Wonderful feeling: After 75 years, Berliner recalls end of WW2 in Europe

[pineapple01]

29 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I've already given you the answer. The small number of Germans responsible for crimes were punished. Germany is still pursuing war criminals. Paying reparations.

 

Britain's war criminals are glorified. No punishment. No apologies. No reparations.

 

A grave injustice.

Rantings of a young Teacher. 

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You mean the Russians finished it. The Americans and British sat on the sidelines for years waiting until Russia decided the war, then swooped in quickly to avoid being embarassed as Russia invades Germany. So the British and Americans at least had the chance to pretend they actually did some fighting. As opposed to bombing women and children cowardly from the air.

 

Of course you would not have sympathy for women and children burned alive, why would you? Only German civilians after all. But when two V1s hit the buildings of mother the outcry is great.

 

There is nothing to justify with Germany's invasion of Poland and the bombing of Warsaw which was a perfectly legitimate bombing of military defensive positions. Totally different to a strategy of bombing civilians, which the RAF decided to pursue in its impotence. Besides Poland had incorporated German territories after WW1 and despite repeated attempts to return those lands the Poles were intransigent, relying of course on the worthless British and French guarantees.

 

France declared war on Germany. Why would Germany have to justify occupying and defeating a country which declared war on it? Besides the occupation of France was nowhere near as inhumane as what Germans endured after 1945. Despite the "Wonderful feelings".

 

Of course things went too far, and a small number of German criminals committed crimes, but all of them were punished. Not so the British war criminals.

 

That's not ignored, plenty of British historians like Richard Overy are clear that the British started the bombing of civilians.

 

But yah, Germany should not have invaded Russia, no justification for that.

I said the allies finished it, to which Russia was part of, so stop putting words into other posters mouths. I really wouldn't go spouting off about the deaths of women and children being bombed from the air, do you think it was heroic killing women and children in the extermination camps to enable Hitler to have his pure race, his super race, where cripples and gays were systematically murdered and many more that didn't fit in with his master race ideals, give me a break please.

22 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You mean the Russians finished it. The Americans and British sat on the sidelines for years waiting until Russia decided the war, then swooped in quickly to avoid being embarassed as Russia invades Germany. So the British and Americans at least had the chance to pretend they actually did some fighting. As opposed to bombing women and children cowardly from the air.

I really think you should concentrate on the lives that were lost in WW2, a guestimate of 80 million has been recorded, without the German Nazis those people would have lived. We band numbers about like confetti here, it has been said that 6 million Jews lost their lives in the gas chambers, but historians think it could be nearer 20 million. The Germans were very good at keeping records but when the tide started turning againgst them, many of the records were destroyed, German efficacy.

So what ever figures you may want to band about, there is no doubt who is ahead in division 1.

[transam]

37 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I've already given you the answer. The small number of Germans responsible for crimes were punished. Germany is still pursuing war criminals. Paying reparations.

 

Britain's war criminals are glorified. No punishment. No apologies. No reparations.

 

A grave injustice.

YOU, have lost the plot......................Go look at the shrines on the side of the roads in ITALY where villagers were SHOT by the retreating Germans, I have seen them.........

Go read about villagers all over Europe and USSR SHOT by Germans for just being there..............................People like you make me sick.......YOU know nothing.....

 

Here is your Germans of the day you are protecting....

 

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEA_enTH899TH899&sxsrf=ALeKk03fjnrC_oOJSSttAJ2g9Y-0p3JXlQ:1589176490930&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=German+consuntration+camp+photos&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidrejhj6vpAhWEc30KHa6-DWcQsAR6BAgHEAE&biw=1396&bih=691&dpr=1.38

 

[faraday]

57 minutes ago, Logosone said:

So the British and Americans at least had the chance to pretend they actually did some fighting. As opposed to bombing women and children cowardly from

While the Nazis were doing what, exactly?

[transam]

1 minute ago, faraday said:

While the Nazis were doing what, exactly?

Forget it, Log lives in a shed with no doors...........

[billd766]

On 5/9/2020 at 5:23 PM, losworld said:

What you are saying makes little sense. If you simply look at the design of the bombers Germany used in WW2 you will see they are small and designed to support troops movements.  It is the American and British who designed the huge bombers that resulted in countless deaths of innocent women and children.  War crimes like Dresden would not been possible without these specifically designed killing machines.

Would you like to explain that to the people of Guernica, Rotterdam, Coventry, London, Liverpool, Southampton, Bristol and other cities who were bombed nightly. I am surer that they would be happy to know that they were bombed by small and medium bombers only.

 

How about the Focke Wolfe Kondor which was a 4 engined German bomber or perhaps the Heinkel 177 strategic bomber or the Junkers Ju 390.

 

The Germans used the Spanish Republic as a testing ground for WW2 to further develop the Luftwaffe.

 

When you enter into a war that you didn't start your only aim should be to win and not pussyfoot about saying sorry that we bombed your cities. Only the winners do that as they write the history books.

 

Did you know that RAF Bomber Command losses in WW2 In total 364,514 operational sorties were flown and 8,325 aircraft lost in action. Bomber Command aircrews suffered a high casualty rate: of a total of 125,000 aircrew, 57,205 were killed (a 46 percent death rate), a further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war. Therefore, a total of 75,446 airmen (60 percent of operational airmen) were killed, wounded or taken prisoner.

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

4 hours ago, transam said:

Again, you are making excuses for the Axis.....You forgot about the German killing spree listed below.......

 

Jews...6,000,000

Soviets...7,000,000...

Polish...1,800,000...

Serbs...312,000...

Folk with disabilities...250,000...

Gypsies...250,000...

Jehovah Witness...1,900...

Criminals...70,000...

The list goes on, now you start from the top of the list and let me know your thoughts....

 

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution

The Nazi were masters of killing and it is worth mentioning that they also directly killed an estimated 500,000 Germans.

Their attitude adjustments camps were a bit tougher than we are use to today.

[transam]

On 5/9/2020 at 5:23 PM, losworld said:

What you are saying makes little sense. If you simply look at the design of the bombers Germany used in WW2 you will see they are small and designed to support troops movements.  It is the American and British who designed the huge bombers that resulted in countless deaths of innocent women and children.  War crimes like Dresden would not been possible without these specifically designed killing machines.

YOU should do some research on what the Germans were doing behind the scenes....

 

They had a big bomber in the pipeline that needed rocket engines to get it off the ground. It failed...I think Hanna Reitsch was the test pilot...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanna_Reitsch

[billd766]

On 5/9/2020 at 5:55 PM, abrahamzvi said:

I disagree. Many are not prepared to give up their freedom and most certainly not be part of a butchery machinery the Nazis were. However, the fact that Europe as a whole has seen mostly peace in the last 75 years is due to the European Union, which the UK is regrettably leaving. Let us hope that we will always live in a peaceful Europe and will see the UK back as part of it.

I disagree with you completely.

 

From 1947 until the present day peace in Europe has been kept by NATO which evolved long before the EU was even born and many member countries of the EU are also members of NATO.

 

The EU has no real military forces to speak of though there has been talk of a Euro Army which if it ever happens will serve alongside NATO. So far even some of the NATO countries are pulling their weight or paying the NATO bills fully, yet the EU wants a new military to replace NATO. Who do they expect to pay for it and where will they get the man and women power to operate it. Who will be in charge of it?

[billd766]

3 hours ago, transam said:

What on earth are you on about.......????...........

You have NO answers, you cut out the figures in my post because you have no answers..

 

You should go sit in a corner......Unbelievable one sided tosh, dismissing the German genocide of MILLIONS.......????

May I suggest to the many posters on this thread to do what I did.

 

I simply placed logosone on my ignore list and now the only time I see his posts are if somebody replies to him. 

 

Ignore him completely as all he does is to simply wind people up. He is a good example of a troll. 

 

He thrives on upsetting posters and if you ignore his posts they get wilder and wilder until he gets a holiday or is banned when he simply morphs into somebody else and starts again. 

[Pilotman]

6 hours ago, Logosone said:

Was your father involved in the bombing of the Cap Arcona?

 

"In May 1945 she was heavily laden with prisoners from Nazi concentration camps when the Royal Air Force (the pilots not knowing of the nature of her passengers) bombed her, killing about 5,000 people, mostly former concentration camp inmates; with more than 2,000 further casualties in the sinkings of the accompanying vessels of the prison fleet, Deutschland and Thielbek. This was one of the largest single-incident maritime losses of life in the Second World War."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Cap_Arcona

 

It was of course the civilians, women and children, and the elderly who knew the reality of carpet bombing, who lived through it, not the pilots. 

 

In fact some of those who lived through it were hardened British soldiers who had fought in many campaigns for Britain but were unfortunate to be kept as prisoners of war in Dresden when the British carpet bombed that virtually undefended city. Victor Gregg was one such British soldier.

 

He described what he saw with his own eyes:

 

"As the incendiaries fell, the phosphorus clung to the bodies of those below, turning them into human torches. The screaming of those who were being burned alive was added to the cries of those not yet hit." 

 

"My account of this tragedy, Dresden: A Survivor's Story, was published on the day of the anniversary this week. I gave a number of interviews around the publication, in which I insisted that the affair was a war crime at the highest level, a stain upon the name Englishman that only an apology made in full public view would suffice to obliterate."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/bombing-dresden-war-crime

 

Most of the human torches wandering over bubbling asphalt, liquid and alive with heat, were small children. And women.

 

Victor Gregg, an experienced British solder of WWII and a prisoner of war, was he also an arm chair critic of the bombing? No, he wasn't was he? He fought at Arnhem and many British battles, but all his life he was called a "Nazi Supporter" because having seen what the RAF did in Dresden with his own eyes he never ceased to call it a "war crime" and evil.

 

Because that's of course what it was, the British purposely aimed to kill civilians, women and children, and they knew they were doing so.

 

Even British soldiers who fought in WWII were repulsed by it.

 

Of course then we saw children burned alive again by US bombing in Vietnam and still we have fools who call such cowardly attacks on civilians "heroic". Disgraceful.

 

 

"the pilots not knowing of the nature of her passengers"

That is an answer in itself.  Accidents happen in war and are quite separate in every way from war atrocities perpetrated by people who know precisely what they are doing. and to whom.  The lack of discernment, historical fact and balanced, logical thinking, by hindsight historians and liberal hand wringing apologists on this post, is staggering, if hardly surprising.  Where are these people when war has to be fought?  Probably cowering in deep bunkers,  or sitting watching the war on TV, 6,000 miles from the action, sipping wine, eating strawberries and painting their stupid placards ready for the next demonstration of democratic freedom, that the Military are actually fighting for. It's both disturbing and pathetic.  

 

I am done with this post.    

[vogie]

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No, actually was at a Khao Soi place, had some spring rolls and beef satay on the side. 

 

Absolutely delicious. I'm not one for placards though, but I will tell you if you think a strategy of killing civilians which the RAF purposely pursued in WWII is 'fighting war' you know nothing. War is fought between soldiers. The moment you purposely target civilians, like the RAF did, you become a war criminal.

The Germans were the first to indescrimately bomb London in 1940, the RAF did what was expected of them, they retaliated, do you expect to let enemy aircraft bomb us and not retaliate.

 

There would't have any bombing by either side if the German Nazis hadn't decided to start the war.

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

The Germans were the first to indescrimately bomb London in 1940, the RAF did what was expected of them, they retaliated, do you expect to let enemy aircraft bomb us and not retaliate.

 

There would't have any bombing by either side if the German Nazis hadn't decided to start the war.

Really, strange then that your own UK historians like Richard Overy point out that's not the case:

 

"Up until Churchill’s appointment as prime minister both Germany and Britain had stuck to a pledge not to attack targets in each other’s cities where civilians were at risk. Overy dismisses the long-held belief ‘firmly rooted in the British public mind’ that Hitler initiated the trend for indiscriminate bombings. Instead, he says, the decision to take the gloves off was Churchill’s, ‘because of the crisis in the Battle of France, not because of German air raids [over Britain].’

 

Ethical restraints which had been imposed at the start of the war became slowly eroded as a result of Britain’s decision to initiate ‘unrestricted’ bombing of targets located in Germany’s urban areas."

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/hitler-didn-t-start-indiscriminate-bombings-churchill-did-

 

There would have been no "second world war" if Britain and France had not decided to declare war on Germany in 1939 when Germany was just seeking to restore its territorial integrity after Poland had annexed German lands after 1919.

 

Of course Hitler was reckless to pursue a war as well, but Britain and France's insiduous role in precipitating World War by turning a neighbour dispute into a global war is largely ignored. 

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I know what you said, but it was the Russians that finished it. Not the British. The British BEF ran quicker than a rabbit from the beaches of Dunkirk, remember? Then waited until 1944 on the sidelines until the Russians were 6:1 in the lead.

 

Indeed the war was terrible and crimes were committed by everyone, however, the second world war as such came about because the British and French decided to turn a neighbour dispute between Poland and Germany into a world war for their own political aims. Poland had annexed German lands in 1919 and refused in negotiations to return them. Only a local war. But the British made it into a world war, because they knew without America et al they could not defeat Germany.

 

The role of the British in bringing about World War II and indeed in butchering women and children by bombing them en masse is of course ignored. As are all the crimes that followed after 1945 and allied occupation. Which according to this article are to be ingored in favour of 'wonderful feelings'. What absolute garbage. British war criminals were never brought to justice.

 

So basically your only defense is 'The Nazis did even worse'? It's like being accused of murder and saying but that other guy killed more. Moral bankruptcy.

 

 

Nobody was in the same league as the Nazis, this was their moment they had been building up to for many years, the British on the other hand was totally unprepared and in many respects totally exposed to Hitlers well equipt forces. Nobody stood a chance in the first few years of the war, but as we always do get through it in the end, with help from the rest of our allies.

Are you blaming other countries for starting the war, Germany started this war, lets not forget this and try to put the blame on others for Germanys heinious crimes, what other countries did really pales into insignificance compared to Germanys crimes.

The National Anthem at the time was Deutchland uber Alles, and they meant it.

[xylophone]

36 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I know what you said, but it was the Russians that finished it. Not the British. The British BEF ran quicker than a rabbit from the beaches of Dunkirk, remember? Then waited until 1944 on the sidelines until the Russians were 6:1 in the lead.

A few facts might help you........

 

The almost 90% of it (the British Army) which was not at Dunkirk (in the UK, guarding Egypt, India, Malaya, etc., fighting elsewhere in France & so on) carried on doing what it was doing.

 

The fraction which had been evacuated from Dunkirk was rearmed, reorganised & carried on.

 

The British army, along with other Commonwealth & Empire armies, spent the remaining five years of the war (longer than the USSR & USA were engaged) fighting in North Africa (El  Alamein et al) Greece, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Somaliland, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Malaya, Borneo, Burma, & India.

 

And, for the record, my father fought in the North Africa campaign and at El Alamein, before being shipped to Italy to fight there.

 

Now time for you to go on my ignore list, as I find your posts untruthful and deliberately antagonistic.

Edited May 11, 2020 by xylophone

[rabas]

5 minutes ago, colinneil said:

Myself and many others are just waiting for you to run out of steam.

It is getting beyond boring reading the sh++e you are posting.

He won't.  Every post reads like hard drive anti western propaganda, particularly the incessant drive to convince Westerners no use wear masks and to reject social distancing. Sounds like someone with a purpose.

[pineapple01]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

Nobody was in the same league as the Nazis, this was their moment they had been building up to for many years, the British on the other hand was totally unprepared and in many respects totally exposed to Hitlers well equipt forces. Nobody stood a chance in the first few years of the war, but as we always do get through it in the end, with help from the rest of our allies.

Are you blaming other countries for starting the war, Germany started this war, lets not forget this and try to put the blame on others for Germanys heinious crimes, what other countries did really pales into insignificance compared to Germanys crimes.

The National Anthem at the time was Deutchland uber Alles, and they meant it.

German People had no Ides what was going on. Just as Mexicans couldn't all name Drug Cartel operatives. Funny my Family did n ran away. 

[Logosone]

14 minutes ago, vogie said:

Nobody was in the same league as the Nazis, this was their moment they had been building up to for many years, the British on the other hand was totally unprepared and in many respects totally exposed to Hitlers well equipt forces. Nobody stood a chance in the first few years of the war, but as we always do get through it in the end, with help from the rest of our allies.

Are you blaming other countries for starting the war, Germany started this war, lets not forget this and try to put the blame on others for Germanys heinious crimes, what other countries did really pales into insignificance compared to Germanys crimes.

The National Anthem at the time was Deutchland uber Alles, and they meant it.

 

Germany started a war against Poland. Obviously that was reckless because Hitler, even though he did not believe it would happen, should have considered the possibility of Britain and France declaring war and the consequences. But he gambled regardless. So obviously Hitler has a portion of the blame for unleashing WW2 as well. However, so do Britain and France obviously for declaring war on Germany. They were the ones who turned a local war into a global one, something Hitler did not want at that time, only later when it already was a global war did he make a programme of reconstituting German territorial integrity into an out and out colonial conquest war, driven as much by events, as by design. 

 

But he offered Britain peace repeatedly. Had Britain wanted to, they could have ended the war in 1940.

 

Of course nobody is blaming the UK for Germany's "heinous crimes". German crimes are acknolwedged, the culprits, about 100,000 Germans were tried and those that are left are still pursued by the German government. Reparations paid. Apologies made.

 

However the UK's heinous crimes of burning alive women and children in a calculated policy of bombing civilians, those war criminals were never brought to justice. The Archbishop of Canterbury apologised, yes, but the British government never did.

 

 

[Logosone]

27 minutes ago, xylophone said:

The almost 90% of it (the British Army) which was not at Dunkirk (in the UK, guarding Egypt, India, Malaya, etc., fighting elsewhere in France & so on) carried on doing what it was doing.

 

The fraction which had been evacuated from Dunkirk was rearmed, reorganised & carried on.

 

The British army, along with other Commonwealth & Empire armies, spent the remaining five years of the war (longer than the USSR & USA were engaged) fighting in North Africa (El  Alamein et al) Greece, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Somaliland, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Malaya, Borneo, Burma, & India.

 

Now time for you to go on my ignore list, as I find your posts untruthful and deliberately antagonistic.

In 1939 the British regular army could muster 224,000 men, who were supported by a reserve of 173,700 men. 

 

At Dunkirk 338,226 British soldiers were fished out of the sea.

 

The BEF was the British army in the West. It was defeated.

 

With the exception of the club med fighting in the Mediterranean the British largely stayed on the sidelines. They only really started to challenge the Wehrmacht again in 1944, when they knew the Russians had largely defeated the Wehrmacht. Same with the Americans, who also made sure to stay well on the sidelines in Europe until 1944. Ie, until Russia had effectively won the war in Europe.

 

It wasn't the Allies that "liberated" Germany. It was Russia. The British and Americans made sure they didn't show their face much until 1944. Even without them Russia would have ended WWII in 1945.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

 

Germany started a war against Poland. Obviously that was reckless because Hitler, even though he did not believe it would happen, should have considered the possibility of Britain and France declaring war and the consequences. But he gambled regardless. So obviously Hitler has a portion of the blame for unleashing WW2 as well. However, so do Britain and France obviously for declaring war on Germany. They were the ones who turned a local war into a global one, something Hitler did not want at that time, only later when it already was a global war did he make a programme of reconstituting German territorial integrity into an out and out colonial conquest war, driven as much by events, as by design. 

 

But he offered Britain peace repeatedly. Had Britain wanted to, they could have ended the war in 1940.

 

Of course nobody is blaming the UK for Germany's "heinous crimes". German crimes are acknolwedged, the culprits, about 100,000 Germans were tried and those that are left are still pursued by the German government. Reparations paid. Apologies made.

 

However the UK's heinous crimes of burning alive women and children in a calculated policy of bombing civilians, those war criminals were never brought to justice. The Archbishop of Canterbury apologised, yes, but the British government never did.

 

 

They were the ones who turned a local war into a global one, something Hitler did not want at that time,

Oh I am so sorry we didn't give Mr Hitler his own way.

 

But he offered Britain peace repeatedly. Had Britain wanted to, they could have ended the war in 1940.

And of course Mr Hitler was always true to his word now wasn't he, didn't he tell Neville Chamberlain that he would not invade Poland, that went well now didn't it. Don't forget he had already annexed Czechoslavakia and Austria (although Austria didn't seem to mind, sort of local boy dun good).

I think it would be safe to say that after Mr Hitler had invaded Poland he wouldn't have stopped there (please tell me you are not naive enough to believe this), in the end Mr Hitler had invaded 11 countries before the end of the war. And it is common belief that if Mr Hitler had not got bogged down in Russia, Britain would have been his next port of call.

 

[CharlieH]

Once again, keep it civil, no personal attacks/remarks as they will be removed and if you deliberately antagonise,(Troll) you will be removed.

 

 

[pineapple01]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

They were the ones who turned a local war into a global one, something Hitler did not want at that time,

Oh I am so sorry we didn't give Mr Hitler his own way.

 

But he offered Britain peace repeatedly. Had Britain wanted to, they could have ended the war in 1940.

And of course Mr Hitler was always true to his word now wasn't he, didn't he tell Neville Chamberlain that he would not invade Poland, that went well now didn't it. Don't forget he had already annexed Czechoslavakia and Austria (although Austria didn't seem to mind, sort of local boy dun good).

I think it would be safe to say that after Mr Hitler had invaded Poland he wouldn't have stopped there (please tell me you are not naive enough to believe this), in the end Mr Hitler had invaded 11 countries before the end of the war. And it is common belief that if Mr Hitler had not got bogged down in Russia, Britain would have been his next port of call.

 

 

[pineapple01]

So where is the Ignore Button seeing there no Nuclear one I cant find it.!

[faraday]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

But he offered Britain peace repeatedly. Had Britain wanted to, they could have ended the war in 1940.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/nazis-truce-britain-1941-exchange-wanted-unobstructed-attack-ussr.html

 

"The Nazis tried to trade peace with Britain. In return, they want to attack the USSR without any intervention from the Allies in 1941."

 

You seem to cherry pick many of your thin statements, in a somewhat biased way. 

 

Why do you continue to do this?

 

 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, rabas said:

He won't.  Every post reads like hard drive anti western propaganda, particularly the incessant drive to convince Westerners no use wear masks and to reject social distancing. Sounds like someone with a purpose.

Simply put him on your ignore list and don't bother to respond to him in any way.

 

2 hours ago, pineapple01 said:

deleted post

 

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

They were the ones who turned a local war into a global one, something Hitler did not want at that time,

Oh I am so sorry we didn't give Mr Hitler his own way.

 

But he offered Britain peace repeatedly. Had Britain wanted to, they could have ended the war in 1940.

And of course Mr Hitler was always true to his word now wasn't he, didn't he tell Neville Chamberlain that he would not invade Poland, that went well now didn't it. Don't forget he had already annexed Czechoslavakia and Austria (although Austria didn't seem to mind, sort of local boy dun good).

I think it would be safe to say that after Mr Hitler had invaded Poland he wouldn't have stopped there (please tell me you are not naive enough to believe this), in the end Mr Hitler had invaded 11 countries before the end of the war. And it is common belief that if Mr Hitler had not got bogged down in Russia, Britain would have been his next port of call.

 

You know very well that Hitler truly respected Britain. All humanly possibly attempts were made to get Britain to end the war. A public offer, secret envoys. 

 

It would have been Britain's only way to retain its huge empire. The way Churchill chose to do that, as he belatedly realised in his older years, was the wrong way to do it. His aim was to retain the empire. Which he could not do by fighting Germany. Fighting Germany was the express route to losing the empire.

 

Poland was different though, the  Poles, had incorporated German territory after 1919. It was never realistic that Germany would not try to reconstitute its territorial integrity. However, power sharing on a geo-political scale was different. Witness how Mussolini was allowed to retain Tyrol in exchange for military and political support. Hitler always kept his word to Mussolini, did he not?

 

There was surely a very good chance that after Poland was defeated, France was defeated, had Britain come to the table there would have been no invasion of Russia. One of the main reasons to invade Russia was to force the British to make peace.  Hitler was almost forced to do it, to gamble everything, because he knew in the long run, with the USA, Britain and Russia against him there was no chance to prevail given the industrial might of the USA. So off he went in the mistaken belief that Russia would be an easily defeated enemy. Which all military observers at the time thought too, after Finland's victory over the Russians and German defeat of the Russians in WW1.

 

Of course German intelligence being as abysmally bad as it was Fremde Heere Ost was not able to find out that Russia had vastly more tanks and planes than thought. There never should have been an attack on Russia. Yet still Germany almost won that war, and if they had, with the oil of the Caucasus and all the resources of Ukraine and Russia, perhaps Germany could have stood a chance against the US in the long run. If Heisenberg hadn't sabotaged the atomic bomb project in Germany.

 

Anyway, what is clear is that Churchill had made up his mind in 1930 that if Hitler came to power there would be war. Because he understood that a strong Germany would be a threat to Britain's position. And indeed if a later alliance had happened Britain would always have existed at the mercy of a much stronger Germany. So Churchill pursued the only path that made sense to him, to defeat Germany. Of course in doing so he killed off his beloved empire for good, the whole reason why he went to war.

 

However, even if Germany had pursued its own empire in the east. Why would Britain be allowed to pursue an empire but not Germany? Germany can not even reconstitute its territorial integrity without Britain and France precipitating a global war, but Britain and France can amass huge global empires with impunity? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[billd766]

2 hours ago, pineapple01 said:

So where is the Ignore Button seeing there no Nuclear one I cant find it.!

Go to the top right and click on your login name.

 

A small window will open and the second line from the bottom is ignored users.

 

Click on that and a new page opens 

 

Add to ignore list and just follow the instructions making sure that you spell the name correctly.

[Logosone]

Since the opening of 1940 cabinet records we of course know that Churchill and his cabinet seriously considered making peace with Hitler's Germany:

 

"There is no disagreement that the cabinet debated whether Britain should sound out Hitler on what kind of peace terms he might offer. Nor is there any doubt that Churchill made comments that do not entirely support his image as the stalwart hero, pursuing the goal of ''victory at all costs'' and refusing even to contemplate negotiations with Berlin. He is recorded as declaring, for example, that ''if we could get out of this jam by giving up Malta and Gibraltar and some African colonies,'' he would ''jump at it,'' although he didn't see any such prospect. He also declared that he was prepared to accept ''peace on terms of the restoration of German colonies and the overlordship of Central Europe,'' which presumably included continued occupation of Czechoslovakia and western Poland, although, again, he said that such an offer was ''most unlikely.''

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/25/arts/rethinking-negotiation-with-hitler.html

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by Logosone

[billd766]

12 minutes ago, faraday said:

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/nazis-truce-britain-1941-exchange-wanted-unobstructed-attack-ussr.html

 

"The Nazis tried to trade peace with Britain. In return, they want to attack the USSR without any intervention from the Allies in 1941."

 

You seem to cherry pick many of your thin statements, in a somewhat biased way. 

 

Why do you continue to do this?

 

 

Because he is trying to provoke you so that he can complain to the moderators about your post.

[vogie]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You know very well that Hitler truly respected Britain. All humanly possibly attempts were made to get Britain to end the war. A public offer, secret envoys. 

 

It would have been Britain's only way to retain its huge empire. The way Churchill chose to do that, as he belatedly realised in his older years, was the wrong way to do it. His aim was to retain the empire. Which he could not do by fighting Germany. Fighting Germany was the express route to losing the empire.

 

Poland was different though, the  Poles, had incorporated German territory after 1919. It was never realistic that Germany would not try to reconstitute its territorial integrity. However, power sharing on a geo-political scale was different. Witness how Mussolini was allowed to retain Tyrol in exchange for military and political support. Hitler always kept his word to Mussolini, did he not?

 

There was surely a very good chance that after Poland was defeated, France was defeated, had Britain come to the table there would have been no invasion of Russia. One of the main reasons to invade Russia was to force the British to make peace.  Hitler was almost forced to do it, to gamble everything, because he knew in the long run, with the USA, Britain and Russia against him there was no chance to prevail given the industrial might of the USA. So off he went in the mistaken belief that Russia would be an easily defeated enemy. Which all military observers at the time thought too, after Finland's victory over the Russians and German defeat of the Russians in WW1.

 

Of course German intelligence being as abysmally bad as it was Fremde Heere Ost was not able to find out that Russia had vastly more tanks and planes than thought. There never should have been an attack on Russia. Yet still Germany almost won that war, and if they had, with the oil of the Caucasus and all the resources of Ukraine and Russia, perhaps Germany could have stood a chance against the US in the long run. If Heisenberg hadn't sabotaged the atomic bomb project in Germany.

 

Anyway, what is clear is that Churchill had made up his mind in 1930 that if Hitler came to power there would be war. Because he understood that a strong Germany would be a threat to Britain's position. And indeed if a later alliance had happened Britain would always have existed at the mercy of a much stronger Germany. So Churchill pursued the only path that made sense to him, to defeat Germany. Of course in doing so he killed off his beloved empire for good, the whole reason why he went to war.

 

However, even if Germany had pursued its own empire in the east. Why would Britain be allowed to pursue an empire but not Germany? Germany can not even reconstitute its territorial integrity without Britain and France precipitating a global war, but Britain and France can amass huge global empires with impunity? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anything anybody says to you goes over your head, I am sick of you trying to defend one the most evil regimes ever. On ignore.