towards Hitler and his racial policies in general, or perhaps how much knowledge you percieve Hitler actually had of such events. I suppose more correctly I'm not exactly sure where you stand on this subject and I am moving dangerously close to the 'David Irving view' on things with this line of thought. Of course I'm absolutely sure that you despised the 'final solution' and we both agree on the reasons why Britain and France went to war. We both also know that Hitler wanted to move East and that meant ultimate displacement (for want of a more accurate word) of millions of Slavic peoples.

There are 2 things to consider here. If we view Hitler as a modern-day warlord then warlords from time immemorial have always been doing such things, except the scale and numbers were smaller. If, however, we view Hitler as a modern-day politician and leader then what he did was totally unacceptable by any standards. But I guess another one of your arguments (which I agree with) is why does Stalin seem to get off scot-free by comparison?

Thanks,

I am a functionalist. I don't really think that Hitler & the NSDAP had any clear policies on anything...other than vague ideas of racial hygiene, that France would be "neutralized" as a threat, that the Jews would leave Germany, and that the Soviets would bite the bullet and make way for living space. All of these ideas (other than dealing with France) were sort of interrelated -- the Jews were "perverting" German blood and the Jews were behind Communism. These ideas sound really dumb, which they were, but most of them were highly fashionable during the 1920s and 1930s. Both the United States and Britain had many supporters of eugenics, for example. Nazism was the most extreme synthesis of these racial ideas.

The war itself changed everything. Hitler thought that the Jews were behind the Anglo-Saxon (he expected nothing less from the French) war against Germany -- which he had a hard time understanding. Hitler originally thought that the Anglo-Saxon powers would mind their own business. As the war escalated in intensity, Hitler blamed everything on the Jews and most certainly supported genocide, ultra-brutal policies against those Slavs considered enemies, and a general plunge into barbarism. Things got progressively worse from there.

This is not a complete explanation, but it is a rough outline of the functionalist argument. I find the intentionalist hypothesis ("Hitler's Willing Executioners" is a good example even though Goldhagen is called a functionalist) rather weak and very disturbing. I forget who wrote it, maybe Peter Novick or Raul Hilberg, but the intentionalist argument simply replaces antisemitism with antigermanism.

Like you, I find the media's handling of the Soviet issue sickening. Although the academic community has changed somewhat -- the historian Gaddis symbolizing this change in a book called "We Now Know" -- even scholars appear to keep on conveniently forgetting. Why? I don't know why. Some argue that the parochial nature of Nazism is the reason. Others cling desperately to the "egalitarian" nature of Communism. The French Communist Party even banned any negative discussion of the Soviet Union until Budapest 1956.

Read this, you'll like it:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nowknow.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Hilberg
 
No, but it certainly seems like it got too close to the truth for you.

Do you guys want to start a discussion on historical epistemology? Fine by me. Before we start, the following should be pointed out:

Truth: "There is no single definition of truth about which the majority of philosophers agree. Various theories of truth, commonly involving different definitions of "truth", continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; what roles do revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute".

Historical truth is even more complex than the definition of truth itself. We start covering research methodology, the nature of historical evidence, the utility of covering laws or hypotheses, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
 
Here we go with the philosophers again. Forget the philosophers and grasp the nettle, try using your own brain to work out the truth. As I've already said, "Rocket science, it ain't".
 
Here we go with the philosophers again. Forget the philosophers and grasp the nettle, try using your own brain to work out the truth. As I've already said, "Rocket science, it ain't".
The thing though is that Oliie is backing up his claims with secondary data and providing the links whereas you are not. In essence he is using his brain far more than you are at the moment. It's very easy to dismiss something you disagree with as nonsense right? How about using your brain and think about some of the things he's saying? If you still disagree let's see some secondary data to support your point of view.
 
The thing though is that Oliie is backing up his claims with secondary data and providing the links whereas you are not. In essence he is using his brain far more than you are at the moment. It's very easy to dismiss something you disagree with as nonsense right? How about using your brain and think about some of the things he's saying? If you still disagree let's see some secondary data to support your point of view.

Thanks, dude...but, actually, I mostly let historians/ scholars do the work for me. I am lazy. I only expend brain power in trying to remember what I read...which isn't enough. That is why I am amazed at the flak sent my way.

By the way, do you have any ideas about why people get so emotional about Hitler, Nazi Germany, or even just plain ole' Germany? Personally, I like this emotion. Discussions of Belgian or Spanish colonial policy, for example, just don't seem very interesting. The whole topic of Germany electrifies people. Or is it just me? I don't know.
 
Last edited:
What Ollie is doing is known as wriggling. It is not worth the paper it is written on.

If Ollie wants truth in this matter, let him answer these questions in one word.


1. Do you hold that America wanted WW11?
2. Do you hold that America was responsible for WW11?
3. Do you hold that Britain wanted WW11?
4. Do you hold that Britain was responsible for WW11?
5. Do you hold that Hitler's regime was not evil/bad?
6. Do you stick to your claim that Britain was unaware of the evil of Hitler's regime until after the outbreak of war.

Then we can see just what the precise point you wish to make is and how concerned about truth you really are. I believe you are trying to re-write history in an unworthy cause - that of the Nazi regime and not that of the German people, with whom Britain had no complaint pre-war.

This is how we can a sensible debate - go for it.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.
 
Last edited:
The "truth" is simply that, and Ollies attempts at bypassing it by bringing the theories of various "experts" into the debate over what truth is, are not needed. Well,.... certainly by those of us who use our own intelligence to form our own opinions instead of just lamely accepting the reasoning of others.

Wriggle and squirm all you wish, but the truth is self evident, and it takes no brainpower to continually quote the theories of others.

"Experts"
Given a simple question, 20 experts will arrive at 30 answers none of which agree.

Given a little time and the desire to do so I can find an "expert" opinion to back up just about anything.
 
The "truth" is simply that,

...but the truth is self evident, and it takes no brainpower to continually quote the theories of others.

Ah, well you see the truth simply isn't 'self evident' for a great deal of the time. If it were, assuming we can arrive at an absolute truth anyway, the world would be a much easier place to understand. In the current argument the truth here is dependant on your perspective, how much wider reading has been done on the subject and the ability to shift through the fog of disinformation and propoganda and detach emotion from fact. So far, yours and Del Boy's responses have been largely emotional, which given the subject matter I can fully understand and empathise with, but emotional nonetheless. Emotion rarely though has a place amongst truth.
 
That is not so - my responses are historical - i was there, I lived the history. you are are dealing with a life historian.

Please answer the simple questions I put to Ollie in my last post, so we can sort this out, and see where we are coming from.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.
 
Ah, well you see the truth simply isn't 'self evident' for a great deal of the time. If it were, assuming we can arrive at an absolute truth anyway, the world would be a much easier place to understand. In the current argument the truth here is dependant on your perspective, how much wider reading has been done on the subject and the ability to shift through the fog of disinformation and propoganda and detach emotion from fact. So far, yours and Del Boy's responses have been largely emotional, which given the subject matter I can fully understand and empathise with, but emotional nonetheless. Emotion rarely though has a place amongst truth.

Ok maybe I am misreading his posts/intentions (its happened before and I have no doubt will happen again)and it is quite clear that if this is the case then both Del Boy and Spike seem to be making the same mistakes so I will ask you to explain his point in a clear and short sentence (nothing in depth just a straight forward response).
Because I have to admit that if I am interpreting him correctly I wouldn't put money on him surviving in many parts of the world.

Also on the topic of emotive responses, how does this rate?
I am not a huge fan of Churchill but I am not even close to calling him a fat racist any more than I am likely to refer to Hitler as a psychotic meglomaniac.

How about starting WWII? Does anyone really think that the fat racist really thought in the best interests of the working class? Then answer the following questions:

1. Did England emerge as a victorious nation?
2. What did England gain by Soviet domination of E. Europe?
3. How did the average English person live after 1945?

Most lived worse off. Period. One can send history down the memory hole, but the point is that England lost the war in all but name. Germany died. So what. Gain whatever satisfaction you want from the such a victory. England lost.

At the end of the day, what happened? England killed their own people...their own history.

Who will win? Asians, etc.
 
Last edited:
That is not so - my responses are historical - i was there, I lived the history. you are are dealing with a life historian.

Please answer the simple questions I put to Ollie in my last post, so we can sort this out, and see where we are coming from.

Your responses have been observational and thus emotional. Like I said before part of truth is perspective and the danger of relying on purely observational 'facts' is that you do not see all of the available facts and thus can arrive at a skewed conclusion.

As far those questions go they are really far too simplistic and one word answers will not be helpful. But if you insist:

1. Do you hold that America wanted WW11? MAYBE
2. Do you hold that America was responsible for WW11? NO
3. Do you hold that Britain wanted WW11? NO
4. Do you hold that Britain was responsible for WW11? YES
5. Do you hold that Hitler's regime was not evil/bad? NO
6. Do you stick to your claim that Britain was unaware of the evil of Hitler's regime until after the outbreak of war. YES
 
Back
Top