Jutland
Raid on the Medway
Battle of Beachy Head
Battle of Chesapeake Bay
Battle of the Coronel

KMS Bismarck - Commissioned 1940
KMS Prinz Eugen - Commissioned 1940

HMS Hood - Commissioned 1920
HMS Prince of Wales - Commissioned 1941

See the problem here? The Hood, although one of the loved ships of the Royal Navy, was an old Battlecruiser, really not designed to take on something like the Bismarck. The more equal opponent to the Bismarck would be the King George V.
Yes, the Bismarck did inflict a nasty shock to a navy which was almost arrogant in its confidence in its superiority, but it wasn't the only one. The uboat campaign was another nasty shock, as were Japanese aircraft.
In return, well, let's remember what crippled the Bismarck, a very slow, very outdated biplane. :03: So slow, in fact, that the fire control of the AAA systems on the Bismarck didn't have a target speed selector that went low enough. :doh:

The Tirpitz acted well as a threat, just as Argentinas submarines acted well as a threat towards the Falklands fleet, but there was no way for Germany to carry out that threat, but of course, Britain did not know that and so expended resources to eliminate the threat.

In my opinion, the Kriegsmarine surface fleet was mostly a waste of time and resources that could have been spent improving and expanding the uboatwaffe, but then I'm a bit of Doenitz fan so I would go for the 300 uboats over Plan Z. :haha: Of course, fortunately for Great Britain, such a plan was not feasible.
http://uboat.net/forums/read.php?3,285,554

Fahnenbon, I'm not sure what compels you to ignore a universe of accepted history, but I'm sure it would be interesting. I think you only have to read Mein Kampf to get the answer, straight from the man who engineered WWII.

I gotta get another Indiana Jones picture. :)

This argument is not valid. Mein Kampf was written long before Hitler came to power. The context was very different ! His book was a fighting book to galvanize his troops. His goal was to gain power. Once chancellor, he took into account the international context to act reasonably.

Hitler said himself to a journalist who was asking him about Mein Kampf : "I won't correct Mein Kampf by a new edition, but in the great book of History" (= by my own acts).

Jesus.

:roll:

If you want to convince me that Germany was responsible for the war :

-> Prove to me that Poland has accepted peaceful negotiations with Hitler about Danzig Corridor, or prove to me that these negotiations were intolerable for Poland.

-> Prove to me that Hitler made no offers of peace in October 1939.

-> Prove to me that Britain and France accepted a conference with Germany to discuss the fate of Poland in october, 1939.

-> Prove to me that the treaty with Poland was still valid in September 1939.

-> Prove to me that the war was declared constitutionally in France.

I am alone to answer everyone, and I don't have enough time to do it. So now, I'm going to answer in French only, I'm loosing too much time to translate in two directions. Do as I do : use google translation !

That's not how argument works when your premise is this ludicrous.

Convince us that Germany was not the primary instigator.

I will only be answering in squirrel facts from now on. Do as I do and exercise your constitutional right to a constitutional!

This. You (Fahnenbohn) have the burden of proof here.

I have a video of one hour on the subject. But all in french. So, I could make a synthesis and post it there. But you will have to translate in english by yourself.

Formally, maybe.

Whether it is worth anything, and tolerates the right guest, is something totally different.

Sometimes its better to scare evil off in the first, instead of trying to maintain an appearance of decency about it.

Against all the countless of history books, you've got 1 video to somehow prove them wrong?

Maybe you could write some of the main claims said video makes?

And some verifiable evidence for those claims, please.

EDIT: Or at least the arguments for them.

I would agree ordinarily but it depends on your definition of evil.

That being said, judging by an off-hand comment made by the OP I'd wager that he will fall into the category of Holocaust disagreer in terms of the amount of fatalities, if not an outright denier.
This puts him in contradiction to Subsims rules as stated in:
But since he's not outrightly denying it, or is he claiming to be a Neo-Nazi then he's not actually violating any rules as far as I can see it. Ultimately though that will be up to Steve and Neal to decide.

The books are lying ... by omission. This video is showing all original and historical evidence about the subject. There are many facts that you have probably never heard about.

Yes, they are provided in the video.