Sean_MacCloud wrote:
> Probert wrote:
>
> > "Sean_MacCloud"
 wrote in
message
> > news:Bw8Pd.698$vq7.447{at}fe11.lga...
> > >
> > >
> > > Probert wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Luc Mattila"  managed
to splutter in message
> > >> news:W9DP9DTV38394.7697222222{at}reece.net.au...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I promised to set out briefly my problems....
> > >>
> > >> Well, you've clearly got problems - paranoia being the most
obvious one;
> > >> and
> > >> an uncertain relationship with the truth being another.
> > >>
> > >> However amongst all the really appalling bollocks there's one
that - to
> > >> me -
> > >> stands out as complete shite;
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >> > ** Immigration (ie, taking our country away from its native
> > >> > inhabitants, and filling it with people who have no
appreciation of
> > >> > the Constitution or Western values generally)
> > >>
> > >> The 'native inhabitants' of your country are - what's left of -
the
> > >> Indian
> > >> tribes who, when they weren't being slaughtered, were given the
'choice'
> > >> of
> > >> either accepting the US constitution or having their land
forcibly
> > >> removed
> > >> from them, and most times, if even if they accepted the more
acceptable
> > >> option, still had their land taken.
> > >>
> > >> The rest of you are all - every single one of you - of immigrant
stock
> > >>
> > >> Idiot.
> > >
> > > No. Native means the people who are born "there".
> >
> > Native; "Indigenous (esp. non-European) inhabitant of a country;
(OED
> > definition).
> >
> > So, no, 'native' means rather more than just being born 'there'.
(And the
> > real natives would have to be totally eliminated to stop any
arguments from
> > them - but I guess the US tried that 150 or so years ago).
> >
> > >
> > > The fact that the previous natives were marginalized speaks
volumes about
> > > reality(as another just said here) and hypocrisy(democracy,
brotherhood,
> > > liberty, etc political glue espowsing  utopian heaven on earth)
and etc.
> > > At
> > > least the Nazis were more honest and they fought over their own
stuff. (I
> > > know
> > > the gender right doesn't want to hear that but it is true.)
> >
> > The Nazi's 'fought over their own stuff'? Poland? Czechoslovakia?
Hungary? -
> > well, you could produce a credible (but, nevertheless, nonsensical)
> > argument.
> >
> > But what about Holland, Belgium, France, Italy (an ally at the time
Germany
> > marched in), The Ukraine, Beyelorussia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia,
Russia,
> > Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece? What, on earth was 'their
own stuff'
> > there?
> >
> > Absolutely nothing - other than revisionist bullshit.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Probert.
>
> The NS movement originally only wanted the re-establishing of the pre
world war
> I Austri-Hungarian borders; all they said they wanted from
"Poland"(ie Britain)
> was Prussia back. It was given to northern Poland at the end of wwI
because
> Britain loves to build pocket nations everywhere--keeping its hoes in
da pocket
> (ie too small and dislocated to be a threat). Obviously
Germany--being more
> first world than the average British conquest-- said 'homey don't
play that'.
> (Britian did the same in the Middle East and now look what we have.)
>
> Something caused Germany to grab half of poland with the Soviets
grabbing the
> other half. (Invasion of Poland was a truly unfortunate
occurance--*destroyed
> mankind[give it time].) Germany probably told the Soviets(who were
treaty
> partners) they were going to take prussia and the soviets said "well
in that
> case, we're going to take Poland being that it is 1) Slavic and 2)
weak/failing
> state" [at that time]. Then Ns probably said "hell no we don't want
the Soviets
> taking all of it(putting them a few miles from Berlin) so we'll take
the other
> half".

   One can make many interpretations of what was cooking inside the
brains of J. Stalin and A. Hitler. But if one simply studies what the
Nazis actually did once they conquered Poland and other places in the
East one will notice that they systematically killed off every segment
of he population that could threaten their fule - school teachers,
lawyers, educated people in general. Jews were at first killed or put
into ghettos, later on they were just killed.
   In the areas of the USSR that the Germans conquered, they
deliberately killed vast numbers of surrendered soldiers and fatally
mistreated civilians. Do you think they treated Jews in those places
better than that? Consider that Nazi ideology made it clear that they
were considered to be the main enemy.


>
> NSDAP felt justified in taking back WWI borders again.
>
> When the Polish incident occured, Britain declared that Germany not
only had to
> leave Poland and the north western part of Poland(prussia) that it
'liberated'
> BUT the sudentland (where their people were oppressed), austria AND
the
> rhineland too.


    Britain went to war over the "Incident in Poland" because they were
convinced that A.H. was not goin to stop his territorial expansion and
so there was no use putting off a war.


 Britain wanted Hitlers head very early on.


    G.B. had conspicuuously failed to take the steps neccesary to fight
Germany, if that had been their long term plan. They especially failed
to even seriously try to make a deal with Stalin in 1939 at a time when
Stalin was desperate for any deal that offerred safety from A.H.
   Without allies in the East, Germany had a one front war. With the
Hitler/Stalin pact of August 1939, the Germans had access to all of the
raw materials they would need and so a naval blockade of Germany (the
only effective offensive stragedy available to GB).
    So accusing GB of wanting the war all along is pretty silly unless
you believe they were the complete opposite of cunning.


The reason? Southern
> german hill folk laborers --the NS-- 'held their tails all wrong'.
Obviously
> Germany could not do that so the war started. Consequently they
needed to deny
> the allies staging areas. Nobody ever approaches it this way; they
always say
> 'Hitler's invading "everywhere for no reason"'.


   ???? He always had a reason.

 Once war started, Norway was
> occupied for the iron; the lows and france, to deny england a
wwI-like staging
> area.
>
> Hess(underfuher) surrendered in 1940. No one knows why exactly. Brits
put him in
> prison for warcrime any way. He died in prison of mysterious causes.


   At the age of about 80.

 Britain
> still has some of the war sealed for 100 years. Why? We don't know.

   All governments still keep some things secret from that era. It is
hard to be sure why. My guess is to protect the identity of covert
sources and the ways in which information was obtainable. An
uber-secret after the war was that the German enigma code was
breakable- because the USSR used a similar code.


>
> Again, once the war started and germany found that britain and france
would not
> accept terms (and they didn't!),


   Because no one believed A. H. was going to stop and that no deal he
made would result in the survival of decent societies in Europe, if not
the whole world.

 they figured they needed all the other stuff so
> as to have war time resources _and to deny britain staging areas_.
>
> It is ironic too. Germany didn't want another trench war; They lost
the first
> one (which they didn't acutely start) because of a hemoraging
stalemate with
> industrial britain. So they grabbed all of france and et al; Easily,
since no
> one was up to the level of the german land forces in that environ.
But by doing
> that they made the English Channel an un crossable no man's land
(back to
> industrial trench-war).
>
> Battle of brit... well complicated. Uboat uboats uboats!! Hitler was
an alright
> or worse ww1 general. Unfortunately he was fighting wwII. He thought
the mighty
> solider was the way. Wrong! Subs and planes were far more important
than guns
> and tanks. Germany made the best guns and tanks (Russian T34s were a
'happy
> accident') but they kneecapped themselves... For example german
engineering
> figured out the holy grail of ww1 aviation machine-gunning: how to
sync machine
> gun firing to engine pistons. This caused germany to put good 30 cal
guns on the
> cowls(front hoods) of planes(shooting between the propeler blades).
Allies
> couldn't figure this out so instead they simply put 50cals in the
fatter
> wings--with room for 3000 rounds! This wound up being real good.
Thats just an

   In the Battle of Britain, German fighter had much heavier armament
in their fighter than the RAF. In particular, Bf 109 Es had 20mm wing
cannon, the Brits were years later with this but the Allied fighters
were more robust designs better able to carry this sort of thing.


> example of how doing something right can ultimately be ironically
wrong. Same
> irony applys to the uber tanks: t34s much more efficient machines of
war. And
> the obsolete uber rail guns. Waste of labor; too many parts.
>
> Why germany never came up with strategic bombers and drop tanks for
the fighters
> is beyond me.

   They saw the Luftwaffe as a adjunct to the ground forces. They
planned on quick cheap wars which boosted their asset base. Long range
bombing forces are way too expensive.

 Well maybe the drop tank is part of that piston synched uber
> machine gun irony again... When germany figured out the gun thing,
they
> consequently could use high performance thin wings (this was
considerd a very
> good thing in early aviation). These thin wings probably couldn't
handle extra
> hard points for the tanks. That of course doesn't explain why they
didn't come
> up with drop tanks for under the fuselage.

   Drop tanks were well known by the Germans and the Brits well before
the war. The Germans assumed that their twin engine fighter (the 110)
was the best thing for long range escort duties. Nothing occurred in
the war before the summer of 1940 to un-convince them. Besides,
spending an extremely long time alone in a cramped single engine
fighter was not a first choice solution.
   Ever think what it must have really been like to fly a Mustang 2000
miles at  200kts?


>
> Germany didn't pull battle of brit off. So they were in protracted
war --needed
> fuel! Germany believed parle with Russia could have shown weakness;
NSDAP
> believed they could make quick work of Russians and get the fuel.


   The USSR was selling them all the fuel they needed. They only had
fuel problems AFTER they invaded Russia.
   So there were other reasons.

 (Actual plan
> was to sweep south over the Cacauses, through Mesopotami, and west
across Nord
> Afrika--maybe all the way to Gibralter! Hitler's moxy at work.) Might
have
> worked if the 'Balkan bail out' didn't eat up the spring (Italians
needed
> support).


   If they had invaded the middle east with the same effort as the
USSR, they would have won for sure. Cut Britain off from her Empire,
build a bigger Air Force and Navy, enforce a blockade, and replace her
as the dominant trans-ocean arbiter of worlld politics.
   BUt that was not A.H.s goal. Deep, down, he just wanted to kill the
people on his "enemies list".



>
> Germany in general is in an ancient grudge match with the Slavs;
exacerbated by
> WWI issues (including Serb assasins/insurgents in south east which
caused ww1).
> Also comunists were considered real bad in post ww1 Germany -- and
Russia was
> chock full of 'em (albeit a different strain). Ancient grudge match
caused
> irrational thinking.
>
> NS being racists didn't deem cousin britain the true threat that it
was--they
> played too nice with the brits.


    As compared to doing what?? When they couldn't easily break britain
(I don't
> think they ever truely wanted to invade--that's all western
propaganda),


    It is way closer to the truth to say that they wanted everything
from GB without having to invade and then they found out that they
could not. But don't look for "nice" in their behavior.
   Hitler was no better than Kaiser Bill at understanding what really
made the British tick.
   Despite a family resemblance, the history of G. Britain and Germany
could not be more different.
    For one thing, the British (and the Americans) know deep down that
they really are Gods chosen people. The germans merely wanted that to
be true. So they failed to display essential decency and humanity,
tolerance and goodwill, when the time came to make basic choices.


they
> should have stayed with the Russians. Like I said, they were afraid
the Soviets
> would have betrayed them first, when Germany exposed just how in need
of oil it
> was [it was a dog eat dog, exploit weaknesses, kind'a world back
then].
>
> Early on in the Battle of France, Germany should have tried a grand
fient: take
> half of france, feign weakness; let britain pour in _with
everything_; then
> spring the blitz (decimating Britian's war machine). (No one was up
to the level
> of the german land forces in that environ.)
>
> But if germany took all of france in the matter it did, they should
have then
> sacrificed the one million needed to invade britain (and it would
have been
> better to prevent Dunkirk!--germans were too chivalrous with the
brits). Losing
> those 1mill to 750 thousand men is ultimately better than what
happened in
> Russia. A four beach attack north east and south east (with feints
too
> naturally) coming from France and Norway. Take airtstrips right away
and then
> blitzkreig through the rest. The subs would create barrier net.,
protecting
> convoy flanks. Where to get ships though? Germany needed better navy;
not uber
> battleships--just more ships for the invasion. Britain would have
recalled
> british pacific military but it would have been too late by the time
they got
> back (and churchill would have used gas [as americans would have].)
>
> Germany was in coalition with Eastern Europe (big secret in the
west)--"Lesser
> Combatants". They all wanted in on the reestablishing of austrian
hungarian
> empire. When germans occupied a country they said "we are liberating

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100