Who Started World War II?

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

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. .... Humiliating? No, extremely tragic in all cases..

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).

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

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.

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

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

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 !

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

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.

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In return, well, let's remember what crippled the Bismarck, a very slow, very outdated biplane. 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.

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. Of course, fortunately for Great Britain, such a plan was not feasible.
http://uboat.net/forums/read.php?3,285,554

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

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

Tell me, would you consider the atrocites committed at Oradour-sur-Glane in June 44 to be a part of post-war propaganda?

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Tell me, would you consider the atrocites committed at Oradour-sur-Glane in June 44 to be a part of post-war propaganda?

Absolutely.
An investigation was also carried out on this point.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

Absolutely.
An investigation was also carried out on this point.

Then you're obviously out of kilter with those primary authorities which are far more knowledgeable:

On 6 June 2004, at the commemorative ceremony of the Normandy invasion in Caen, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder pledged that Germany would not forget the Nazi atrocities and specifically mentioned Oradour-sur-Glane.

On 4 September 2013, German president Joachim Gauck and French president François Hollande visited the ghost village of Oradour-sur-Glane. A joint news conference broadcast by the two leaders followed their tour of the site. This was the first time a German president had come to the site of one of the biggest World War II massacres on French soil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradou...Glane_massacre

There are many sources out there should your conscience ever allow you to open your eyes and mind and enter the reality of the actual real world.

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

There are many sources out there should your conscience ever allow you to open your eyes and mind and enter the reality of the actual real world.

As I like to say : how the winners have treated Germany in 1918 was dismal and shameful. But that was even worse in 1945.

History is written by the winners, not by the losers. So the truth has to be established, and we have to work on historical facts and evidence. And sorry, the official historians HAVEN'T DONE THEIR JOB. Historians who are doing their job don't have the right to speak, and they are persecuted. Why ? Because it's always a lie that needs to be protected. The truth is sufficient unto itself.

About Oradour-sur-Glane, that's perfectly right that there was a human tragedy here. And no one disputes. But this is how events unfolded that was completely mystified by the French resistance. In particular, the death of women and children can't be attributed to the Germans.

But again, this is off-topic.

[mapuc]

This is a very interesting thread

[Fahnenbohn]

Before starting the subject, I would like to warn the forum's moderators.
There are laws in several countries that are condemning the public expression of some historical researches (Big Brother). So specify me right away what I don't have the right to say here (even if I give proper evidence).

*

[Tchocky]

The forum has it's own rules.

Follow those.

Nevermind how many international policemen are hunting you down for speaking the truth.

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Tell me, would you consider the atrocites committed at Oradour-sur-Glane in June 44 to be a part of post-war propaganda?

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

Absolutely.
An investigation was also carried out on this point.

[Cybermat47]

^^^

That's probably the best response.

Also, Fahnenbohn, take note of were Nippelspanner lives.

[Oberon]

Speaking of geography, we do seem to get a higher percentage of WWII revisionists from France, don't we? I recall our other resident Occidental expert (TM) is from the land of Le Pen.

Smells very Vichy to me.

[Tchocky]

You, sir, have been waiting to use that one!

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Oberon

[...] Smells very Vichy to me.

"Name the French capital! Hint: it has five letters."
"When, exactly?"

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Speaking of geography, we do seem to get a higher percentage of WWII revisionists from France, don't we? I recall our other resident Occidental expert (TM) is from the land of Le Pen. Smells very Vichy to me.

Haha ! Le Pen was on the side of Vichy ?

In November 1944, the young Jean-Marie, 16 years old, attempted to engage in the FFI (French Forces of the Interior = the local resistance) in the Free Corps commanded by Colonel Henri de La Vaissière ("Valin"). He himself came at the PC (command post) of Sainte-Anne d'Auray, and at the PC of Carnac.

Valin replied: "A number of young people have increades their age in signing their commitment procedure without the knowledge of their parents. Several were killed. Now order is given to ensure that our volunteers have well over 18 years old. Think of your mother !" (her father was dead on a mine at sea).