Originally Posted by Ifor Bach

There isn't anything worth discussing with the FM. His theories are contradicted by known facts, and are the product of an absurd belief system.

What belief system are you blathering about?

Im discussing egregious errors and blunders made by the Allied war leadership that prolonged world war two.

Is it your view that everything they did was correct and free from flaws?
That is the way you are arguing to date.

Originally Posted by Ifor Bach

The FM apparently believes that if the demands of an aggressor are not met, the victim of aggression is responsible for any violence caused.

I have not said that either.
Your like liar owedtojoy twisting what people actually say to suit your own hate agenda.

Originally Posted by Ifor Bach

Basically, he sides with the bully against the bullied.

yet more lies from Ifor Bach


Where at any point have I actually sided with Germany?

Just post up one post that condones or supports any actions of the German state during the period under discussion.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

I know FM from his bombastic and intolerant interventions on the Climate Change thread.

You know me because I amongst others exposed the fact that you were paid to spam the climate change thread with approx 5000 posts effectively destroying that thread.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

For FM, the person who shouts the loudest must be right, not matter what tripe he spouts.

Your the one who does all the shouting by making it impossible to discuss reasonably arguments for and against any issue.
You did that on the climate change thread by labelling anybody who disagreed with your spam a "denier"
That was your tactic throughout.

You destroyed the thread.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

I would be interesting, merely for the record, to hear his reasons why he is not an apologist for Adolf Hitler and Nazism, depsite his stated views that Hitler did not write Mein Kampf, and has been much-maligned and scapegoated by historians.

Once again like propgandist Goeballs you tell lies about what was actually said.

I did not say Hitler did not write Mein Kamp you ignorant lying bastard.

I said Hitler may not have written all of it.
Anybody who knows anything about the origin of that book will know that questions have been asked as to how much of it was actually written by Hitler.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

He might even give us a dose of "Shame about the typhoid in those holiday camps for the Jews" excuse.

Has this got something to do with the discussion you evil liar?

Originally Posted by parentheses

It has been claimed that Professor Karl Haushofer at least influenced the book and may have written or at least edited parts of it. Hess was the one who transcribed the book and he was a associate of Haushofer who visited both men in prison.

WORLD WAR 2 THE LAST SECRETS OF THE AXIS PART 1 - YouTube

Thank you parenthesis.

For pointing out that expect to be labelled a nazi apologist by P.ie,s professional calumniators and detractors posters : Rainmaker,owedtojoy and IforBach

Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar

We've been over this before and I still think you're wrong. The Unconditional Surrender war aim(first espoused at the Casablanca meeting 1943?) was necessary to bind the uneasy allied alliance together, avoiding the possibility of any parties seeking a separate peace.

What would have been wrong with that if it helped to end the war earlier?

Maybe your right in saying that it consolidated Hitlers position but I think that was of secondary importance.

It did consolidate Hitlers position big time and the Wermacht officer resistence movement was devastated and politically de clawed.

Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar

So going back to 1940 - saying that peace with Britain would have resulted in him being deposed seems like a fresh air assertion - dont see anything in your magazine article to back it up - have you any passages from the book you linked to that are relevant?

I believe a coup against Hitler would have been successful during the serious military reverses that occurred in the post Stalingrad period when Hitlers so called military genius was increasingly exposed as strategically and tactically flawed and relying increasingly upon the yield not an inch of territory trench experiences of a WW1 corporal.

All the Wermacht high command were exceedingly well trained in military doctrine and knew the war was effectively lost from about mid 1943 onwards.
Why therefore did they support a doomed strategy of to the last man and the last bullet?

Fear was big factor as any expression of defeatism was ruthlessly dealt with by the Nazis.

But fear alone cannot explain why many highly educated and cultured men supported a doomed regime for so long.

My theory is that they did so because they had no alternative having been denied any type of peace settlement by the enemies of their country.

Re your question Its some time since I read the book I quoted .[S.Neitzel,s Tapping Hitlers Generals. Is a fascinating read]

Rommel definitely wanted Hitler assassinated. Von Runstedt stated as early as May 1942 that a German victory was out of the question.

Originally Posted by The Field Marshal

What would have been wrong with that if it helped to end the war earlier?

Maybe your right in saying that it consolidated Hitlers position but I think that was of secondary importance.

It did consolidate Hitlers position big time and the Wermacht officer resistence movement was devastated and politically de clawed.



I believe a coup against Hitler would have been successful during the serious military reverses that occurred in the post Stalingrad period when Hitlers so called military genius was increasingly exposed as strategically and tactically flawed and relying increasingly upon the yield not an inch of territory trench experiences of a WW1 corporal.

All the Wermacht high command were exceedingly well trained in military doctrine and knew the war was effectively lost from about mid 1943 onwards.
Why therefore did they support a doomed strategy of to the last man and the last bullet?

Fear was big factor as any expression of defeatism was ruthlessly dealt with by the Nazis.

But fear alone cannot explain why many highly educated and cultured men supported a doomed regime for so long.

My theory is that they did so because they had no alternative having been denied any type of peace settlement by the enemies of their country.

Re your question Its some time since I read the book I quoted .[S.Neitzel,s Tapping Hitlers Generals. Is a fascinating read]

Rommel definitely wanted Hitler assassinated. Von Runstedt stated as early as May 1942 that a German victory was out of the question.

Sorry FM - what about 1940? Come on now, this is not like you.

Originally Posted by Ifor Bach

It's a bit like blaming the rape victim for the attack. "If she hadn't been so intransigent in dealing with his demands ...."

The FieldMarshall is correct in his assertion. Germany was not looking to wage war on Poland. Even if Hitler personally wanted to invade the world his army did not. The German demands re the Polish corridor and the Free City of Danzig (territories which were taken from Germany after WW1) were not unreasonable.

As has already been mentioned Poland had actually been a junior partner of Germany's up to that point and had happily shared in the spoils of Czechoslovakia.

There is no doubt without their being emboldened by the British and French guarantees Poland would at least have given serious consideration to Germany's demands rather than dismissing them out of hand.

This idea that in 1939 Germany was some kind of military superpower is utter nonsense. On paper the allies forces vastly outnumbered the Germans both in terms of manpower and equipment. It required breathtaking stupidity, and negligence by the allied generals (particularly the French) to hand Germany victory in France.

The fact France fought with little conviction was in no small part due to a sizable contingent of French people who identified with Nazi Germany on an ideological basis. In fact as allies of Hitler the French fought far harder against the British later in the war than they ever did against Hitler's invading forces.

Originally Posted by The Field Marshal

What would have been wrong with that if it helped to end the war earlier?

Maybe your right in saying that it consolidated Hitlers position but I think that was of secondary importance.

It did consolidate Hitlers position big time and the Wermacht officer resistence movement was devastated and politically de clawed.

Because it probably would not have "helped to end the war earlier".

A separate peace with war continuing, possibly for many more years, on the Eastern Front or even perhaps on the Western? With the possibility of it reigniting into an even more devastating East-West war - who knows? Interesting counterfactuals but my own opinion is that the pursuit of Unconditional Surrender was probably a wise decision.

Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar

Sorry FM - what about 1940? Come on now, this is not like you.

Re 1940 Germany offers Britain peace terms.

19th July 1940: Hitler makes a Peace offer to Britain

BBC - History - Churchill decides to fight on (pictures, video, facts & news)

Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Buchanan argues that it was a great blunder on the part of Chamberlain to declare war on Germany in 1939, and even greater blunder on the part of Churchill to refuse Hitler's peace offer of 1940, thus making World War II in Buchanan's opinion the "unnecessary war" of the title

Originally Posted by SAT

The FieldMarshall is correct in his assertion. Germany was not looking to wage war on Poland. Even if Hitler personally wanted to invade the world his army did not. The German demands re the Polish corridor and the Free City of Danzig (territories which were taken from Germany after WW1) were not unreasonable.

As has already been mentioned Poland had actually been a junior partner of Germany's up to that point and had happily shared in the spoils of Czechoslovakia.

There is no doubt without their being emboldened by the British and French guarantees Poland would at least have given serious consideration to Germany's demands rather than dismissing them out of hand.

This idea that in 1939 Germany was some kind of military superpower is utter nonsense. On paper the allies forces vastly outnumbered the Germans both in terms of manpower and equipment. It required breathtaking stupidity, and negligence by the allied generals (particularly the French) to hand Germany victory in France.

The fact France fought with little conviction was in no small part due to a sizable contingent of French people who identified with Nazi Germany on an ideological basis. In fact as allies of Hitler the French fought far harder against the British later in the war than they ever did against Hitler's invading forces.

Overstatement.

Conspiracy Theory 1001

FM is, as always, correct. Hitler only wrote the good eirenic parts of Mein Kampf. All the other bits about drang nach Osten. lebensraum, attitude to non-Aryans and Jews were put in unbeknownst to the Great Man behind his back by Hess to whom he dictated MK.

Hitler being busy with a peaceful world domination project did not spot this for some years. When he twigged it, Hess flew without notice to Scotland.

The allies kept Hess in prison until he died in case he told all

At last I am happy to solve mystery of that flight.