The German campaign of conquering Britain

[Del Boy]

The German campaign of conquering Britain - Part I.

Saturday September 7, 1940, 4.14 pm.

Things are looking very black indeed, Bernard.

Black with death.

Black with Bombers
Heinkels, Dorniers and Junkers,
Three hundred and forty-eight.
Messerschmitt fighters,
Six hundred and seventeen.

Black with death.

Black with a canopy block
Twenty miles wide
A black block of death
Covering eight hundred square miles of sky
.
Black with death.

Bombs fell on London for twelve hours.
Bombs fell on London
For seventy-six nights in a row
Bombs fell on forty-three thousand civilians
And killed them.

Black with death.

Bombs fell on more than a million homes
And destroyed them.
Unremitting slaughter
Incessant attack on lives and property
Designed to crush the spirit
Of the English people.
High explosive compression
Pulling and pushing
Sucking out eye-balls
Ripping off clothes
Tearing out breath

Black with death.

Things were looking very black indeed, Bernard.

 

[Del Boy]

I have just caught up with some absolute nonsense from Olliegarchy regarding my position, posted in my published absence. As always it amounts to lies, downright lies, untruths and propaganda.

Take note:-

Most of our arguments hinge on one central point: I treat Nazi Germany as a sovereign major regional power and Delboy does not. For him, an Allied invasion of Germany was justifiable even before Hitler came to power. Delboy fully supports Churchill's warmongering against Weimar Germany in 1932. Furthermore, if you examine all of Delboy's comments, you will notice that he takes an anti-German stand on every single point.

***
This is total rubbish. O puts nonsensical words into my mouth without any justification whatsoever. Not one point is true or accurate and does not represent my views. He is a lying propagandist in this respect.




. But I am sure that Delboy's morality suddenly shifts direction on this issue. Eliminating German power becomes justifiable. The German elimination of Polish power is just a war crime.

***
Absolute nonsense again. Taking a stand against Hitler's aggression is one thing. The war crime was not the elimination of Polish power, but the elimination of Poland, Warsaw, Poles, Jews and others.



For Delboy, none of this is a problem. His brand of kamikaze nationalism demands violent action against the major powers of the day. We have to stop major powers from expanding, is his credo.


***
This again is total rubbish. How can he put such words into my mouth. I am not even a nationalist, let alone a kamikaze. This was the territory of our opponents. The kamikaze nationalism and agression was ALL Hitler's, as history established.





Well, a real kamikaze scenario would be a British declaration of war against the United States for having invaded more countries than I have fingers. What a wonderfully loyal Nazi or Bolshevik Delboy would have made.

***
What has brought up this anti-American rant out of nowhere? This point says everything about Olliegarchy and his dodgy politics. He should avoid mentioning wonderfully loyal Nazis.

This post establishes Olliegarchy as an opportunist and a fraud.


HUH!

 

[Del Boy]

For the record, tidying up.

(1)
'Hitler wanted Poland to be moved far to the east and downsized'.

****
He certainly did that.




'Polish-German interests were incompatible and violently so. If you consider that Germany was a Nazi/Fascist major regional power and Poland was a borderline-Fascist minor power, why side with Poland and start a world war?'


****
It has clearly been established that the only party wishing war was Hitler. Britain did everything possible to avoid such. This was the culmination of Hitler's plan.



(2) The British/French Declaration of War:' This act was not a moral issue of right or wrong. It was a policy issue of right or wrong. Do you understand the difference? '


****

Ho- ho-ho. Pulease! Id you swallow that you will swallow anything. Let us be clear, whichever way O deals from the bottom the truth is obvious - Allies good, good. good. Hitler bad,bad,bad. Just plain FACT.





(3)' Living through WWII: It is an interesting thing that those who suffered most were generally far more "forgiving" than those who did not suffer at all. AC Grayling touches on this subject in "Among the Dead Cities". He points to polls made during the war. British civilians living in bombed cities were "less keen to see German cities bombed than were the residents of unbombed cities". (p. 285). This is hard for us to understand because we more closely resemble the "unbombed". '

****
This is utter tripe, because AC Grayling is wrong. London and England were especially fervent that Germany should be bombed in retaliation for the horrors wrought on them. They longed for it. They prayed for it. I was one of them. It is hard to understand O's point simply because it is not true. Olliegarchy speaks only for himself if he 'resembles the unbombed'.
As for me, I resemble the bombed, the uprooted, the threatened, the gassed and the murdered in large numbers, and I speak of myself and my own family particularly.


HUH!

 

[Ollie Garchy]

you are an idiot

 

[Del Boy]

Nice. Are you confusing me with Hitler again, my high-fallutin' friend?



HUH

 

[MontyB]

I know the political sandpit is having its sand cleaned but do we have to bring it here?

Does this thread actually have any life left in it?

It would be great to think that we can actually discuss history without the need to resort petty shots even if those views don't correspond to "traditionally accepted" ones".

 

[Del Boy]

Olligarchy is always completely thrown by the truth; he relies upon a barrage of verbal rubbish with which he attempts to bamboozle the gullible.

His project of trying to re-write history in favour of the Nazi regime is scotched by factual history on a few simple and straightforward truths.

Firstly, you do not need reminding of the great efforts and deeds of the American forces during WW11; you do not need reminding of America’s yearning for peace and attempts to keep out of involvement. You do not need reminding of what America has done for Germany post WW11.

Now take a look at Hitler’s history throughout the 1930’s; FACTS – take another look at the Parliamentary published speeches by Churchill, as he sought to divert Hitler from his disastrous mission. My posts are available on this thread for your reference in this respect.

Olliegarchy depends upon you accepting that Churchill was a monster, that Roosevelt was a monster, that Eisenhower was a monster. On the other hand, he wants you to accept that Hitler’s murderous Nazi regime, was reasonable, only doing their duty, only playing the cards they were dealt. Utter balderdash.

The history of this matter is not complicated, as Olliegarchy wishes to make it, it is as plain as the nose on your face, maybe too obvious even, and cannot be re-written.

Olliegarchy continually posts what he claims to be MY thoughts on matters, and then attacks them – BUT THEY ARE NEVER MINE – he does not know what I think, he never could, he does not have the fibre for it. He knows, about my opinions, only what I post here, and he should not pretend that I hold those other than that. They are the dregs of his own twisted logic.

Furthermore – he actually lies about me; he claims that my posts are always anti- German. That is completely untrue, I have NEVER posted an anti- german comment, anywhere on this thread. Far from it. I stick to anti-Hitler, anti- Nazi. I challenge him to find one anti- German comment amongst my posts.


Because I know that Olliegarchy does not recognize or accept the truth in these matters, I posted the example repeated here, without explanation.


OLLIEGARCHY DESCRIBES IT AS IDIOTIC.

It is, as it happens, a factual, true and detailed account of a day, a 10 week period, in the early days of WW11. The times, the dates, the numbers, the reports are all accurate. I did not Find it idiotic at the time, the people of London did not find it idiotic. OLLIEGARCHY FINDS IT IDIOTIC.

The German campaign of conquering Britain - Part I.

Saturday September 7, 1940, 4.14 pm.

Things are looking very black indeed, Bernard. (coded signal alert - 'stand to, no quarter'.)

Black with death.

Black with Bombers
Heinkels, Dorniers and Junkers,
Three hundred and forty-eight.
Messerschmitt fighters,
Six hundred and seventeen.

Black with death.

Black with a canopy block
Twenty miles wide
A black block of death
Covering eight hundred square miles of sky
.
Black with death.

Bombs fell on London for twelve hours.
Bombs fell on London
For seventy-six nights in a row
Bombs fell on forty-three thousand civilians
And killed them.

Black with death.

Bombs fell on more than a million homes
And destroyed them.
Unremitting slaughter
Incessant attack on lives and property
Designed to crush the spirit
Of the English people.
High explosive compression
Pulling and pushing
Sucking out eye-balls
Ripping off clothes
Tearing out breath

Black with death.

Things were looking very black indeed, Bernard. ( coded signal - 'all clear, stand easy').

 

[Del Boy]

I know the political sandpit is having its sand cleaned but do we have to bring it here?

Does this thread actually have any life left in it?

It would be great to think that we can actually discuss history without the need to resort petty shots even if those views don't correspond to "traditionally accepted" ones".

Monty B - sorry old chap, but i feel I am behaving very reasonably here, and trying to put my points in a careful manner. I cannot speak for others. I have no wish to be branded unjustly. I must say that I am offended that my latest posts should be so described.

On the other hand, if the subject bores you, i regret that. Sorry to iritate you.

 

[Doppleganger]

Give it a rest please Del-Boy? The subtler arguments of this thread have completely passed you by. Let it die its natural death.

 

[Del Boy]

Doppleganger - kindly do not attempt to grab the high intellectual ground here. I see and expose the subtleties only too well. Reliance on truth and FACTS is a completely different matter. Remember that I was prepared to pass on this thread - but in my absence Olliegarchy took severe liberties with my case and reputation and I am justified in making response.

I am quite prepared to leave the argument at THIS point. Can YOU and yours give it a rest?

 

[MontyB]

Monty B - sorry old chap, but i feel I am behaving very reasonably here, and trying to put my points in a careful manner. I cannot speak for others. I have no wish to be branded unjustly. I must say that I am offended that my latest posts should be so described.

On the other hand, if the subject bores you, i regret that. Sorry to iritate you.

Its not that it bores me its that we are now so far beyond kicking a dead horse we are in fact now beating its fossilised remains.

The thread is now fragmented and barely readable and I would suggest as I did further back that a better option for its development would be to break it into a series of offshoot question each with its own post that way we can get back to more precise and on topic answers.

As I see it history is different to politics and religion in that we already know the outcome therefore everything we post is an interpretation of a known result and as such there is no reason to resort to abusing each other as we can in the end change nothing.

 

[Del Boy]

OK Monty B. That's fine and dandy. I will do as you suggest and leave it here. I do agree that history has spoken . I also happen to believe that it needs defending when it is under attack, in doing so achieving something, in fact. We search for truth as best we can, and pass it on when we are able. Do you not strive to defend your country's reputation and standing in history?

I would also point out my latest post on the German bombing campaign of Britain was very accurately on-topic, and of very current interest; particularly regarding Britain's present position. However, I will not bore people by developing that theme.

That'll do I think.

 

[MontyB]

OK Monty B. That's fine and dandy. I will do as you suggest and leave it here. I do agree that history has spoken . I also happen to believe that it needs defending when it is under attack, in doing so achieving something, in fact. We search for truth as best we can, and pass it on when we are able. Do you not strive to defend your country's reputation and standing in history?

I would also point out my latest post on the German bombing campaign of Britain was very accurately on-topic, and of very current interest; particularly regarding Britain's present position. However, I will not bore people by developing that theme.

That'll do I think.

I am more than happy to defend my countries reputation and standing in history where I believe it is right to do so but I also accept that my understanding may not be the same as someone else's and that their opinion is just as valid as mine.

BTW I am not saying your posts were off topic I am saying that the topic itself has gone past its use by date, it has become so messy that it can no longer be followed clearly and therefore needs to be ended, if there are aspects of the thread that you wish to expand upon now would be a good time to simply start a new thread based on the points in question so that they can be more precisely addressed.

 

[Del Boy]

No, no. I'm fine with that, as I said. In fact I am always re-active, in that I simply challenge what i see as incorrect, and particularly if I see it as dangerous, where I take into account the influences on those reading the thread. Furthermore, of course, challenging opinions is the basis of debate, inluding robust debate . I am seldom inclined to start threads at all, and particularly on contraversial issues. What I find a little puzzling is that if one reads my responses this should in fact be obvious.

But I accept your position and have no inclination to pursue the subject further on my own behalf, whilst reserving the right to respond where necessary.

One problem I must admit to is that I am not very computor literate, and find myself at a disadvantage when replying to large posts and seperating quotes and distinguishing quotes from responses. This is usually why upper case and italics sometimes appear on my posts. I am working on it.

I am trying hard to leave this thread behind, but it won't let me go!

 

[MontyB]

No, no. I'm fine with that, as I said. In fact I am always re-actionary, in that I simply challenge what i see as incorrect, and particularly if I see it as dangerous, where I take into account the influences on those reading the thread. Furthermore, of course, challenging opinions is the basis of debate, inluding robust debate . I am seldom inclined to start threads at all, and particularly on contraversial issues. What I find a little puzzling is that if one reads my responses this should in fact be obvious.

But I accept your position and have no inclination to pursue the subject further on my own behalf, whilst reserving the right to respond where necessary.

One problem I must admit to is that I am not very computor literate, and find myself at a disadvantage when replying to large posts and seperating quotes and distinguishing quotes from responses. This is usually why upper case and italics sometimes appear on my posts. I am working on it.

I am trying hard to leave this thread behind, but it won't let me go!

With quoting all you need to remember is that all quoted text needs to be started with the tags "[-quote]" and ended with "[-/quote]"
(Remove the "-" from inside the square brackets).

For example if I was to take your post and reply to it in parts I would do this.

[-quote=Del Boy]No, no. I'm fine with that, as I said. In fact I am always re-actionary, in that I simply challenge what i see as incorrect, and particularly if I see it as dangerous, where I take into account the influences on those reading the thread. Furthermore, of course, challenging opinions is the basis of debate, inluding robust debate . I am seldom inclined to start threads at all, and particularly on contraversial issues. What I find a little puzzling is that if one reads my responses this should in fact be obvious.[-/quote]

My reply here

[-quote]But I accept your position and have no inclination to pursue the subject further on my own behalf, whilst reserving the right to respond where necessary. [-/quote]

My reply here

[-quote]One problem I must admit to is that I am not very computor literate, and find myself at a disadvantage when replying to large posts and seperating quotes and distinguishing quotes from responses. This is usually why upper case and italics sometimes appear on my posts. I am working on it.[-/quote]

[-quote]I am trying hard to leave this thread behind, but it won't let me go![-/quote]

More replies here.

Remember to remove the "-" from the square brackets.

 

[Del Boy]

Thank you kindly Sir. Now no power on earth will be able to stop me. I'm outa here.

 

[MontyB]

Thank you kindly Sir. Now no power on earth will be able to stop me. I'm outa here.

Hehe the last thing in the world I want is for people to stop posting here its hard enough getting people to reply now without driving them off.

 

[Del Boy]

FREE - free at last! I will be lurking on the other threads. Anyone seeking further enlightenment on any of my points, please raise it elsewhere and I will be happy to respond.

 

[Papashah41]

Too much emphasis is placed on Sea-Lion as the way for the Nazi's to conquer Britain. Pressure should have remained on the RAF airfields, sector stations and radar instillations. But Hitler couldn't or didn't understand the North Africa connection. With the taking of the Suez Canal and a strong U-boat and warship presence in the North Atlantic, England could have eventually been starved into submission. I have stated this in other Forums, but here we go again. The Germans needed to obtain the French fleet. North Africa, including Egypt and Malta would have fallen quickly. Yugoslavia and Greece would have seen the writing on the wall and fallen into the Axis camp. Franco would have taken Gibralter, possibly without a shot being fired. Now, The Mediterranean is an Axis Lake, and the options are many and varied.

 

[MontyB]

Too much emphasis is placed on Sea-Lion as the way for the Nazi's to conquer Britain. Pressure should have remained on the RAF airfields, sector stations and radar instillations. But Hitler couldn't or didn't understand the North Africa connection. With the taking of the Suez Canal and a strong U-boat and warship presence in the North Atlantic, England could have eventually been starved into submission. I have stated this in other Forums, but here we go again. The Germans needed to obtain the French fleet. North Africa, including Egypt and Malta would have fallen quickly. Yugoslavia and Greece would have seen the writing on the wall and fallen into the Axis camp. Franco would have taken Gibralter, possibly without a shot being fired. Now, The Mediterranean is an Axis Lake, and the options are many and varied.

We have had the North African discussion pop up before and while on paper it looks enticing I am not convinced it would have been as devastating to Britain as many think and I am not even certain that it was possible or even a good idea on behalf of Germany.

A North African/Middle Eastern front would have been a vast resource drain for Germany, it is a huge mass of land predominantly under the control of a European power (Main Britain and France) there would have been no way of consolidating the front line, defeat Egypt and you have you still face the British in the Sudan, push them out of the Sudan and you face them in Ethiopia etc. and all the while Germany's supply get longer and British supply lines get shorter.

On top of this even with the loss of the Mediterranean you still havent cut supplies to Britain you have just extended them by forcing them around South Africa which was a reasonably safe route as Britain controlled much of the west African coast line anyway.

Last but not least German logistical services were notoriously poor I do not believe for an instant that they could have managed such a campaign, it is my opinion that Rommel should have followed orders and stayed within Tripoli and they should have concentrated of capturing Malta which would have made the Mediterranean a German lake by default.