BS: Chamberlain and Hitler

Subject: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: kendall
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 07:27 PM

As you know, Mr. Bush is trying to equate Saddam and the president of Iran with Hitler, and we anti war types with Chamberlain.
I have a friend who insists that Chamberlain fought Churchills attempts to build England's military, and allowed Hitler to run loose.

As I recall, England was in no shape to oppose Hitler until after he invaded Poland.

Information please from UK folks old enought to remember, and facts, not opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: kendall
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 07:29 PM

Chamberlain Government"s policies promoted Hitler's agenda and the French Govt. was just as bad. If they had stood ulp and confronted Hitler early on it would have likely been a very different story. As far as England's poor shape Chamberlain thwarted just about every rearmament program Churchill and others tried to promote. Chamberlain was a weak sister who couldn't wait to knuckle under.
(This is my friend's statement.)

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 07:35 PM

Th analogy is invalid because Hussein wasn't marching across the Middle East devouring nations with brutal occupying armies. His real crime was to sit on top of huge oilfields that the neocons felt they could manage better--just as they thought they could manage Iraq better. They appear to be horribly wrong on both counts.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 08:39 PM

The Uk was not in any shape to confront Hitler but chose Poland as a "line in the sand" so to speak. The analogy is not as invalid as Guest 282RA suggests. The difference is that the USA acted with England (albeit wrongly)during the second Gulf War. Had the USA continued and completed the job when it had the backing of the UN and most Arab nations during the first Gulf War over Kuwait, it would have been if France and England had gone up against Hitler when he annexed the Rhineland in 1936. So yes there are similarities.

Britain and France pursued a policy of appeasement in the hope that Hitler would not drag Europe into another world war. Appeasement expressed the widespread British desire to heal the wounds of World War I and to correct what many British officials regarded as the injustices of the Versailles Treaty. Some officials regarded a powerful Germany as a bulwark against the Soviet Union.

On September 27, 1938, when negotiations between Hitler and Chamberlain were strained, the British Prime Minister addressed the British people. Excerpts of this speech and another before the House of Commons are included here.

*          *          *          *          *

First of all I must say something to those who have written to my wife or myself in these last weeks to tell us of their gratitude for my efforts and to assure us of their prayers for my success. Most of these letters have come from women -- mothers or sisters of our own countrymen. But there are countless others besides -- from France, from Belgium, from Italy, even from Germany, and it has been heartbreaking to read of the growing anxiety they reveal and their intense relief when they thought, too soon, that the danger of war was past.

If I felt my responsibility heavy before, to read such letters has made it seem almost overwhelming. How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war.

I can well understand the reasons why the Czech Government have felt unable to accept the terms which have been put before them in the German memorandum. Yet I believe after my talks with Herr Hitler that, if only time were allowed, it ought to be possible for the arrangements for transferring the territory that the Czech Government has agreed to give to Germany to be settled by agreement under conditions which would assure fair treatment to the population concerned. . . .

However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark upon it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake, and that the call to risk everything in their defense, when all the consequences are weighed, is irresistible.

For the present I ask you to await as calmly as you can the events of the next few days. As long as war has not begun, there is always hope that it may be prevented, and you know that I am going to work for peace to the last moment. Good night. . . .

*          *          *          *          *

Since I first went to Berchtesgaden more than 20,0000 letters and telegrams have come to No. 10, Downing Street. Of course, I have been able to look at a tiny fraction of them, but I have seen enough to know that the people who wrote did not feel that they had such a cause for which to fight, if they were asked to go to war in order that the Sudeten Germans might not join the Reich. That is how they are feeling. That is my answer to those who say that we should have told Germany weeks ago that, if her army crossed the border of Czechoslovakia, we should be at war with her. We had no treaty obligations and no legal obligations to Czechoslovakia and if we had said that, we feel that we should have received no support from the people of this country. . . .

When we were convinced, as we became convinced, that nothing any longer would keep the Sudetenland within the Czechoslovakian State, we urged the Czech Government as strongly as we could to agree to the cession of territory, and to agree promptly. The Czech Government, through the wisdom and courage of President Benes, accepted the advice of the French Government and ourselves. It was a hard decision for anyone who loved his country to take, but to accuse us of having by that advice betrayed the Czechoslovakian State is simply preposterous. What we did was to save her from annihilation and give her a chance of new life as a new State, which involves the loss of territory and fortifications, but may perhaps enable her to enjoy in the future and develop a national existence under a neutrality and security comparable to that which we see in Switzerland to-day. Therefore, I think the Government deserve the approval of this House for their conduct of affairs in this recent crisis which has saved Czechoslovakia from destruction and Europe from Armageddon.

Does the experience of the Great War and the years that followed it give us reasonable hope that, if some new war started, that would end war any more than the last one did?

One good thing, at any rate, has come out of this emergency through which we have passed. It has thrown a vivid light upon our preparations for defense, on their strength and on their weakness. I should not think we were doing our duty if we had not already ordered that a prompt and thorough inquiry should be made to cover the whole of our preparations, military and civil, in order to see, in the light of what has happened during these hectic days, what further steps may be necessary to make good our deficiencies in the shortest possible time.

[Source: Neville Chamberlain, In Search of Peace (1939), p. 393; and Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons (London: HMSO, 1938) vol. 339, 12th vol. of session 1937-1938, pp. 361-369, 373.]

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: GUEST,East 17
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 08:46 PM

Linked by blood but twice divided by war, the royal family's relationship with Germany, its people and its troubled history has long been a sensitive one. The photograph of Prince Harry wearing a swastika has echoes of one particularly disturbing incident involving the family, one which seared itself into the British collective memory - that of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor meeting Adolf Hitler in 1937.

The ex-King Edward VIII and his wife were known sympathisers of the Nazis and their policies, a feeling shared by a large number of British aristocrats who admired the way Hitler was dealing with the Communists.

The Nazis regarded the duke, who had abdicated over his affair with divorced American Wallis Simpson, as a potential ally and a possible head of state for a subjugated Britain.

But his flirting with Hitler's regime threatened to undermine years of work by the royal family to distance themselves from their German roots.

The modern royal family was founded in 1840 when Queen Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Coburg, a Germany duchy, creating The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Such was the ill-feeling towards all things German during the First World War that in 1917 Victoria's grandson King George V - an honorary Field Marshal in the German army - thought it prudent to renounce the German name and titles and adopt that of Windsor.

It was a masterful PR exercise, replacing the Teutonic surname with that of a quintessentially home counties town.

His son Edward VIII once declared: "There is not one drop of blood in my veins that is not German." Both he and George VI were bilingual in German and English.

Throughout the Twenties and Thirties, the royals were steadfastly opposed to conflict with their ancestral fatherland. Indeed George V's wife Queen Mary always maintained that Britain had "backed the wrong horse" in 1914.

His son's meeting with Hitler threatened irrevocably to undermine the royal family's support among their subjects.

It took the Queen Mother's steadfastness in the face of German bombs and her visit to the East End during the Blitz to restore public faith in the family.

The Windsors' links with Germany remained a touchy subject however. There was embarrassment in the Eighties when Princess Michael of Kent's father, Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, was exposed as a former Nazi party member and SS officer.

Less well known is the fact that one of Prince Philip's sisters, Sophie, was married to Christopher of Hesse-Cassel, an SS colonel who named his eldest son Karl Adolf in Hitler's honour. Indeed, all four of Philip's sisters married high-ranking Germans.

The prospect of the former Nazis and Nazi sympathisers attending his wedding to the Queen meant he was allowed to invite only two guests.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 08:52 PM

I've often wondered about Chamberlain. I think there was justification for opposing Hitler strongly about the anexation of the Sudetenland and secondarily of Austria, but I don't know if there was justification for military action against Hitler at the time.
What should Chamberlain have done, and would it have been successful? Would it have been a good thing to have a hawk like Churchill in power in 1938?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 08:56 PM

Its also true to say, I.M.H.O. that Hitler wasnt ready for actual WAR a minute sooner than he began it...after Poland (despite the Declaration of War by Britain & France) morale in the German Army must have been on a tremendous high after such a victory (despite heroic resistance by the Poles).

If Hitler could have capitalised on that arrogant euphoria & taken France & the Low Countries before winter started, he would have done, but he needed a lot more time, & chance to rest & repair his forces already engaged before taking on even France, who had an army that was VERY large in terms of infantry, & some very effective tanks, & artillery.

Certainly its true that the policy of Appeasement very much hindered British armament programmes, & moreso that it curbed innovative thought. Aside from the Germans, who of course had a very different plan up their sleeves, everyone expected the coming war to be fought in the same way that WW1 had been, hence much reluctance to be seen to be preparing for war, & to run the risk of entering into one.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 09:15 PM

Thanks 'Guest East 17'...a LOT there I wasnt aware of.

Joe, you pose an intereting question...a 'hawkish' British Government at that time.

Hitler didnt expect or particularly want war with Britain...War with France was inevitable, after all his rhetoric, if he hadnt given the military, AND German public opinion, their revenge for defeat/VersaillesTreaty/punitive War Reparations his popularity would have dropped (not that THAT would have mattered greatly).... nor did he EXPECT war with Britain, misled perhaps by the attitude of the British aristocracy, & & the Duke of Windsor & Mrs Simpson (Hess even thought it was possible in 1941 to make peace, & that after nearly 2 years since the Declaration of war).

It seem clear that Hitler was at least moderately sincere in saying that he didnt want to touch the British Empire, & in 1940 after Dunkirk, he was willing (apparently) to put pressure on Mussolini to cease his expansionist policies in Africa, which were already causing confrontation with the British.

Naturally he was hoping the British would 'sit this one out' with the enormous manpower the British Commonwealth & Empire could bring into the fight (though whether he would have stuck to this after Japan entered into the war is another question).

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 09:15 PM

I beg to differ that neocons are not as good Saddam Hussein.
They are better at every form of torture, imprisonment and abject destruction than Saddam could even dream of.

The dag burned oil pipelines in the north, east and south Iraq however are still a gigantic whack a mole game. Fix one explosion by those thughs, insurgents and malcontents, and another pipe gets blown up. Jeeze, give us a break.

Hey if they let us get their oil flowing again maybe we will let them have clean water and electricity again.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 09:24 PM

The American government tries to equate EVERY leader of a foreign power which they don't like with Hitler, for God's sake! It's a standard PR exercise that is done again and again and again.

The comparison in this case is fatuous, because Hitler was in charge of one of the world's great powers at the time, capable of meeting any single other great power on equal terms or better, and Saddam and Ahmadinejad most certainly are in no such position vis-a-vis the USA and the UK.

Better, I think to compare Iraq to 1939 Poland and Iran to, say, 1940 Yugoslavia, with the Americans and British of today taking on the respective roles of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in 1939 to '41. It is the Americans and British who have attacked pre-emptively on spurious excuses (of WMDs), and who threaten to attack further. It is they who are great powers. It is Iraq, a small power, which has been invaded and occupied, and Iran, another small power, which is being tacitly threatened with the same aggressive actions if they don't give in to various demands.

Like Yugoslavia did in the 40's, Iran would no doubt prove a very tough place to occupy successfully. It has a lot of land, and similarly mountainous terrain, and the fighting would go on and on indefinitely in all probability. Iraq, like Poland, is mostly flat land, easy to invade with a blitzkreig campaign, but again...not easy to occupy without tieing down a lot of the occupier's military forces.

Mr Bush is engaging in standard manipulative rhetoric which is total BS.

As for Chamberlain, I think he was naive about Hitler's intentions but that he (Chamberlain) was basically an honorable and reasonable man. His mistake was to believe Hitler's false promises at Munich. He could have done better, he could have done worse.

The UK wasn't ready to fight Germany in '39. France maybe WAS ready, if they had moved immediately into western Germany and pressed forward!...there wasn't much there to stop them until the Polish campaign was over! But their terrible losses when launching offensive attacks in 1914-16 had convinced them that it was wiser to hold a defensive, fortified position in modern war than to attack. The French error in WWII was that they fought the new war with the tactics of the old war. The Germans innovated, and it paid off.

Germany wasn't ready to fight either France or England in '39...but they were ready to do so by the spring of 1940, and their brilliantly unconventional new tactics proved decisive.

One thing most people don't know is this: British and French heavy tanks were superior in 1940 to the German tanks. I refer to the British Matilda tank and the French Char B1 Bis...both were almost impervious to the guns of German tanks and anti-tank weapons. French tanks on the whole were markedly superior to their German counterparts, but they were not used properly in a tactical sense for the most part. They were spread around piecemeal as mobile artillery, while the Germans used large concentrations of tanks in a small area to achieve rapid breakthrough and envelopment of enemy forces. The only area in which Germany had a clear advantage in modern equipment was in the air...they did have more aircraft in the Battle of France than the Allies, but not an overwhelming amount more. They used their aircraft far more effectively in concert with their tank divisions for breakthrough purposes. The Germans siezed the initiative at the start and held it. That wins battles.

The Allies did not lose the Battle of France for reasons of material or numerical disadvantage. They lost it by using very poor battlefield tactics. They were out-generaled. That was not Mr Chamberlain's fault. (nor was it Churchill's)

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 09:25 PM

The speech today by W was as forceful and polemic as George has ever been.

My favorite part was when he could not get the word totalitarianism out of his mouth. Instead he said teletotaltarians followed by teletotalitarinism. No doubt the video tape and transcript is already cleaned up. It really was better than the time W attempted to say the word subliminal.

We are all getting used to this President use the fascism at every turn just as his dad was the first to banter the term New World Order at every opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 09:42 PM

Right on Little Hawk....

To add to what you said about tanks (& antitank) the best German tanks in 1940 were those taken from the CZECHS (known as the 35t, & 38t) though they still werent capable of taking on the heaviest of British & French tanks-the Matildas & Char B's respectively, as you correctly said, at ranges at which the German/Chech tanks could affect them.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 10:29 PM

You're referring to the Panzer 35T and the Panzer 38T. They were both Czech tanks taken over by the Germans when they occupied Czechoslovakia in '38, good medium tanks of the day, both armed with a 37mm gun, and they were quite useful in France. I think it's fair to say that the German Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks were equally useful, if not moreso. However, the British and French had tanks which were superior to all of those.

The Germans were an army in 1940 which took somewhat outclassed armoured vehicles, by the standards of the time, and worked wonders with them by using clever tactics. They did the same thing in Russia in '41 against some very superior Russian tanks (T-34's and KV's). Better tactics can defeat better equipment, and the Germans proved that on a number of occasions.

Saddam's army in 2003 was incapable of meeting the coalition forces with any result other than to get slaughtered. They posed no credible threat whatsoever to the USA or the UK at any time. That's why it's fatuous for Bush to raise the spectre of "Hitler" as a justification for having attacked Iraq. Saddam was no Hitler. It would be like trying to compare a crabby, almost toothless old spaniel to a trained and deadly doberman guard dog.

Empty rhetoric, in other words. Saddam was a little blowfish in a small pond. The USA is a Great White Shark.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 10:40 PM

In reality, Hitler would have been destroyed in 1936 and the German Army was not prepared for WW2. Germany was inferior in ships and vehicles to the combined French and British fleets. Most of the infantry and artillery had little or no truck transportation, and had a hard time keeping up with the tanks. 1936 would have been the time to destroy the Nazi political control. Hitler would probably have been assasinated, or deposed if he had been beaten over the Rhineland.
Chamberlain, was not strong enough nor visionary enough to see what was needed. Churchill was.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 12:13 AM

You're dead right about that, Dave. The Germans would not have had a chance in 1936, had the British and French moved against them. Hitler's career would have come to an early end, and it would not have been a very big war either.

Churchill was a man who was always ready to fight, no matter what the situation. It was his nature. Such men are very handy at the right moment in history, but they can be a liability at other times...it all depends on the situation.

It's also really a drag if they happen to be on the opposing side in a war you are fighting... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 04:03 AM

Having created Hitler by sudpid and vengeful policies, Britain and France ensured that they would have to remove him forcibly sooner or later. It was the Versailles reparations- years of sanctions that took revenge on the German people for what the German government had done- that drove people to extremism. And when the form of that extremism was communism, the allies were all too happy to support a counter- movement.

But the mood in Britain and France was strongly against another war- both had been severely damaged by the losses of WWI (the War to End Wars), and it would have been difficult to sell another war in 1936-38, even if they had wanted to disarm Hitler.

The reality was that they thought they could use him as a counterweight to Soviet communism, which they in fact destroyed by 1936- thereby creating the monster Stalin too.

All realpolitik, without a trace of any principle except the narrowest self- interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 05:01 AM

Terrific act! Book them for your club.

Check out the website.

Downloads available from the History channel.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 06:31 AM

Why not equate Saddam with the man he admired and modeled himself and his techniques after-





Stalin.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 06:34 AM

*ROFL* wld...

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: gnu
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:02 AM

Very interesting and informative discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: kendall
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:14 AM

Ok, why was England not prepared for war when Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time"? Is it because he had opposed military buildup?

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:19 AM

As it happens, though this seems little known now, the British & French DID push into the re-militarised Rhineland during the 'Phoney War' period of late '39-40. The incursion was actually quite small, & was, at the time, inflated out of all proportion in newspapers in Britain & presumably France.

There were also several small 'border incidents' on the static borders during the Winter of 39-40, which the Allies (because of being keen to be strongly defensive & hod the borders as best they could) usually got the better of, typically having superior numbers present. (Its notable also that the British - I don't know about the French, though it seems likely - were prepared with white cotton 'oversuits' for winter combat...whether these were official War Deparment issue, or if local commanders had them 'knocked-up' locally on their own initiative, I dont know. The Germans on the Russian Front werent issued with white snowsuits for winter until the winter of 1942, I believe).

Hmm...sorry to have gone off the pre-war topic of the thread

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:22 AM

Subject: RE: BS: I read it in an old paper...
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 05 May 06 - 07:32 PM

London, May 24 – Prime Minister Chamberlain announced today that the British government was making new proposals to Soviet Russia for her adherence to the British-French front and he had every reason to hope it would be possible to "reach full agreement at an early date."
He said that as a result of conversations at Geneva between Foreign Secretary Viscount Halifax and Ivan Maisky, Soviet ambassador to London, "all relevant points of view had now been made clear."
Speaking in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister reported on the latest stage in the long-drawn negotiations between Britain and Russia for their projected mutual aid accord.
Earlier a two-hour cabinet meeting had heard a detailed report of Lord Halifax' talks at Geneva with Maisky and French Foreign Minister Bonnet
Informed quarters said the foreign secretary urged immediate acceptance of Russia's terms for a three-power mutual assistance pact among Britain, France, and Russia..
…

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:23 AM

Agreed Gnu....a lot of knowledgable & well-informed opinion here!

While no expert, by any stretch of the imagination, I have learned things I didnt know, & I thought I was fairly well up on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:35 AM

Paul- How do you get to Britian and France creating Stalin and destroying Communism? Please explain.

Regarding parallels between Hitler and current Middle Eastern goverments, there is one mjor point that has been missed. Nuclear weapons.

Before 1945, destroying a city would take thousands of men, tanks or bombers. Now it just takes one person, and a suitcase that glows in the dark.
When you have the prospect of Iran devoloping these weapons, then the parallels become more accurate, as you have a leader prepared to bring massive destruction to their enemeis, and might be mad/fanatical/driven enough to do so despite the consequences.

Iraq played a game of bluff over WMD, and lost. Iran is far more serious about. Tel Aviv, Washington or London really don't want to find out how serious this threat is with a very lound bang close by...

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:39 AM

the climax of the act (hate to give it way!) NC comes on, waves a piece of paper and says, I have spoken with Herr Hitler and its morris dancing in our time...!

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:49 AM

*G*

"I have in my hand, a piece of....shit!"

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: kendall
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 10:24 AM

Can anyone answer my question?

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 12:55 PM

Maybe not, Kendall. We're having too much fun talking about other stuff.

Paul Burke - I think your analysis of England and France's pragmatic realpolitik in the years between the wars is spot on.

Bunnahabhain - I think that Paul's reference to France and England "destroying Communism", etc...refers to the earlier forms of Communist administration that were attempted in Russia prior to Stalinism taking over. Most likely that is what he meant. The West did make a very concerted effort in the 20's to kill the Communist infant in its cradle or at least totally isolate it, and their efforts did damage Russia, increase Russian paranoia, and help set the stage for Stalinism. The West DID view Hitler as a counterweight against the Communists, as Paul Burke suggested. As a matter of fact, if the British and French had decided to turn a blind eye to Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939 then Hitler's next move would most definitely have BEEN an attack on the Soviets in 1940 or '41, and there would have been no war in the west at all! Had that happened, I'm sure the British and French would have been most happy to sit back and watch the Russians and Germans kill each other till hell froze over, and they would have been hoping for the Communists to lose. Anti-Communism was far stronger in the West than anti-fascism.

Hitler got into that war with the UK and France through complete miscalculation, in my opinion. He was not seeking such a war. It was Russia that he wanted to attack, and it was in Russia that he was seeking to expand the borders of the German Reich.

Yes, he did have contingency plans for expanding the German Navy for a possible future war in the West....(assumed date of its beginning: 1946!)...but his main area of concern in the early 40's was an attack deep into the grain and oil-producing areas of Russia.

I might mention that great powers always have contingency plans in hand for possibly fighting their main rivals in the world and for how that could be done successfully...and they always attempt to arm themselves so as to be able to do it successfully....it's part of the eternal game that military powers play, and it gives their general staff and their war industries something to do when there's no actual war happening. I doubt that they could stand NOT to do it. Not to do it would mean the loss of somebody's jobs, after all, wouldn't it? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Les from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 02:46 PM

Kendall - The UK had increased military spending from about 1936 in response to the build up of arms in Germany, but this was taking time to have effect. Many of our successful weapons in WW2 started development about this time - the Hurricane, the Spitfire, the 25pdr gun/howitzer, the 3.7in anti-aircraft gun, radar...

But the UK (and France) were still somewhat behind Germany who had started re-armament somewhat earlier. So in terms of everything but the Royal Navy the UK was somewhat behind Germany in the number and to some extent the quality of armaments. The USA was in a similar situation.

Hitler had anticipated war with the UK in 1948 and his naval building plans were aimed at that (Plan Z).

As well as the events in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the Spanish Civil War was an eye-opener. Many people were arguing for re-armament (including Churchill) but the UK economy was still depressed. The need to act together with the French was also paramount, and of course Germany could invade France!

It was Neville Chamberlain's government that declared war on Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 03:25 PM

Right on, Les. Not only could Germany invade France, France could invade Germany. They both had to consider the possibility and prepare accordingly.

It is the nature of empires with spheres of influence to get into wars with each other, and they all prepare contingency plans in that direction. If the Germans had avoided a war in the West and instead had conquered Soviet Russia (which would not have been too bloody easy...) then they would almost certainly have eventually gotten into a war with the western powers afterward, but it would probably have taken awhile to get going. The West would have been initially delighted by the fall of Communism, but that delight would soon have turned to the unpleasant realization that Germany was now too strong to live with comfortably...

The exact opposite happened at the end of WWII. The West was initially delighted by the fall of Nazi Germany, but that delight soon turned to the unpleasant realization that the Soviets were now too strong to live with comfortably...! (grin)

That's the way it always goes. Realpolitik calls the shots for empires, and realpolitik is concerned only about dominating, controlling, profiting, and winning.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 03:33 PM

1948....?

Just a warning.
If Adolf does that monologue about Albert and the stick with the horse's head handle - stop him, before he gets started - he does it in German, and its not funny.....

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 03:48 PM

Let me translate from 'owd Les-speak, wld....

He DID mean 1948, & he was right (NOT a very auspucious year that, eh Les! *G*)

...he meant that Hitlers Naval building programme wouldnt have been ready to take on the Royal Navy UNTIL 1948.

Fact is, overall, not just in that aspect, Hitler was dragged into 'full-scale' war earlier than he really wanted, by 2, maybe even THREE years.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 03:56 PM

...& 'take on the Royal Navy' wasnt a well-thought out phrase....

The Royal Navy was VAST (though commitments in distant waters were great).......even by 1948, he couldnt have overmatched it, really, but he could have had, by then, a Navy large enough, modern enough & powerful enough, to do what was asked of it, despite the R.N.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 04:02 PM

wld, you g*t....*G*

Now I got a line running round in my head....

"In ein vamous zeeside place called Schwartspool...."

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 04:08 PM

Yes, the Germans were kicked unceremoniously into a major war in the West WAY sooner than they wanted, due to a series of miscalculations on the part of both them and the western Allies.

The British and French miscalculated when it came to standing up to Hitler's aggressive expansionism, specially at Munich.

The Czechs miscalculated by not deciding to dig in their heels and fight in 1938! Had they done so, the German Werhmacht, which knew it was not ready for such a war yet, was planning to stage a military coup in Germany and arrest Hitler and the other top Nazi commanders. That would have been the end of the damn Nazis right there and then, and what a blessing that would have been!

The Germans miscalculated when they assumed that France and England would not declare war over Poland.

The French and English further miscalculated in that they did not expect the Germans and Russians to agree on a non-aggression pact and divide Poland between themselves.

The French nearly made a further gross miscalculation when they seriously considered decaring war on Russia over its invasion of Finland and sending a French expeditionary force by sea to help the Finns...a ludicrous notion under the circumstances!

It was really a tragicomedy of errors all the way around.

Stalin, by the way, also miscalculated when he...

1. ...murdered most of his best army officers because he didn't trust them...
2. ...absolutely refused to believe the Germans were planning to attack Russia in '41, despite all evidence to the contrary and many dire warnings from the western allies to that effect.

Stalin's errors in that respect cost the Russians millions of lives and almost lost them the war.

And then we return to Hitler's further errors.... Heh! That's a very long story.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 04:21 PM

L.H. - To my mind there are far too many wars start by somebody calling the other bloke's bluff!

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 04:40 PM

It's the same way with bar fights too, isn't it? ;-)

Chamberlain was a gentleman. Hitler was not. Chamberlain failed to appreciate that fact. I would further assert that Churchill was not really a gentleman either...he was a brawler by nature. As such, he was not taken in by Hitler's phony rhetoric for one moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 05:04 PM

Yes, yes

Possibly can extend the analogy as far as to include Roosevelt & Stalin too perhaps? To me, though not knowing too much about him, Roosevelt was a gentleman, & perhaps couldnt see that another 'Great Statesman' was just a brawler..well a THUG really. Wheras to Churchill, Stalins nature was all too plain.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 05:40 PM

As was Churchill's to Stalin... ;-) Yes, I would agree that Stalin was a thug and Roosevelt was a gentleman.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 05:56 PM

True, I'm sure!

I'm sure Stalin recognised Churchill as someone who would do whatever needed to be done....& not one of the 'English Gents' that might be regarded as a typical stereotype!

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 06:01 PM

The Russians actually seem to prefer negotiating with equally ruthless and determined opponents. They understand them better. They reputedly liked John Kennedy for that reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 06:28 PM

This might interest you Kendal

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Locusts.html

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Lighter
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 06:35 PM

As somebody once said, "History teaches only that history teaches."

Appeasement failed in Europe, but tightening the screws failed in Asia. The West couldn't have taken on the Japanese in China during the '30s, especially if it was simultaneously trying to "call Hitler's bluff." As soon as the Japanese demonstrated their designs on all of East Asia by moving into Indochina, FDR cut off their oil. Pearl Harbor was their response to that. Though a number of Japanese commanders knew they were likely to lose in the long run, it didn't stop 'em.

Unfortunately, when a powerful nation aggressively pushes for war, it's almost impossible to prevent it from getting its wish.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 06:47 PM

Well said, lighter.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:04 PM

L.H.

I'm almost inclined to say thats down to the ruthless 'thuggery' that was Stalinism....they couldnt equate a polite opponent with strength, even when that strength was almost overwhelmingly apparent. Likewise a weak, but forceful opponent would likely be..'heeded', despite the realities of the situation. Its rather like playground bullies, I.M.H.O.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: kendall
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:19 PM

Thanks Dave. I'll send this to my friend and he will get lost in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:23 PM

Hehehe...yes, we still a long way off being able to answer your question Kendall, it seems...sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:42 PM

In simple terms....Churchill was being supplied real information on the actual Government Military Spending. With the full knowledge of the Prime Minister reports to Parliament were exagerated and downright lies. The real figures on spending for the RAF and Army units were much less than required and reported. The Officers who supplied churchill with evidence of this would have been jailed under the Defense Of The Realm Act had they been caught doing it. Churchill took carefull steps to secure these people from retribution. The whole affair was whitewashed and suppressed from public knowledge at the time.
Yours, Aye.
Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:55 PM

Interesting...as well as bloody disgusting!

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: pdq
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 08:00 PM

Our winning WWII hinged on three technological breakthroughs: radar, the atomic bomb and the proximity fuse. Had a huge military buildup been started in 1935-8, we would have been planning to repeat WWI, not fight WWII.

                "On January 5,1943 Lt. "Red" Cochrane, commanding the aft 5" battery on the light cruiser Helena, shot down a Japanese Val dive-bomber with the second of three salvos of VT-fuzed shells, near Guadalcanal.  The fuzes were manufactured by the Crosley Corporation and this was the first kill of enemy aircraft."

This most important device was able to improve the chances of taking out an enemy airplane from about 5% per projectile to as much as 85% success. This most important item was not even in the planning stage until 1939 in England and 1940 in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: bobad
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 08:22 PM

"Our winning WWII"

In some quarters it is accepted that the Soviets won WWII.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: pdq
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 08:26 PM

30 million dead don't seem like much a victory. We have 2700 dead in Iraq in 3 1/2 years and many are saying that we are losing.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 08:31 PM

Well, with the pressure from Stalin for "Second Front NOW" even from as early as 1942, I think its safe to say that without the Western Powers the Soviets wouldnt have won it, & poosibly the Soviets believed so too. The Eastern Front was a very close-run thing at more than one point.

There are as many, I would guess, who say that its all down to Hitlers insane mismanagement of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 08:34 PM

An oversimplification PDQ. Had the Poles not provided England with a working copy of the Enigma code machine, and our scientists been unable to break the codes, we would have lost the war in Europe. Radar was a significant factor, but so was the invention of Asdic. Anti submarine warfare devices and techniques were far important than proximity fuses. Getting the USA to implement Merchant Ship Convoy systems was another reason. Churchill was already working with scientists, and developing the secret service liason way ahead of 1939. Read A Man called Intrepid (Canadian- Sir William Stephenson)

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 08:50 PM

Ye, the Battle of the Atlantic was a VERY near run thing at times. Without invention & innovation Britain would have been starved (& of more than food).

Nor could U.S. forces have crossed the Atlantic in signficant numbers, & without Britain being able to host them anyway....

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: pdq
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 08:53 PM

Dave (tam)...a slight difference in word meaning is what we have. The three items I mentioned are "breakthroughs" in thechnology. The advancements in aircraft technology and in submarine defense systems were evolutionary more than revolutionary. The code breakthroughs were huge but I can't think of the as technological. As someone who has worked in electronics a bit but cannot right for shit, I am in awe of the aforementioned proximity fuse, less so the codes.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 09:02 PM

pdq. you will find this of great interest i'm sure...

1937 Turing Machine - The need to solve the complicated codes used by Germany in their build up to war brought a requirement for some sort of machine to solve the huge amount of variations machines like Enigma could produce.

In 1937, while a graduate student, Alan Turing wrote a paper amusingly entitled On Computable Numbers with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem. The premise of Turing's paper was that some classes of mathematical problems don't lend themselves to algorithmic representations and so aren't easily solved by machines. Since Turing didn't have access to a real computer, because they didn't exist at the time, he invented his own as an abstract 'paper exercise', which consisted of a grid of squares, each containing a zero or a one. This theoretical model became known as a Turing Machine, and is one of the first descriptions of a software program working with probabilities in a binary computing environment.

The War Department brought him and many of his university colleagues and ex university tutors together to work on the problem of breaking the German codes. They were housed in a large country house in Bletchley Park, Buckinghamshire called "station X". Here Turing and his team cracked the Enigma codes and then built Colossus with the help and expertise of Tom Flowers to crack the more complicated codes.

The Second World War really accelerated the inventions required for the war effort. One of these inventions was Turin's computer. Sadly in the 1950's Alan Turing was convicted of homosexuality and probably committed suicide in 1954 (poison - and was declared suicide although could have been accidental). This was a tragic end to such an influential figure in the world of computers.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 09:36 PM

How did those proximity fuses work?

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: pdq
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 09:57 PM

They had a very small vacuum tube specially designed for the proximity fuse. I believe it was either the first "sub-miniature" tube or lead to the devepolement of same. About the diameter of a pencil, the lead wires had to be soldered in place. The complete device was fitted to many different sizes of missles and rockets. It emitted radio signals which would bounce back when a target was detected. Settings could be adjusted to explode the projectile at a prescribed distance based on the duration between sent pulses and their return. Airplane would fly into a large debris field. Before that, the small obvect about 5" in diameter had to actually hit the plane in order to explode.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 10:09 PM

Yeah, I figured it had to be an internal radio device of some kind. That's brilliant for the time. The Japanese must have really wondered about the effectiveness of American flak. What about fighter aircraft? Were they able to use proximity shells as well? Was it adaptable to weapons as small as 50 calibre or 20mm?

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: pdq
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 10:30 PM

As my 8:00 post shows, the first confirmed kill was done with a 5" anti-aircraft round. No, 50 cal machine guns were not equiped. Think about it, when a round become so small, what damage could it do by expoling 30 yards from a target. Besides, the vacuum tube alone was equal in size to about 1 1/2 inches cut off of an average pencil, maybe 10-12 mm itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 10:42 PM

Uh-huh.   So I suppose it was good for anything from maybe a 3" shell on up?

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Les from Hull
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 08:03 AM

Yes VT (variable time) fuses were supplied for 3" and upwards AA guns. It was British technology perfected by the USA who had the capability of deveoping it and bringing it into service.

AA shells didn't have to hit though. They had a time fuse which explded them at a particular height (later determined by radar).

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 10:40 AM

"Well, with the pressure from Stalin for "Second Front NOW" even from as early as 1942, I think its safe to say that without the Western Powers the Soviets wouldnt have won it, & poosibly the Soviets believed so too. The Eastern Front was a very close-run thing at more than one point.

There are as many, I would guess, who say that its all down to Hitlers insane mismanagement of it."

And while making comparisons between various people and Adolf, it stikes me that Geedubya's insane mismanagement both militarily and domestically would qualify him for the same comparison.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 10:51 AM

Hmmm yes, thanks Don....& I cant believe I didnt recognise that parallel when I wrote that post!

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: John Hardly
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 11:03 AM

There was also quite a lot of pre-wwII anti-semitism in Europe. It wasn't just Hitler who hated the Jews. Many in the US and England found it useful to minimize the extent of the atrocities being committed by Hitler against the Jews (hell, France marched their Jews off FOR Hitler). They just didn't want to know because claiming ignorance was a better option than claiming moral indecency.

The correlary to today is the large anti-war contingent that is also largely anti-Israel -- like the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 12:34 PM

That's definitely a factor, John. I think the underlying prejudice against Jews, which has existed throughout the Christian era, is very similar in nature to the prejudice that has always existed toward the Roma people (Gypsies)...only in the case of the Jews it has been an issue of considerably larger dimension.

I would also say, however, that the policies of Israel and the events triggered in the Middle East ever since the creation of the modern state of Israel have greatly exacerbated that situation.

In other words, Jews have something real to complain about...and so do people who are upset at Israel. It's not a totally one-sided situation, in terms of right and wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 02:40 PM

Who was responsible for financing Hitler.
    Why was Hitler used to fight the fear of communism. and who was rsponsible for enabling hitler to acheive and maintain power.Anyone know.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 04:02 PM

There is a lot of info out there about who presumably financed Hitler.

Here's one version:

"In the early 1930s financial assistance to Hitler began to flow more readily. There took place in Germany a series of meetings, irrefutably documented in several sources, between German industrialists, Hitler himself, and more often Hitler's representatives Hjalmar Sehaeht and Rudolf Hess. The critical point is that the German industrialists financing Hitler were predominantly directors of cartels with American associations, ownership, participation, or some form of subsidiary connection. The Hitler backers were not, by and large, firms of purely German origin, or representative of German family business. Except for Thyssen and Kirdoff, in most cases they were the German multi-national firms — i.e., I.G. Farben, A.E.G., DAPAG, etc. These multi-nationals had been built up by American loans in the 1920s, and in the early 1930s had American directors and heavy American financial participation.

One flow of foreign political funds not considered here is that reported from the European-based Royal Dutch Shell, Standard Oil's great competitor in the 20s and 30s, and the giant brainchild of Anglo-Dutch businessman Sir Henri Deterding. It has been widely asserted that Henri Deterding personally financed Hitler. This argument is made, for instance, by biographer Glyn Roberts in The Most Powerful Man in the World. Roberts notes that Deterding was impressed with Hitler as early as 1921:

...and the Dutch press reported that, through the agent Georg Bell, he [Deterding] had placed at Hitler's disposal, while the party was "still in long clothes," no less than four million guilders.7

It was reported (by Roberts) that in 1931 Georg Bell, Deterding's agent, attended meetings of Ukrainian Patriot in Paris "as joint delegate of Hitler and Deterding."8 Roberts also reports:

Deterding was accused, as Edgar Ansell Mowrer testifies in his Germany Puts the Clock Back, of putting up a large sum of money for the Nazis on the understanding that success would give him a more favored position in the German oil market. On other occasions, figures as high as £55,000,000 were mentioned.9"

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 04:07 PM

And here's another:

"That Henry Ford, the famous automobile manufacturer gave money to the National Socialists directly or indirectly has never been disputed," said Konrad Heiden, one of the first biographers of Hitler.[87] Novelist Upton Sinclair wrote in The Flivver King, a book about Ford, that the Nazis got forty-thousand dollars from Ford to reprint anti-Jewish pamphlets in German translations, and that an additional $300,00 was later sent to Hitler through a grandson of the ex-Kaiser who acted as an intermediary.[88] The US Ambassador to Germany, William E. Dodd, said in an interview that "certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy."[89] At the time of Dodd's criticisms, the general public was aware that he was speaking of Ford because the press made a direct association between Dodd's statements and other reports of Ford's anti-Semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 04:09 PM

And another:

"James Pool has studied Hitler for 25 years; his previous book, "Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler's Rise to Power, 1919-1933," is considered something of a classic. Pool's work is refreshing because he starts with a broad socioeconomic perspective, and blends this in with sociopsychological and cultural observations. Frequently historians skip the infrastructural reasons behind Hitler's power, and opt for a specific angle instead of the broad picture. The entire phenomenon of Nazi Germany then becomes subsumed under some variation of The Madman Theory.
Many top industrialists and financiers in Germany made huge returns on their investment in Hitler's agenda. The spoils of various invasions, as well as profits from slave labor and confiscation of Jewish properties, insured their enthusiastic support. Hitler himself was far from ascetic -- he lived in extravagant luxury, subsidized by blatant corruption. Good old greed, power, and desperation explain Nazi Germany better than ersatz theories about the German character. Examples: the desire for "lebensraum" was largely due to food production problems; Hitler invaded Austria because raw materials were needed to continue rearmament; and Russia was invaded because the German military machine was running out of oil. Pool never tries to excuse Germany, but he does offer a fresh look at the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 04:11 PM

And another:

Hitler's main source of economic power was from the I.G. Farben chemical cartel, and I.G. Farben in turn was controlled by the Illuminati. The I.G. Farben cartel was created by loans from Wall Street in what has been called the Dawes plan. Carroll Quigley calls the Dawes Plan "largely a J.P. Morgan production." The J.P. Morgan Group set up the loan to I.G. Farben, which created Hitler. 'Without the capital supplied by Wall Street, there would have been no I.G. Farben in the first place, and almost certainly no Adolf Hitler and World War II." Henry Ford merged his German assets with I.G. Farben in 1928. The cartel created the lethal Zyklon B gas that was used to exterminate the Jews. It was also involved in the torture experimentations that led to mind control methods, such as Monarch Programming. Do you see what happened? A Rothschild agent set up a cartel that was directly involved in the horrible persecution of the Jews. Still the family maintains the illusion of being totally supportive of their race. At first Germany had a significant disadvantage if they were to embark on a second world war. The nation had a fuel shortage, but the Illuminati fixed this problem. The Germans were able to fight WWII through the use of synthetic fuels that were created by the hydrogenation process (turning coal into gasoline).
    This process was discovered by I.G. Farben. Hydrogenation technology would not have been fully developed by WWII, but I.G. Farben made a deal with Rockefeller's Standard Oil, who was able to complete the research, facilitating the war. Interestingly, I.G. Farben plants were not targeted by the bombing raids on Germany. By the end of the war the refineries had experienced only 15% damage. William Dodd, American ambassador to Germany before WWII, wrote President Roosevelt: "At the present moment, more than a hundred American corporations have subsidiaries here or cooperative understandings. 'The DuPonts have their allies in Germany that are aiding in the armament business. Their chief ally is the I.G. Farben Company... 'Standard Oil Company ... sent $2,000,000 here in December, 1933 and has made $500,000 a year helping Germans improve hydrogenation technology] ... ,,The International Harvester Company president told me their business here rose 33% year, but they could take nothing [earnings] out [except in goods]. 'Even our airplanes people have secret arrangements with Krupps. 'General Motors Company [which was controlled by the J.P. Morgan Group] and Ford do enormous business here through their subsidiaries and take no profits out." Germany needed the capital of these, and many more American companies in order to wage a war. I.G. Farben had a holding company in the United States called American I.G. Farben. Paul Warburg, his brother Max (head of Germanys secret police during WWI), and Warburg agent Herman Metz were some of the members of the board of directors of the American I.G. Farben. Other directors included Rockefeller/International banking men (Edsel Ford, Charies Mitchell, Walter Teagle, etc) . Three Germans on the Board of Governors were convicted as war criminals after the war, but the elite Americans fore-mentioned were not, even though they participated in the same criminal decisions as those who were punished. According to author Eustice Mullins, Hitier met with Allen and John Foster Dulles in 1933.
    The Dulles brothers were acting as legal representatives of Schiff and Warburg's Kuhn, Loeb & Co, which was an Integral part of the Rothschild network. Mullins claims Kuhn & Loeb had extended large short-term credits to Germany, and needed to ensure the repayment of these loans. The Dulles supposedly assured Hitler he would receive the funds necessary to be installed as Chancellor of Germany, if he promised to repay the debts. One of the largest tank manufacturers for Germany was Opel, which was controlled by the J.p. Morgan Group. Another company connected to the J.p. Morgan Group was Bendix Aviation, 'which supplied data [to Germany] on automatic pilots, aircraft Instruments and aircraft and diesel engine starters.' The examples go on and on. There is much more that could be written on this subject. The manufactured Pearl Harbour attack allowed Roosevelt to enter America into the war. A second world war had been created by the Illuminati, with the help of the Rothschild/Morgan/Warburg/Schiff syndicate. After the end of the war, the Tribunals that investigated Nazi war criminals censored "any materials recording Western assistance to Hitler," said historian Antony C. Sutton. Bloodlines of the Illuminati 11. Rothschild

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 04:20 PM

The point being...wars are not generally started because of madmen...wars are planned and started by wealthy elites who are multinational in nature and who have allegiance to no nation or moral code. Those wealthy elites produce armaments and sell them, and they control the marketing of vital resources, such as oil, coal, natural gas, iron ore, whatever. In order to maximize their profits they require either active warfare or continual arming and preparation for future wars or a "cold war" which will maintain high military spending.

Charismatic and ambitious men like Hitler are used and financed by that elite at opportune times, and they are assisted into positions of power, as has been done with George Bush, for example (whether or not he's charismatic!). When they are no longer useful, they are disposed of one way or another.

Saddam Hussein was used handily by the elite until he became a liability. They he was knocked off. He is still being used as a minor propaganda tool, and will remain minimally useful as such until he dies or becomes totally irrelevant.

It is the people with vast amounts of money who run this world...they run it with the aim of making even more money...and that's all there is to it.

The political causes and great "crusades" they raise up to lead people off to war are nothing more than a smokescreen to camouflage what is actually going on: Very big business.

Subject: RE: BS: Chamberlain and Hitler
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 05:31 PM

Thankyou, very interesting and informative.