BS: Chamberlain and Hitler

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

Thankyou, very interesting and informative.

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: 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 - 04:09 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 - 04:07 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 - 04:02 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:09 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 - 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 - 09:36 PM

How did those proximity fuses work?

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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:31 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: 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: 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 - 08:00 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: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 07:55 PM

Interesting...as well as bloody disgusting!

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 - 07:23 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: 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 - 07:04 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: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 06:47 PM

Well said, lighter.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 05:04 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 - 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 - 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 - 04:08 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 - 04:02 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: kendall
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 10:24 AM

Can anyone answer my question?

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: 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...!