Thread: Chamberlain a new look.

[QUOTE=Mihais;696157]

1-there is sarcasm somewhere in my post

Then you need to make it clearer, especially when you are addressing someone & their views (real or imagined) directly.

2-Good to know what to avoid in order not to piss you off

Always good to know

3-Unless you're a legally appointed higher authority it buggers the heck on me to tell what to do; it's ''offensive''

Wouldn't dream of telling you what to do, just offering some friendly advice.

Good to know that you're against holocaust denial laws as much as those individuals that deny the thing.I consider both of them hypocritical and dangerous as well.Specifically because they don't give a s...t about what history but they use it for political purposes.

Correct

You didn't described h.d and revisionism in those terms the first time.You described them as a continuum(with a somewhat acceptance that parts of revisionism might be OK)and you specifically suggested that Buchanan might go HD.

I was dealing with a particular revisionist discourse which does sometimes trail off toward Denial. Not all revisionism does. As for Buchanan, he has a history of questionable remarks about Jews & questionable interpretations of history. He could end up anywhere.

Now,for the record,I consider linking everything about WW2 with the sad fate of the Jews really offensive.I find that idea way to often.It goes like this:we fought Hitler because he was really nasty-look he killed the Jews.Forget the cynicism,national interests of each combatant,the betrayals ,the alliance with a criminal at least as bad as Hitler(we had this Hitler-Stalin talk before IIRC ).The end result is a fairytale ideology for the masses to feel good about themselves.Personally I don't lose sleep over this,but all ideology has a tendency to annoy me.

Yes, but Hitler WAS thoroughly evil (as were the Japanese leadership) and the Western Allies DID fight him because he was particularly nasty. The fact that he got nastier & nastier should not obscure this. As for an alliance with Stalin, I have never lost a wink of sleep over it. It was compelled by dire circumstance & saved tens of millions more lives than it cost. There are certainly plenty of myths whitewashes to go around, but there are also some pretty good reasons for those who defeated Hitler to feel good about themselves. Sorry you don't see it that way.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Yes, but Hitler WAS thoroughly evil (as were the Japanese leadership) and the Western Allies DID fight him because he was particularly nasty. The fact that he got nastier & nastier should not obscure this. As for an alliance with Stalin, I have never lost a wink of sleep over it. It was compelled by dire circumstance & saved tens of millions more lives than it cost. There are certainly plenty of myths whitewashes to go around, but there are also some pretty good reasons for those who defeated Hitler to feel good about themselves. Sorry you don't see it that way.

Nope,you fought him because it was your national interest.Somewhere it was in the national interest to draw a line in the sand,which Germany considered it is in its interest to cross.Somewhere,sometime it was in your interest to make an alliance with USSR.The fact that some people happened to be saved either from German occupation or NAzi camps and they were obviously happy about it is an entirely secondary aspect of why WW2 was fought.And yet those things are now considered all that WW2's about.

It is marvelous to see manifestations of both realism and idealism in just a few lines( and I'm not telling how you think,I just tell what I think).

The Allied nations fought Hitler because he was a mass murderer backed the might of a nation and the rest of the world did not want to be lined up slaughtered like cattle. There are deluded individuals in Germany and out of it who thought the Third Reich was a splendid idea that fitted their self-interest. Hitler in one blow nearly killed Germany and burned down Europe; I think the verdict on whether the Axis nations acted on their national interest is pretty clear!

If your sarcastic my answer is this:

If you're not:-Ideology is just the outside BS;I try to look deeper.


For the record-I'm not bitter,I'm proud of what we did and the behaviour of my Granpas generation.We saved a lot of innocents from the death camp,we tried to free some poor souls from a tyrant,we killed some bastards in the process and most important we tried to follow our interest.The fact that we ultimately failed in the last one sucks,but that's life.

p.s I'm strictly limited to our situation in 1940's.What Adolf did was beyond us.

Originally Posted by Triple C

The Allied nations fought Hitler because he was a mass murderer backed the might of a nation and the rest of the world did not want to be lined up slaughtered like cattle. There are deluded individuals in Germany and out of it who thought the Third Reich was a splendid idea that fitted their self-interest. Hitler in one blow nearly killed Germany and burned down Europe; I think the verdict on whether the Axis nations acted on their national interest is pretty clear!

Perhaps you'll be kind to point me where is that mentioned in the declaration of war.
Thanks

Originally Posted by zraver

Finally, they were totally outclassed in the air.

They were outnumbered but not outclassed. The Luftwaffe despite her numerical superiority and airframe quality barely achieved parity in combat ( around 300 losses for each side )
The poles could not sustain the losses the germans did and they lost.

Originally Posted by 1979

They were outnumbered but not outclassed. The Luftwaffe despite her numerical superiority and airframe quality barely achieved parity in combat ( around 300 losses for each side )
The poles could not sustain the losses the germans did and they lost.

Agreed,but the end result was still Stukas on Poles.But as you said Polish AF and Army fought with skill and bravery.Their OPLAN was,as Z pointed out their undoing.But with the Soviets moving in they're screwed no matter what.

Originally Posted by Mihais

Perhaps you'll be kind to point me where is that mentioned in the declaration of war.
Thanks

Sarcasm again...? )

I feel a bit bitter today

Originally Posted by Mihais

Agreed,but the end result was still Stukas on Poles.But as you said Polish AF and Army fought with skill and bravery.Their OPLAN was,as Z pointed out their undoing.But with the Soviets moving in they're screwed no matter what.

I have mentioned it for two reasons:
In 1938 Luftwaffe is still learning and growing and
Zraver was quick to dismiss Czech biplanes and pilots as

Originally Posted by zraver

almost no air force to speak of.

Yep,fully agree.But the Heer was even in worse shape.The Panzers littered the Austrian roads,not with burning wrecks but with mechanical breakdowns.Up until 41 units equipped with Czech tanks had a higher readiness.
Thinking a bit further I wonder how a Czech campaign would have shaped German operational thinking.Poland turned to be a perfect trial both because of its terrain and Polish mistakes.Czechoslovakia would have been more an attrition battle than a maneuver one.But I need to check more on both sides OPLAN's to get a better idea of how it might have turned out.