This grew out of a comment made in the SH3 forums. I allowed it to stand because I want to see where it goes. I have my views I wanted to express, but since Jim is already involved I decided I needed to stay out and play referee.

I'll only say this once. If you have something to add, please feel free to do so. If you feel compelled to go beyond that, please just stay out of it. I want to see if it's possible to have a civil discussion about this.

About France and Britain after WW1.
No one said rivals can't be friends :03:

I see. Apologies if I caused any problems.

Yes, exactly. Me too ! :up:

In my opinion, who started WWII doesn't matter as much as who took the most lives in it - and it's a reasonable assumption that it was the Nazis. 11000000 people are known to have died in the Holocaust alone.

But I have little difficulty in believing that Hitler started WWII. With the annexation of Austria and occupation of Czechoslovakia, it's obvious that he was aggressively expanding German territory.

Alright, I'll bite, but I doubt this thread will go anywhere but down, it's not the first time we've been down a road like this.

England...or should I say Britain, and France were indeed rivals, until around 1904, when efforts were made by both sides to reduce the tensions between their respective empires as both were faced with the prospect of a rapidly industrialising Germany. The Franco-Prussian war had already ended in a very heavy defeat for France, and Britain had struggled during the Boer war and there was a fear in both nations that Germany was going to outpace both of them in regards to technology, weaponry and power projection and force.
If Britain and France were as much rivals as you seem to suggest they were then when Russia and Japan went to war in 1904 then Britain and France would have found themselves at war with each other due to France being allied to Russia and Britain allied to Japan.

To look at your other point, the actions of the Royal Navy against the French fleet, that is not a high point in Anglo-French relations, I will agree, however it was one isolated incident and I think due to poor diplomatic actions rather than malice. Contrast Mers-el-Kébir with the action at Alexandria where Admiral Cunningham successfully negotiated the disarmament of the French warships commanded by Admiral Godfroy. If there was an intended malice on the part of the British then these ships would have been taken by force or destroyed.
Besides, why would Britain want to give Germany such a propaganda coup? If you consider it in diplomatic terms it makes no sense to encourage the French people to look to Germany as a friend by purposefully targetting the French navy in malice.
To quote the Admiral in charge of the operation at Mers-el-Kébir, he considered it "...the biggest political blunder of modern times and will rouse the whole world against us...we all feel thoroughly ashamed..."

Now, as to who to assign the blame for 'World War II', that is a harder course of action because the victors of World War I certainly have their part to play in creating the conditions which would encourage the rise of the National Socialist German Workers Party, and the rather stupid partition of Danzig certainly didn't help matters, but this is something borne by hindsight and any attempt to rid Germany of her part in World War II is honestly an insult to those who died in the war.
Hitler could well have used diplomacy to fix his problems, he could have spent some of the goodwill he had created in Europe during his time in power to bring about a better solution to the Danzig problem, but his actions in Czechoslovakia turned European powers against him, despite their best attempts to seek some sort of avoidance to conflict.

Ultimately Hitler could have chosen not to persue Danzig, there was no immediate need to invade Poland, no-one was being massacred in Danzig, no one was threatening Germany with war unless she took the Danzig corridor, he could well have backed down and let Danzig slide. Heck, if he had then perhaps the Soviet Union would have invaded Poland later in the 1940s and we would have found Germany, France and the UK allied against the Soviet Union. It's something that some alternate history writers like to consider from time to time. Certainly France and the UK found themselves torn between the two evils of Fascist Germany and Italy and the Communist Soviet Union.
But no, Germany sought and signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and Germany invaded Poland, and that resort to force of arms over diplomacy puts the immediate blame for the war that followed upon Germany. One can argue the threads that lead to that declaration of war can trace back to the First World War and its conclusion, but the final decision to plunge Europe into another major conflict was Germanys.

Someday I want to have the same positive outlook on life that allows Oberon to respond in such good faith. :D

I don't even know where I get it from myself....It's probably the pills....

That's absolutely wrong, but I don't have the right to talk about this subject on this forum.

By the Trianon and Saint Germain Treaty, the empire of Austria-Hungary is dismembered on behalf of the right of peoples to self-determination. Austria becomes an unsustainable state and requestes unification with Germany from March 1919 (on behalf of the right of peoples to self-determination). But this is denied against all logic.

A totally artificial state is created : Czechoslovakia. It should have been called Czecho-Germania (Czech = 47.2% / German = 23.4% / Slovak = 18.5%). These German minorities, called Sudeten Germans were concentrated in border regions with Germany and Austria and populated by 50% to 90% of Germans.

In March 1938, the annexation of Austria into the Reich is made (Anschluss), in accordance with the will of the immence majority of Austrians. Everywhere scenes of jubilation occur. This causes agitation of the Sudeten Germans who want their return to the motherland too. Facing this agitation, Britain sends Lord Runciman to investigate. He states in its report of October 7, 1938: "I consider that these districts border must be immediately transferred from Czechoslovakia to Germany." Again, this is only fair. The return of the Sudetenland to the Reich is also made in general jubilation.

On March 14, 1939, Slovakia declares its independence. The region of Bohemia and Moravia becomes a German protectorate. The artificial entity created by the victors in 1918 ceases to exist.

-> It's obvious that you don't know the subject at all !

F.

Yeah I guess the Sudetendeutsches Freikorps accidentally murdered Czech policemen and the orders they received from the Nazi regime were meant as jokes.

Take it elsewhere.

And so we shall.

See the part in bold. That piece in paticular drew my attention.

To which I have asked the following.

After numerous attempts at avoiding the fundamental questions you eventually answered.

The actual definitive answers are:

1) Germany
2) Great Britain
3) Great Britain
4) Great Britain

Whilst I accept there has been much rivalry and emnity over the centuries between Britain and France those relationships were practically non existant or at the very lowest level at the time in question.

Sending an armed force to assist then give exile and later further military aid and support is hardly the actions of anything but that which only an ally would give in a countries hour of need.

Germany on the other hand sent a military force of invasion to Belgium, Holland and France. Are we to believe this is the actions of a country partaking in a friendly alliance?

Now you post the above and despite categoric assurances from Steve and now me publicly, there will be nobody getting banned provided forum rules are adhered to (what has happened previously and for what justification has already been adequately explained privately) you make assertions to real-life seriously tragic events which sadly are not uncommon during times of war. You introduce the word 'humiliated' and add a smiley which I am confident will be perceived as pouring scorn/mockery on forum members who lost loved ones on both sides of the conflict. ....My own interpretation can be encapsulated in one word 'Trolling'.

So let us debate your points...

Dunkerque:
Obviously a serious event, one in which Great Britain lost approx. 68,000 troops but surpassed by the fact over 300,000 were evacuated to fight another day.

I'm sure you'll remember the German 6th army were involved but I recall what their fate became eventually (over 91,000 POW's).

Care to remember the fate of the Africa Korps at Cape Bon?

Over 150,000 POW's and nearly one million German lives tragically lost in North Africa.

Rheinübung:

Bismarck, pride of the German Navy sinks HMS Hood on 24th May 1941 then Bismarck is sunk three days later whilst trying to reach a safe haven.

Perhaps we should discuss the Graf Spee, designed to prey on defenceless merchants, comes across two 6" and one 8" gunned cruisers which are hardly a match for 11" guns. What happens? another dash to a safe haven before scuttling herself without so much as a serious attempt at engaging the enemy. Hardly matching the true and ancient traditions of the Royal Navy (Senior Service).

How about Tirpitz....fired her main batteries in anger only once (bombarding Spitzbergen, Sept 43).

I guess you know her fate though....sunk by the RAF whilst holed up in what was thought to be another safe haven. The same RAF who were numerically inferior in numbers to the Luftwaffe by a ratio of 3-4 to one but who overcame all the odds in the Battle of Britain, a time when Britain stood alone against aggression.

The Channel Dash (Operation Cerebus):

Hardly a military victory when all the Germans were attempting was to get their vessels to a place of safety and out of reach of the RAF (for fear they would suffer the same fate as that eventually handed down to Tirpitz).

So what became of thes ships?

Sharnhorst, whilst attempting to attack convoy JW55B, believing it to be almost defenceless against the mighty armament of her is unfortunate to come up against HMS Duke Of York and accompanying cruisers. She is quickly overwhelmed and sunk as a result but at least she put up a fight.

Gneisenau, disarmed on the orders of that military genius Hitler (I'm confident you know the reasoning) and main batteries utilised as shore emplacements.

Prinz Eugen, expended as a target ship for nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll by the United States.

Humiliating? No, extremely tragic in all cases..

I believe I have answered the points you have raised and am happy to continue the debate should you so wish but hope you will maintain a respectful tone and not turn to mockery or undervaluing the efforts of all those from all sides who took part.

I am also of the belief that your opinions are seriously biased and blinkered toward one side of the conflict and looking at some of the responses on this thread (of a few nationalities, German included) it is obvious I am not alone in that thinking.

Much of my response does not only come from my extensive collection of books on the subject as well as the internet but most importantly from my father who was at Dunkirk (inward and outward), within hearing of the Hood/Bismarck exchange, arctic convoy service, last ship to leave Marseille before it fell and D-Day.

I look forward to a respectful and sensible continuation of said debate should you have the inclination.

If you choose the above then stick to factual outcomes and not opinionated bias.

@Oberon....Prior to posting (proofing) I notice further posts have been made so please understand I am commenting on your post three or four up.

Great post matey.

I don't know the context, but this is right that there were tensions : you can't force people who don't want to live together to do so !

You don't know the context? Why am I not surprised.

At the end of your post that was about the Sudeten Germans, you said the following to Cybermat47 -

Open a book before telling other people they're uninformed. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself.

Sorry, but I can't know all the thousands minor facts. If you want to be useful, please tell what you know, and also how (what documents you have read) you know it. I'm sure you don't tell the story in an honest and impartial way. Last thing, this is not the debate.

Mate, if you're trolling then 10/10. If you're being serious then this is a particularly ugly sort of historical revisionism.


The Nazi-trained, equipped, and directed terrorist organisation with almost 35,000 members that attempted a putsch in Czechoslovakia is NOT A MINOR FACT.


Seriously, stop it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudete...ches_Freikorps


EDIT - I see your edit and this is just sad.

"I don't know anything about what you're talking about but I'm sure you're wrong",

For God's sake.

Nice of you to let me know what I'm allowed to say. Funny the way fascists like to shut people up.

You're almost correct though, this is not a debate. This is you promoting a sick version of historical events designed to assuage those who worship psychopaths. And you're not even good at it.

Instead of insulting me, just say to me : "this are the facts I would like you to know, and here are the sources. And this is why I consider this is something important, etc."

My question : Why was this Freikorps created ?

I'm requesting the moderator to stop this sort of hateful posts. Where is the debate in this post ? Nowhere, except a link (wikipedia), all the rest is useless and disrespecting. If this sort of posts are still allowed, then I stop immediately the debate.

F.

PS : I'm writting an answer to Jimbuna and Oberon, but this takes time, because I do the effort to understand the other side, write arguments, and search for sources. I don't insult, unlike some people here.

This is my first informal warning. Name-calling and personal attacks add nothing to the debate and will not be allowed.

The German population in Czechoslovakia was, as you say, concentrated nearly entirely in the Sudetenland. Even if we grant that Germany was right in annexing it, why were the remaining Czech territories, in which Germans were a tiny minority, also occupied? Between 1938 and 1939 Czechoslovakia went from having less than 3 million Germans living in a country in which they were not the majority to about 7 million Czechs and other minorities living under direct German occupation (and another 3.5 million living in a German-controlled puppet state). This occupation was, rather typically, far harsher than the conditions the Sudeten Germans were living under beforehand. Territorial expansion was, ideologically and practically, Germany's primary goal both before and during the war; German actions in Czechoslovakia were quite consistent with that.

As for who started World War II (in Europe), I don't see how anyone else could have done it when Germany fired the first shots and initiated nearly all offensive actions for the next several years...

Oh don't even start with this garbage.

The reason I'm not doing that is because you were dismissive to a poster previously, asserting that they didn't know anything about the issue at hand. In your next post you show you didn't know anything about a major element of that historical period. Then you referred to the FS as a minor detail. Ten seconds of research would have told you they are not minor.

Your next move was to tell me that no matter how little you knew about the subject, I was definitely lying to you and misrepresenting history.

So there you are, assuming someone is wrong because they know something you don't.

This tells me you are not someone I should be too concerned about being nice to.


They were the paramilitary wing of the Sudeten German party. Very much akin to the SA. Do your own homework. Proper sources this time.



Oh come on.

You're pushing a version of history that is only found in a few very particular places. Pointing this out isn't an insult, nor is it disrespectful.

You do that all by yourself.


And nothing of value was lost.

Quote:

this takes time, because I do the effort to understand the other side, write arguments, and search for sources. I don't insult, unlike some people here.

No you don't.

I'll be good.