Pathetic double standards caused world war 2

dotsman

Mrhuth wrote: »

Britain and France carved up the world but when Germany and Italy decided to join in on the game, declare war! Fascists are the enemy! But it's ok for us to pillage and steal resources from half of the world we conquered but don't you dare do the same! It's only allowed for us. Absolutely pathetic response. It was okay for Britain to colonize everything in sight but not for Germans. See the double standard here. Could make an arguments that Hitler slaughtered Jews but UK and france declared war before they even knew that there were mass exterminations.

Does you mom know you are on the internet?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Trump caused it.

super_furry

Ipso wrote: »

Well he was a veteran aryan.

Jaysus, this post is too good for this thread. Like finding a diamond in a pile of horse sh*te.

Ipso

super_furry wrote: »

Jaysus, this post is too good for this thread. Like finding a diamond in a pile of horse sh*te.

Stolen from another thread, when the opportunity presents itself.

Spook_ie

meeeeh wrote: »

Bosnia was a spark for something that was cooking for decades. Nobody would go to a destructive 4 year war just to control an underdeveloped area smaller than Ireland.

Mmmm, how many years conflict over an under developed area exactly the same size as Ireland?

coffee_cake

meeeeh wrote: »

It is no longer compulsory subject for Junior Cert.

No way?

Wibbs

suicide_circus wrote: »

History is written by the winners.

Indeed it is. Now the thread title may be a wind up, but there is some merit to it. One could argue and quite convincingly that certain characters and movements within British politics were hell bent on a confrontation with Germany as a imperial sabre rattling exercise. On a foe they underestimated and which ended up with them losing their empire. Churchill in particular stands out as one of these figures.

The allied drafted Versailles treaty was deliberately and excessively punitive towards Germany and genuine attempts by moderate German diplomats and politicians were given short shrift by the British. This caused major disgruntlement among the German people and directly influenced radicals like Hitler. The creation of Czechoslovakia was a disaster waiting to happen. Poland was one of the biggest fuses, that both sides were eager to light, though more on the British side. Hitler was trying to forge an ally in Poland against their mutual enemy the Soviet Union. The same Soviets that Churchill had ranted against for decades(he also railed against Zionists and Communists as one and the same thing. Not so different to Adolf). The Polish were initially receptive to the Germans, but that didn't go down at all well in London. Hitler stated more than once he didn't want a war with Britain. Indeed he often stated his admiration for the Brits, publicly and privately. He had no concrete plans to invade. His objective was always east into Russia. When Britain declared war on Germany after the Germans walked into Poland it was an utterly useless declaration of "support". Dick waving essentially and the excuse for war they had looked for(and how they treated Poland and more, expat Polish, many of whom had fought for Britain was beyond shameful). Germany's behind the scenes and in front of same suggestions for peace were given short shrift by the British.

Then the war itself. Dunkirk was a disaster. The French and British forces were utterly routed in a shockingly easy manner by the German forces. That they turned Dunkirk into such fantastic propaganda is a credit to the British. If Hitler had planned to invade Britain and had built resources to do so(like he had with the Soviets) Britain, certainly southern Britain would have fallen.

The Battle of Britain? Again a lot of propaganda. The story that the German aircraft outnumbered the British 3 to 1. Yep. In overall aircraft, mostly transports and bombers. In fighters, the aircraft that would be sealing the deal in such a war they were equal in number and soon enough the British produced more(when Galland made the comment to his superiors "give me a squadron of Spitfires" he was talking less about the aircraft, much more about numbers he needed). German fighters had only ten minutes or so flying time over target, whereas the locals could keep throwing planes in the air. Germans that bailed out were out of the war, British pilots who did could be back in the air that same day. Te London blitz was a response to Britain bombing German cities first. The Germans had avoided civilian targets in Britain at the start. A perfect example of how little the German planners had thought of invading Britain is that before the Battle of Britain single engined German aircraft were forbidden to fly more than 8 miles over open water and had no life jackets or life rafts. They envisioned a land war, using aircraft as mobile artillery.

Even so and with all that stacked against them, the German forces operating close enough to forward bases in France, where fuel was less an issue won the battle of the English Channel and closed it down to shipping. As one chap remarked anything bigger than a rowboat was likely to find a Stuka dropping a bomb on it in short order. That's before wider discussion on Churchill and tactics or disastrous tactics in most cases.

spurious

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

History is taught in schools.

meeeeh wrote: »

It is no longer compulsory subject for Junior Cert.

bluewolf wrote: »

No way?

Way, sadly.
No longer core and thus optional for JC.
Prepare for many more threads like this.

_Brian

dotsman wrote: »

Does you mom know you are on the internet?

When he’s this long in the jacks she probably thinks he’s yankin his chain, but he’s starting silly threads on boards instead.

citytillidie

Mrhuth wrote: »

Britain had the largest empire the world has ever seen and no one stopped then to pillage and take resources. Look at Britain now, massive 65 million population and an economic powerhouse. Compare Britain and Ireland and you'll see what I mean. A town in UK is bigger than a city in Ireland.

Don't forget the 2nd city of the British Empire is in Ireland

Franz Von Peppercorn

The op isn’t the brightest but there is certainly some merit to his claim. Well, sorta. The war is now sold as the good guy non racists against the racists, but of course all sides were racist.

Franz Von Peppercorn

citytillidie wrote: »

Don't forget the 2nd city of the British Empire is in Ireland

There were dozen cities that claimed that. Dublin wasn’t the second city of the empire except when there was no empire in the early 19C

Tuco88

Finnish winter war is the one.

Skylinehead

Wibbs wrote: »

If Hitler had planned to invade Britain and had built resources to do so(like he had with the Soviets) Britain, certainly southern Britain would have fallen.

Mmm, can't really agree with this bit. I just don't see any feasible situation in which Sea Lion would be a success. The hypothetical ignore the USSR to concentrate on Britain scenario means that Hitler focuses on naval resources instead of stuff like tanks. The problem is that ships take years to build. Competing with the Royal Navy, an absolute necessity to cross the English Channel, probably would have taken decades.

They also would have required air supremacy over the channel and Southern Britain. They tried that bit, and failed. Yeah they competed, but you need near-total control of the skies for a beach landing.

Obviously the comparison is the opposite, Operation Neptune. However, in that case, the Allies had a damn good logistics system (that still failed at times), complete naval control, air supremacy, and a distracted enemy. The Germans would have none of that.

Wibbs

Nixonbot wrote: »

Mmm, can't really agree with this bit. I just don't see any feasible situation in which Sea Lion would be a success. The hypothetical ignore the USSR to concentrate on Britain scenario means that Hitler focuses on naval resources instead of stuff like tanks. The problem is that ships take years to build. Competing with the Royal Navy, an absolute necessity to cross the English Channel, probably would have taken decades.

They also would have required air supremacy over the channel and Southern Britain. They tried that bit, and failed. Yeah they competed, but you need near-total control of the skies for a beach landing.

Well they pretty much had air supremacy over the channel. They shut it down to British naval traffic. It was just too risky. Southhampton as a port was effectively shut down too and they even had a go at London ports. They wouldn't have needed to compete with the Royal Navy on its terms, because ships anti aircraft capabilities were limited at that stage. Wartime and post war propaganda looks at weapon systems like the Stuka as "hopeless"(bombers need fighter protection like fish need water, but given a choice I'd much rather be in the very manoeuvrable Stuka than an Avro Lancaster). Yet with fighter cover with enough fuel operating from forward French bases made them very effective in the anti shipping role. In the whole of WW2 the JU87 accounted for more losses of allied shipping than any other aircraft. In the Mediterranean the Allies were so worried by them they plotted routes around their ranges.

The German's main issue was they were almost entirely geared for land war. The Luftwaffe was an arm of the Wehrmacht and expected to be that, rather than the more autonomous RAF. As I said geared towards the role of tactical bombing, flying artillery. They barely considered strategic bombing at that stage of the war(they weren't alone in that). Blitzkrieg was an almost entirely land bound tactic. Amphibious landings were not in their box of tricks. Their equipment and approach reflected that. Look at the half arsed and half hearted prep for Sea Lion. They were cobbling together canal barges in a lacklustre preparation. They did have a setup in play for taking small scale offshore targets, which involved the Luftwaffe again as an aerial transport system. Trucks in the sky. Where navies weren't in the mix.

Which was my angle N. If the German high command had considered the British as a truly viable enemy and target they would have prepared far more in the run up to war. They prepared enough for their actual and stated objectives and in often very inventive and novel ways. Their damn near unhindered takeover of mainland Europe in very short order shows this. There was very much an element of "what? the English are refusing our chill out, we're kinda mates here against the Bolshies and they are actually getting involved against us??".

And one can understand their confusion in many ways. Outside of the sabre rattling imperial stuff, both were publicly stated enemies of Communism and the Soviets. Both were "White supremacists", both wondered native peoples as expendable and undesirables. Churchill and Hitler were both supporters of things like sterilisation for the "mentally unfit", both talked with concern about the Zionist Bolshevik "conspiracy", both were not so troubled by civilian casualties, if anything Churchill had a worse record early on and both had hard ons for the military and return to the "old ways". As for the Holocaust in Europe? What attempts did the European allies do to stop it? Nothing. Look at the immediate Post War landscape. Churchill sold out his Eastern European allies, backed with vigour the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe, where a couple of million men women and children died. The Allies weren't exactly too supportive of the remaining Jews in Europe either, even when the full horror was public knowledge.

Skylinehead

Wibbs wrote: »

Well they pretty much had air supremacy over the channel. They shut it down to British naval traffic. It was just too risky. Southhampton as a port was effectively shut down too and they even had a go at London ports. They wouldn't have needed to compete with the Royal Navy on its terms, because ships anti aircraft capabilities were limited at that stage. Wartime and post war propaganda looks at weapon systems like the Stuka as "hopeless"(bombers need fighter protection like fish need water, but given a choice I'd much rather be in the very manoeuvrable Stuka than an Avro Lancaster). Yet with fighter cover with enough fuel operating from forward French bases made them very effective in the anti shipping role. In the whole of WW2 the JU87 accounted for more losses of allied shipping than any other aircraft. In the Mediterranean the Allies were so worried by them they plotted routes around their ranges.

The German's main issue was they were almost entirely geared for land war. The Luftwaffe was an arm of the Wehrmacht and expected to be that, rather than the more autonomous RAF. As I said geared towards the role of tactical bombing, flying artillery. They barely considered strategic bombing at that stage of the war(they weren't alone in that). Blitzkrieg was an almost entirely land bound tactic. Amphibious landings were not in their box of tricks. Their equipment and approach reflected that. Look at the half arsed and half hearted prep for Sea Lion. They were cobbling together canal barges in a lacklustre preparation. They did have a setup in play for taking small scale offshore targets, which involved the Luftwaffe again as an aerial transport system. Trucks in the sky. Where navies weren't in the mix.

Which was my angle N. If the German high command had considered the British as a truly viable enemy and target they would have prepared far more in the run up to war. They prepared enough for their actual and stated objectives and in often very inventive and novel ways. Their damn near unhindered takeover of mainland Europe in very short order shows this. There was very much an element of "what? the English are refusing our chill out, we're kinda mates here against the Bolshies and they are actually getting involved against us??".

And one can understand their confusion in many ways. Outside of the sabre rattling imperial stuff, both were publicly stated enemies of Communism and the Soviets. Both were "White supremacists", both wondered native peoples as expendable and undesirables. Churchill and Hitler were both supporters of things like sterilisation for the "mentally unfit", both talked with concern about the Zionist Bolshevik "conspiracy", both were not so troubled by civilian casualties, if anything Churchill had a worse record early on and both had hard ons for the military and return to the "old ways". As for the Holocaust in Europe? What attempts did the European allies do to stop it? Nothing. Look at the immediate Post War landscape. Churchill sold out his Eastern European allies, backed with vigour the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe, where a couple of million men women and children died. The Allies weren't exactly too supportive of the remaining Jews in Europe either, even when the full horror was public knowledge.

I would have said the Channel was shut down to German shipping just as much though, the Luftwaffe never got air superiority over Britain and given the size of the English Channel, that means they didn't have supremacy there either.

Ships were certainly ill-equipped for anti-aircraft duties, just look at Prince of Wales and Repulse, but remember: the Royal Navy had aircraft carriers. Quite a few of them. The Germans had a half-built and half-baked Graf Zeppelin and none of the experience to use it.

I didn't mention the barges, I imagine if they were truly serious about Sea Lion (without any intents on the USSR) they'd have got their **** together there.

Stuka was a lovely plane, I have a model of one diving back home above my bed Outclassed towards the end of the war for sure but truly scary in France.

I wasn't really commenting on the politics of Britain not truly being the enemy, I was considering an invasion in isolation. I'd agree with all of that.

B.A._Baracus

The scary thing about World War 2, just like other wars, is the Nazi's believed they were right. They were just. They were the good guys.

wingsof daun

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

The scary thing about World War 2, just like other wars, is the Nazi's believed they were right. They were just. They were the good guys.

No, the REAL worry is what if they WERE right and what if Hitler's views on race are right? See Nation and Race chapter of Mein Kampf. What if he was right to be anti-semetic and right about a Jewish threat to the World?

Grayson

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

The scary thing about World War 2, just like other wars, is the Nazi's believed they were right. They were just. They were the good guys.

worth posting.

qwerty ui op

meeeeh wrote: »

This thread is prime example why history should be taught in schools. As stated by one of posters earlier WW1 was started mostly because desire to get colonies. One of main reasons for WW2 were probably reparations Germany had to pay. Similar mistake was avoided after WW2.

At least half the people I know over 70, stopped school at 13 or 14 not a single one of them have the OP's madness swirling around their heads.

wingsof daun

wingsof daun wrote: »

No, the REAL worry is what if they WERE right and what if Hitler's views on race are right? See Nation and Race chapter of Mein Kampf. What if he was right to be anti-semetic and right about a Jewish threat to the World?

You do realise we have the benefit of this thing called time to test these theories?

Ipso

wingsof daun wrote: »

No, the REAL worry is what if they WERE right and what if Hitler's views on race are right? See Nation and Race chapter of Mein Kampf. What if he was right to be anti-semetic and right about a Jewish threat to the World?

And that threat is?

duffysfarm

jimwallace197 wrote: »

They were warned not to invade Poland and that’s why England & France declared war.

Also, what do you mean by us??

They were warned not to invade poland then after ww2 russia took over eastern Europe and no one did anything

Assetbacked

Anyone who practices religion I look at with some suspicion.

twinytwo

Mrhuth wrote: »

Britain had the largest empire the world has ever seen and no one stopped then to pillage and take resources. Look at Britain now, massive 65 million population and an economic powerhouse. Compare Britain and Ireland and you'll see what I mean. A town in UK is bigger than a city in Ireland.

We get it, you hate Ireland. Just move to the uk already.

The Crowman

super_furry wrote: »

Nice. So the After Hours hot-takes have finally got to the 'Nazis were the good guys actually' part.

Give it a few weeks and we'll be reading about how the Brits were only defending themselves during Bloody Sunday.

The Nazis were the baddies?

Jimmy.

Can Michael D stop the war?

indioblack

duffysfarm wrote: »

They were warned not to invade poland then after ww2 russia took over eastern Europe and no one did anything

John Wyndham called it "Hitler's war". Once the armies were on the move it became simplified for most people - a lot of the confusion and muddle in the period leading up to, and at the start of, hostilities is overlooked. With the defeat of the Axis powers it was all over - wasn't it? The untidiness and unfinished business after the conclusion of hostilities, especially if you're on the "winning side", gets less air time.

Mrhuth

spurious wrote: »

Way, sadly.
No longer core and thus optional for JC.
Prepare for many more threads like this.

Have you heard of the term lebensraum???? You know what a new study found? That stupid people are the ones that think they are actually more intelligent than they are. It even has a term

Dunning–Kruger effect
Have a read about it because I'm almost certain that it applies to you.