I used to have a world history book published in the 1930's. Hitler was presented in a much more favorable way than how we grew up knowing him. Then the world learned what a monster he was and it has been considered unthinkable to say anything nice about the man or what he did. But, I am not afraid! I will say something nice about Hitler - he built good highways. I think that's about it.

after moving from Switzerland to Germany, being a little boy, i had to listen to the highway shit from all sides including from some of my teachers even though it was dangerous for them to say anything positive about Hitler and Nazism. what is barely known outside Germany is the fact why he had initially the big success which enabled him to establish a dictatorship that was virtually impossible to challenge.

it wasn't the Autobahns which he built for military purposes but the fact that within less than a year 7½ million jobless had a job and could feed themselves, respectively their families. a dozen years later even 14 and16 year old boys had a job. the young ones handling flak ammunition and the slightly older ones handling bazookas to ensure the "Endsieg"

Imagine, if Hitler would have put that 7.5 million on gov't support and food stamps in place of jobs and raise taxes on the 1% we might have avoided WWII.

Its an historical fact that the US never declared war to Germany, and that they had very close en warm relationships with the Vichy regime till 1943.

.

The combined Houses of the United States Congress passed a resolution on December 11. 1941, declaring war on Germany and Italy, exactly three days after declaring war on the Japanese nation.

This resolution was signed by President Roosevelt that day and Germany surrendered unconditionally on May 8, 1945.

Those are the REAL historical facts and they are indisputable. The remainder of your post doesn't even warrant a response.

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

http://fcit.usf.edu/...ment/DECWAR.htm

after that the US responded

http://usa.usembassy.../ga3-411211.htm

Vichy France - US relationships

http://www.aboutjeru...m/vichy-france/

Is it now your position that rather than the US NEVER declaring war against Germany as you stated, your new position is that the US declared war AFTER Germany declared war first?

Who cares what the diplomatic relationship was with Vichy France? France was a beaten nation soon after Germany invaded them in 1940.

Who cares what the diplomatic relationship was with Vichy France? France was a beaten nation soon after Germany invaded them in 1940.

Its an historical fact that the US never declared war to Germany, and that they had very close en warm relationships with the Vichy regime till 1943.

.

The combined Houses of the United States Congress passed a resolution on December 11. 1941, declaring war on Germany and Italy, exactly three days after declaring war on the Japanese nation.

This resolution was signed by President Roosevelt that day and Germany surrendered unconditionally on May 8, 1945.

Those are the REAL historical facts and they are indisputable. The remainder of your post doesn't even warrant a response.

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

http://fcit.usf.edu/...ment/DECWAR.htm

after that the US responded

http://usa.usembassy.../ga3-411211.htm

Vichy France - US relationships

http://www.aboutjeru...m/vichy-france/

Is it now your position that rather than the US NEVER declaring war against Germany as you stated, your new position is that the US declared war AFTER Germany declared war first?

Who cares what the diplomatic relationship was with Vichy France? France was a beaten nation soon after Germany invaded them in 1940.

No not all, my position is still unchanged. The US never declared a war to Germany

You should read the US statement carefully.

¨President Roosevelt said in his message to the Congress

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and

Germany and between the United States and Italy

And the resolution of the Congress was as follows

Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany

which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared.

This is not an declaration of war, the Congress just declared that they recognised that their was a State of ware between the 2 countries.

Furthermore this was never handed over to any German diplomatic channel, also therefore the US never declared war to Germany, only recognised a state of war.

To make it simply to understand. This example

You got laid off by your employer, you can only recognize your dismissal. You can not write any resignation letter anymore

Therefore the US never declared a war against Germany. They just recognised they are at war with Germany.

The combined Houses of the United States Congress passed a resolution on December 11. 1941, declaring war on Germany and Italy, exactly three days after declaring war on the Japanese nation.

This resolution was signed by President Roosevelt that day and Germany surrendered unconditionally on May 8, 1945.

Those are the REAL historical facts and they are indisputable. The remainder of your post doesn't even warrant a response.

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

http://fcit.usf.edu/...ment/DECWAR.htm

after that the US responded

http://usa.usembassy.../ga3-411211.htm

Vichy France - US relationships

http://www.aboutjeru...m/vichy-france/

Is it now your position that rather than the US NEVER declaring war against Germany as you stated, your new position is that the US declared war AFTER Germany declared war first?

Who cares what the diplomatic relationship was with Vichy France? France was a beaten nation soon after Germany invaded them in 1940.

No not all, my position is still unchanged. The US never declared a war to Germany

You should read the US statement carefully.

¨President Roosevelt said in his message to the Congress

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and

Germany and between the United States and Italy

And the resolution of the Congress was as follows

Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany

which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared.

This is not an declaration of war, the Congress just declared that they recognised that their was a State of ware between the 2 countries.

Furthermore this was never handed over to any German diplomatic channel, also therefore the US never declared war to Germany, only recognised a state of war.

To make it simply to understand. This example

You got laid off by your employer, you can only recognize your dismissal. You can not write any resignation letter anymore

Therefore the US never declared a war against Germany. They just recognised they are at war with Germany.

What a ridiculous post. A statement of existing war is the same as a declaration of war.

From your own post..."Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany

which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared."

Read it very carefully and slowly. To paraphrase, "...the state of war between the United States and the government of Germany...is hereby formally declared."

You are playing semantics over the death of some 40 million people?

I was correct earlier. You, sir, are a troll.

Who cares what the diplomatic relationship was with Vichy France? France was a beaten nation soon after Germany invaded them in 1940.

Again this is a misinterpretation, Vichy France was an ally of Germany. For example they still had full ownership of their fleet, and in the peace agreement is was agreed that Germany could not use them, and they were under the full Controle of the Vichy French Navy. There was even an pre-agreement with the UK that the French government would never put their fleet under the Control of Germany, and Vichy France who was the legitimized succesor of the French Government honoured this agreement till the end. The French troops and navy in Northern Africa were never under control of the Wehrmacht, they were completely independent. Also France could keep full controle over his colonies.

You can't call all of the above hardly the actions of a beaten and defeated country. Their are a lot of historical facts unknown to the general public about WW2.

What a ridiculous post. A statement of existing war is the same as a declaration of war.

From your own post..."Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany

which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared."

Read it very carefully and slowly. To paraphrase, "...the state of war between the United States and the government of Germany...is hereby formally declared."

I was correct earlier. You, sir, are a troll.

trowing insults is a sign of incompetence, You should learn some comprehensive reading. Or take some lessons in Affairs of State or diplomacy.

Furthermore I strongly reject this sentence

You are playing semantics over the death of some 40 million people?

Because some of my relatives where in the resistance and died in Bergen-Belzen.

Good day to you Sir.

What a ridiculous post. A statement of existing war is the same as a declaration of war.

From your own post..."Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany

which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared."

Read it very carefully and slowly. To paraphrase, "...the state of war between the United States and the government of Germany...is hereby formally declared."

I was correct earlier. You, sir, are a troll.

trowing insults is a sign of incompetence, You should learn some comprehensive reading. Or take some lessons in Affairs of State or diplomacy.

Furthermore I strongly reject this sentence

You are playing semantics over the death of some 40 million people?

Because some of my relatives where in the resistance and died in Bergen-Belzen.

Good day to you Sir.

...and I lost a brother in WWII fighting the Axis nations.

I was correct earlier. You, sir, are a troll.

You should learn some comprehensive reading.

Anyone who has read a few of chuckd's posts knows that he has read plenty of credible histories on a variety of subjects. Just because he has come to different conclusions than you have, does not mean that he is any less well read.

@Ulysses G.

I just responded to a few insults

@chuckd

I honestly don't think that you fully comprehend what happened on 11 December 1941, and the logic of it. Maybe its because I'm not a native English speaker.

Therefore:

You can't declare a war who is already declared to you. You can only acknowledge that fact. And that is exactly what the US Congress did by giving an declaration, where they said

.the state of war between the United States and the government of Germany...is hereby formally declared."

Meaning, the US Congress accepted and recognized that they where in a state of war with Germany, because Germany declared it to them.

So the US never declared the war to Germany because its was impossible to do so, because that war was already declared by Germany by Diplomatic channels. Therefore I wrote that the US never declared war to Germany. And I repeat it again. They could not do so, because its was already declared to them.

Exactly the same occurred on December 6th,when the Japanese ambassador handed over the declaration of war of the Japanese empire, while they attacked Pearl Harbour at almost the same time.

This is not a game of words or semantics, but logic.

So next time you should be more carefully, before you accuse somebody to be a troll, and write ridiculous postings.

I'm not an American, Brit, German, French, or Japanese, so I'm not influenced by nationalistic sentiment. So I'm convinced, that my statements are not only unbiased but also historical correct.

I would like to mention to mention that a declaration of war is not always given to attack another country, You can have even a full scale war with all his atrocities and not even call it a war.

Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are the perfect examples of that.

Off course you are entitled to a different opinion and call me a troll again

My father was picked up by the Gestapo and interrogated by them, he was released after 6 weeks. He never talked in detail about that 6 weeks.

@Ulysses G.

I just responded to a few insults

@chuckd

I honestly don't think that you fully comprehend what happened on 11 December 1941, and the logic of it. Maybe its because I'm not a native English speaker.

Therefore:

You can't declare a war who is already declared to you. You can only acknowledge that fact. And that is exactly what the US Congress did by giving an declaration, where they said

.the state of war between the United States and the government of Germany...is hereby formally declared."

Meaning, the US Congress accepted and recognized that they where in a state of war with Germany, because Germany declared it to them.

So the US never declared the war to Germany because its was impossible to do so, because that war was already declared by Germany by Diplomatic channels. Therefore I wrote that the US never declared war to Germany. And I repeat it again. They could not do so, because its was already declared to them.

Exactly the same occurred on December 6th,when the Japanese ambassador handed over the declaration of war of the Japanese empire, while they attacked Pearl Harbour at almost the same time.

This is not a game of words or semantics, but logic.

So next time you should be more carefully, before you accuse somebody to be a troll, and write ridiculous postings.

I'm not an American, Brit, German, French, or Japanese, so I'm not influenced by nationalistic sentiment. So I'm convinced, that my statements are not only unbiased but also historical correct.

I would like to mention to mention that a declaration of war is not always given to attack another country, You can have even a full scale war with all his atrocities and not even call it a war.

Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are the perfect examples of that.

Off course you are entitled to a different opinion and call me a troll again

Whatever floats your boat. The simple fact is the US declared war on Germany and Italy and the whole world knows it. When it was declared has no bearing on the fact that Congress passed a resolution of war and it was signed by the President. Congress did not declare war on Germany and Italy on 8 December because the US had not been attacked by either Germany or Italy. When Germany made their declaration in support of the Japanese it was game on.

In accordance with your argument, the US never declared war on Japan either since Japan tried to declare war on the US first. You do know that the Japanese tried to notify the US that a state of war existed between the two countries but couldn't get the message decoded prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor?

You have posted two times about the French naval fleet and the Vichy government. The French fleet was effectively sunk by the British in Algeria in July 1940 to keep it from falling into the hands of the German military. This was 17 months before the US even entered the war. The Vichy government were collaborators with the German occupiers in France, many of them being jailed or executed after the unconditional surrender of the Thousand Year Reich in 1945.

I'm sorry your father suffered indignity at the hands of the Gestapo. At least you got him back. My brother never returned.

Again this is a misinterpretation, Vichy France was an ally of Germany. For example they still had full ownership of their fleet, and in the peace agreement is was agreed that Germany could not use them, and they were under the full Controle of the Vichy French Navy. There was even an pre-agreement with the UK that the French government would never put their fleet under the Control of Germany, and Vichy France who was the legitimized succesor of the French Government honoured this agreement till the end. You can't call all of the above hardly the actions of a beaten and defeated country. Their are a lot of historical facts unknown to the general public about WW2.

And a lot of facts unknown to you, evidently.

For instance :

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_French_Navy#Destruction_of_the_French_Fleet_and_Vichy_France

Destruction of the French Fleet and Vichy France

The British perceived the French fleet as a potentially lethal threat, should the French become formal enemies or, more likely, should the German Navy (Kriegsmarine) gain control. It was essential that they should be put out of action. Some vessels were in British-controlled ports in Britain or Egypt and these were either persuaded to re-join the Allies as Free French ships or were boarded and disarmed.

An important part of the fleet, however, was in Dakar or Mers-el-Kebir. The Royal Navy delivered an ultimatum but, when agreement proved impossible, they opened fire and sunk or damaged much of the French fleet (Operation Catapult) on 3 July 1940. The action soured Anglo-French relations and inhibited further defections to the Allies. From this point on, the ships remaining in Vichy hands spent the war trying to observe neutrality towards the Axis powers, while avoiding destructions or capture by the Allies and the Free French. They obtained anecdotal tactical successes which weighted for nought against the overall strategic disaster, like the Battle of Dakar or the Battle of Koh Chang.

In November, 1942, the Allies invaded French North Africa. In response, the Germans occupied Vichy France, including the French naval port of Toulon, where the main part of the surviving French fleet lay. This was a major German objective and forces under SS command had been detailed to capture them (Operation Lila). French naval authorities were divided on their response: Admiral Jean de Laborde, the commander of the Forces de Haute Mer (the High Seas Fleet) advocated sailing to attack the Allied invasion fleet while others, such as the Vichy Secretary of the Navy, Contre-Amiral Auphan favoured joining the Allies. On several warships, there were spontaneous demonstrations in favour of sailing with the Allies, chanting "Vive de Gaulle! Appareillage!".

The orders to French commanders to scuttle their ships in case of an attempted take-over had been reinforced, however, and, often despite the presence of German troops, this was done, in the Scuttling of the French fleet in Toulon. No capital ships and few others were taken in reparable condition.^[14] A few ships fled Toulon and joined the Allies, notably the submarine Casabianca.

The French fleet was not destroyed in or sinked in Dakar. It was even regardeds a a failure by Churchill, and the Britisch navy even redraw their fleet to prevent further damage.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2595362/posts

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=96

A few months later the Battle ship Richelieu was partially repaired an was patroling in the African coast

http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=Richelieu

If you realy like to be informed you stop consulting Wiki, and do some serious research on the internet if you don't have that knowledge by yourself or by history books

You lot had a Nazi loving King for a bit too, innit?

Sorry for my late answer, I overlooked your comment

Yes, he even visited Hitler 2 times, to ask if he could remain his privileges as King. His sister who was married with the Italian crown prince and had good relationships with Mussolini arranged it.

It was also the king who as Supreme commander of the army singed the surrenderorder with the German army, against the will of the governement. The big reason why after the war he was not allowed to come back to belgium and had to resign after many street violence that was almost a revolution. About this and his other violations of the some civil laws en his living condition is still an hot item in Belgium, And nobody deny or minimize this facts.

I only would hope that some other countries had the same mature attitude about wrongdoings of their own leaders, governement or public figures and captains of industry. And not constantly deny historical facts, out of misplaced patrrotisme

The greater the state, the more wrong and cruel its patriotism, and the greater is the sum of suffering upon which its power is founded.

Leo Toltstoy

"If you realy (sic) like to be informed you stop consulting Wiki, and do some serious research on the internet if you don't have that knowledge by yourself or by history books"

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

Humphrey it looks like you have now been thrown in with me in the dumb dungeon.

Welcome to the land of the misinformed.

"If you realy (sic) like to be informed you stop consulting Wiki, and do some serious research on the internet if you don't have that knowledge by yourself or by history books"

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

Humphrey it looks like you have now been thrown in with me in the dumb dungeon.

Welcome to the land of the misinformed.

I am busy collecting other published items on this at the moment.

(Must be that all the nespapers that were published in England at the time were only propoganda. Must check Josef Goebbels)

Try this source, then.

http://www.historynet.com/operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir.htm

Operation Catapult: Naval Destruction at Mers-el-Kebir

On July 3, 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had to make one of the most momentous decisions of his career. Early that morning, he ordered a British fleet to arrive off the naval base of Mers-el-Kebir in North Africa and demand the surrender of the French vessels there. The British were to offer the French admiral four alternatives intended to prevent the French fleet's falling into the hands of the Germans. If the French commander refused the terms, his ships would be sunk by the British force. If the British were compelled to open fire, it would be the first time in 125 years that the two navies were arrayed against one another in hostility.

.....................

It was not much of a duel, for most of the gunfire came from the British. According to French Admiral Auphan, the British gunfire was very heavy, very accurate and short of duration. One of the first salvoes struck the battleship Bretagne, which blew up. Another shell tore off the stern of the destroyer Mogador. Dunkerque received several hits but managed to fire about 40 rounds at Hood before being put out of action. Heavily damaged, Provence was forced to run aground. Before the smoke cleared, the bulk of French naval power at Mers-el-Kebir was either aflame or at the bottom of the sea, and more than 1,297 French sailors had been killed.

Try this source, then.

http://www.historyne...rs-el-kebir.htm

Operation Catapult: Naval Destruction at Mers-el-Kebir

On July 3, 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had to make one of the most momentous decisions of his career. Early that morning, he ordered a British fleet to arrive off the naval base of Mers-el-Kebir in North Africa and demand the surrender of the French vessels there. The British were to offer the French admiral four alternatives intended to prevent the French fleet's falling into the hands of the Germans. If the French commander refused the terms, his ships would be sunk by the British force. If the British were compelled to open fire, it would be the first time in 125 years that the two navies were arrayed against one another in hostility.

.....................

It was not much of a duel, for most of the gunfire came from the British. According to French Admiral Auphan, the British gunfire was very heavy, very accurate and short of duration. One of the first salvoes struck the battleship Bretagne, which blew up. Another shell tore off the stern of the destroyer Mogador. Dunkerque received several hits but managed to fire about 40 rounds at Hood before being put out of action. Heavily damaged, Provence was forced to run aground. Before the smoke cleared, the bulk of French naval power at Mers-el-Kebir was either aflame or at the bottom of the sea, and more than 1,297 French sailors had been killed.

Correct,

But I was commenting about the raid on Dakar.

Mers el Kebir, Algeria, Mediterranean sea (3 July 1940)

Dakar, Senegal, Atlantic ocean. (23 September 1940)

http://ports.com/sea-route/port-of-mers-el-kebir,algeria/port-of-dakar,senegal/

Thus not only a different country and a different sea, and a distance of 1895 Nautical miles or 3509 kilometers away from eachoter, but also a different date.

And your information on Mers el Kebir is not complete, because

Ships sinked or damaged at that raid

Bretagne class:

-Bretange: blown at Mers-el-Kebir.

-Provence: heavely hit in the same action. Sailed to Toulon to repair, where was scuttled in 1942.

Dunkerque class:

-Dunkerque: patrols against raiders until June 1940. Sunk at Mers-el-Kebir, then refloated and went to Toulon for repairs. Scuttled 1942.

Strasbourg: patrols against raiders until June 1940. Little damage at Mers-el-Kebir. Then to Toulon for refit, where she was sabotaged by her crew.

http://battleshiplist.com/battleships/france/provence/

http://battleshiplist.com/battleships/france/provence/

http://battleshiplist.com/battleships/france/strasbourg/

And think that all this discussion started that somebody thought that Churchill admired Hitler

And think that all this discussion started that somebody thought that Churchill admired Hitler

as interesting as the repeated questions of Brits in the general forum

-best fish and chips, where?

And think that all this discussion started that somebody thought that Churchill admired Hitler

Well, it was Karl Jaspers, actually.

From Wikipedia (sorry!):

Jaspers wrote extensively on the threat to human freedom posed by modern science and modern economic and political institutions. During World War II, he had to abandon his teaching post because his wife was Jewish. After the war he resumed his teaching position, and in his work The Question of German Guilt he unabashedly examined the culpability of Germany as a whole in the atrocities of Hitler's Third Reich. The below quote of Jasper's about the Second World War and its atrocities was used at the end of the sixth episode of the BBC documentary series The Nazis: A Warning from History.^{[citation needed]}

"That which has happened is a warning. To forget it is guilt. It must be continually remembered. It was possible for this to happen, and it remains possible for it to happen again at any minute. Only in knowledge can it be prevented."

Jaspers valued humanism and the continuity of integral cultural tradition in political spheres. He strongly opposed totalitarian despotism and warned about the increasing tendency towards technocracy, or a regime that regarded humans as mere instruments of science or ideological goals. He was also skeptical of majoritarian democracy. Thus, he supported a form of governance that guaranteed individual freedom and limited government yet was rooted in authentic tradition and guided by an intellectual elite.^[2]