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.

Why should anyone understand the other side.
They were a bunch of xenophobic, genocidic, ruthlesss uninformed thugs led by the inner circle of a one testicled painting corporal.

It's like understanding a pack of retarded gorillas. Even David Attenborough woulnd't touch that.

Everyone knows WW2 was a perfidious ploy by the British to lose half a million lives, bankrupt their empire and allow the USA and USSR dominate the world stage.

And Der Fuhrer fell for it. :D

And this will be your informal warning. Personal opinions are welcome, but we are trying to discuss the causes of the war, and this sort of thing doesn't help.

WWII was the final act of the colonial tensions that sprung up during the 19th century, peaked when WWI started and then reflamed 2 decades later.
The whole mess would have been avoided if Hitler wasn't such a good manure shuffler (I know a better word but it's NSFW), that he convinced the Germans that they should not have faith in the Weimar republic, that was on a good path to rebuild Germany to an industrial power without all that Prussian militarism.

Just give me a formal one then.
The only remorse I will show when comparing nazis to retarded gorillas is that I'll offend retarded gorillas

It's true, I was stupid to laugh at that, I have not experienced these tragic events. But in military terms, this is a historical fact that the Royal Navy had not suffered so much competition since a lot of time !

About Graf Spee and Bismarck events : how could it be otherwise ? The british navy was far superior to the german navy. A frontal fight was not in favour of Germans.

About Tirpitz : there was not enough fuel in the end of the war (I recall that the equivalent of 25 atomic bombs (like the one on Hiroshima) was dropped on Germany).

Maybe it's true. It can also be your own beliefs that are distorted by post-war propaganda.