The invasion of Normandy

[Catsby]

A little over-looked fact is that the Allies, apart from liberating Europe, also liberated the Germans. Sure, a goodly portion were whole-hearted Nazis, but a heck of a lot more were not.

Upon Catsby's travels to Normandy two weeks ago, he believes that is the view shared by most in the mainland.

Catsby is glad the main driver is reconciliation and accpetance, rather than (as has been demonstrated in this thread) blind hatred, cynicism, and tarring entire countries with one brush. For, Catsby believes, the latter were in part to blame for the second world war.

 

[Driwen]

Good question. Nice to think of the Nazi's as an entirely evil bunch of people and that everyone was in on it. Not strictly true, but I would say that the majority were, although a lot of Germans hated Hitler and the way Germany was going from the outset. Not sure were I sit on this one now you mention it.

However, Germany was the aggressor, we were liberating Europe, so I suppose one way of looking at it would be to ask should we, the liberators and the liberated, remember German soldiers as we remember our own when the Germans were an occupying army that shouldn't have been in Normandy anyway?

I doubt most germans actually wanted jews to die, but yes most did want a bigger and more important country. However many countries want that, most wont fight to get it though. Also most soldiers werent evil, they were in the army because they got drafted, first believed hitlers promises of a great germany or later on the war because being the army might be safer than living in a big german city or working in a factory.

Not entirely fair I'll agree, but if Germany hadn't allowed Hitler into power in the first place then WW2 and D-Day need never have happened. Let us remember and celebrate our soldiers and let Germany mourn their dead in their own way, because at heart Germany's soldiers died for nothing.

if UK, France and the US hadnt signed such a humiliating treaty in versaille than Hitler wouldnt have had the ability to come to power.
Germany made a mistake with electing Hitler to power, but it isnt uncommon in other countries even now for extreme right to get many votes.
I dont know for sure, but it is very possible that Versaille meant that WW2 was inevitable (that doesnt make it any less wrong for the germans, but it does put some blame to the allied forces aswell).
Besides that without Hitler Germany still couldnt have a reasonable sized army no navy no airforce and wouldnt have control over some part of their own country (in west germany France(+uk??) had over some important industry province as part of the treaty).
You can reason that german soldiers died defending their own country's (honour) aswell, as it was taken 20 years before and now had to attack to get it back. However the reason why germany should be at D-Day is to say that we should stop thinking about who is to blame, but instead just realise what events lead to WW2 so we can prevent it from happening and all mourn that it happened.

Also note that it was a very different time than it is now, as everyone still had colonies at that time and the way of thinking about war was most likely also different (maybe even similar to how people thought about WW1?).

Anyway WW2 happened, we cant change that. The Germans do regret it happened and it does very little good to not want to reconcile with them and both mourn it happening together.

 

[DaGaffer]

Twaddle - beaten the Nazis back ? All we had done is maintained air superiority over the channel so that Hitler decided not to bother invading England and concentrate on the USSR instead. If it hadn't been for all the help the USA had been giving us during that time, even before it formally entered the war, Hitler may well have made a different decision. The US leaders were helping us all the time. They just thought the people wouldn't support the US entering the war until Japan made the first strike for the Axis. If you think we could have done D-Day without the US then you are an idiot.

Britain may have shown a lot of courage but it was the combined might of the US and the USSR which eventually proved too much for the Axis to handle.

/edit: It's times like this you feel the need for Xane.

Its far more complicated than that. The Battle of Britain was as much a psychological and political victory as 'maintaining air superiority'. The Americans hadn't really started to support Britain at this point - Lend-Lease wasn't instigated until Spring '41, so winning the Battle of Britain helped swing public opinion in the States and allow Rooseveldt to get Lend-Lease through (a still very isolationist) Congress. Also, it was the first German defeat of the war, something that not only the British needed after Dunkirk, but also all those people under occupation. The Battle of Britain also had a knock-on effect on the timing of Barbarossa, which ultimately lead to the failure to reach Moscow and Leningrad, buying the Russians some much needed time.

No, we couldn't have won the war without American material help, but we probably wouldn't have lost either. The nearest we came to losing the war after the Battle of Britain was in the Battle of The Atlantic, and most of the reasons we won the U-boat war was because of Royal Navy tactics and British inventions.

And always bear in mind that D-Day itself was under British tactical command, and that more British and Empire troops took part than Americans, and part of the reason the Americans got so badly mauled at Omaha was because they refused to follow British doctrine; no 'funny' tanks, and a much shorter artillery barrage (40 mins instead of 2 hours) than the British used on their beaches.

The allied war effort was a balance of forces, and you can't take one element out and say 'oh if it wasn't for...x..y would have lost. It took all three to beat the Axis; and any one of the three probably wouldn't have prevailed without the others (even in the Pacific, the Japanese would have held on much longer if they weren't threatened by the Australians in the south and Anglo-Indians in the west).

 

[Sigurd]

Sigurd, fuck off you obnoxious twat. You made an out-of-line (in the context of this thread) comment early on (maybe you thought you were being funny), it was received badly so then you try to justify your point, only to dig yourself deeper into this hole you seem to love so much.

Have some goddamn respect.

How about you go fuck yourself? Lack of respect? Too funny... I'm not taking anything away from the veterans you fucktard, I'm just pointing out the irony of "president" bush being at a ceremony like that, seeing as his governement could easily be compared to the National Socialists. Little shits like you need to reconsider your political bias... seems to me like the Nazis won anyway sometimes.

 

[Catsby]

From the BBC
American soldiers also managed to land on the westernmost beach - Utah - without major casualties.

But at nearby Omaha, they suffered severe losses as they encountered a crack division of German troops.

Infantry conducting a frontal assault against a deliberate defense in daylight won the battle for Omaha Beach. The cost of this improvisation was high. Why did the plan fail? Russell Weigley provided the orthodox answer: "The American attack thus stalled throughout D-Day morning, to oblige General Bradley to ponder evacuation. It was painful pondering, in which he might not have had to engage had he himself and all the American planners not so blandly accepted the translation of head-on, power drive strategy into tactics of head-on infantry assault."[9] British historian Max Hastings observed: "V Corps's plan for Omaha eschewed tactical subtleties, the use of British specialized armour, and any attempt to seize the five vital beach exits by manoeuvre. Instead, General Gerow committed his men to hurling themselves frontally against the most strongly defended areas in the assault zone. This was an act of hubris compounded by the collapse amidst the rough weather."[

http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/lewis_omaha.html

Catsby thinks that historians may disagree with your reasoning for the casualties suffered at Omaha beach

 

[Catsby]

How about you go fuck yourself? Lack of respect? Too funny... I'm not taking anything away from the veterans you fucktard, I'm just pointing out the irony of "president" bush being at a ceremony like that, seeing as his governement could easily be compared to the National Socialists. Little shits like you need to reconsider your political bias... seems to me like the Nazis won anyway sometimes.

Catsby can clearly see that Sigurd has failed to recognise that respect for others in this thread is also important.

Catsby points out to Sigurd that no-one in this thread wants to compare Americans with National Socialists, or generally bash yanks. Catsby then adds, other than you.


Hence Catsby invites you to open up a different thread in which you can vent your spleen, and get out of this one so the rest of the forum can enjoy the original purpose of the un-hijacked thread.

 

[Wij]

The allied war effort was a balance of forces, and you can't take one element out and say 'oh if it wasn't for...x..y would have lost. It took all three to beat the Axis; and any one of the three probably wouldn't have prevailed without the others (even in the Pacific, the Japanese would have held on much longer if they weren't threatened by the Australians in the south and Anglo-Indians in the west).

That's what I was saying.

 

[Sigurd]

Catsby can clearly see that Sigurd has failed to recognise that respect for others in this thread is also important.

Catsby points out to Sigurd that no-one in this thread wants to compare Americans with National Socialists, or generally bash yanks. Catsby then adds, other than you.


Hence Catsby invites you to open up a different thread in which you can vent your spleen, and get out of this one so the rest of the forum can enjoy the original purpose of the un-hijacked thread.

People shouldn't have started fucking with me then should they?

 

[Wij]

Catsby can clearly see that Sigurd has failed to recognise that respect for others in this thread is also important.

Catsby points out to Sigurd that no-one in this thread wants to compare Americans with National Socialists, or generally bash yanks. Catsby then adds, other than you.


Hence Catsby invites you to open up a different thread in which you can vent your spleen, and get out of this one so the rest of the forum can enjoy the original purpose of the un-hijacked thread.

Wij concurs that Sigurd's dicussion is off-topic and annoying in a thread of this nature.

 

[Wij]

People shouldn't have started fucking with me then should they?

Wij points Sigurd at a chill-pill and invites him to re-read the order of events in this thread.

 

[Whipped]

Sorry, I know it's off topic again, but please, for the love of God, can the third person talking stop. I can just about handle Catsby, in fact in his case it has now defined him and become resonably cute. But if everyone starts doing this I think I may suffer a head explosion.

 

[Wij]

Sorry, I know it's off topic again, but please, for the love of God, can the third person talking stop. I can just about handle Catsby, in fact in his case it has now defined him and become resonably cute. But if everyone starts doing this I think I may suffer a head explosion.

Sorry

 

[Catsby]

People shouldn't have started fucking with me then should they?

Catsby apologies most profusely, but fails to see why any of us have anything to do with your persecution complex.

Catsby suggests that you stop posting now, or join the rest of us in an interesting topic without trolling.

 

[gmloki]

How about you go fuck yourself? Lack of respect? Too funny... I'm not taking anything away from the veterans you fucktard, I'm just pointing out the irony of "president" bush being at a ceremony like that, seeing as his governement could easily be compared to the National Socialists. Little shits like you need to reconsider your political bias... seems to me like the Nazis won anyway sometimes.

Where's the Irony. Bush has a duty to goto a ceremony like this as he is head of state. You could say that it is part of his job description. You propbably didnt know that though as you are just way to angry with Americans for things you have clearly demonstrated you know very little about. More worrying you have no intention of becoming a little richer or wiser for the experience of speaking with people who do.

Go read a little and come back

 

[caLLous]

Don't apologise Wij, your reply before that was perfect.

 

[Sigurd]

What are you smoking? Seems I know more about america's little "mistakes" than you... not going to get into it here though, people just get confused and upset through their confusion

 

[SoWat]

Good man... now start a new thread and enlighten us on the horrors of all things American. I'm sure you'll have a fair few contributors.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Hehe, absolute class. Sigurd, nobody fucked with you until after you hijacked this thread into an anti american thing, so we happily fucked with you after that because you needed fucking basically.

In fact I believe it was Mr Cdr himself who said:

Yeah, lets NOT turn this into an anti-US / anti-bush thread pls.

Let us just remember the people of all nations who died so we can live.

which seems an entirely polite way of putting it.

But then you went off on one and so the more learned types in here had to go to war. This is flammable stuff I'm typing, I know, but you must understand the disgust that the comments you made have nurtured given the events of this weekend.

Nuff sed.


DaGaffer speaketh the truth, for we did inflict Hitlers first defeat, after which Hitler did a Napolean and marched on Moscow, which just isn't the done thing. That is were he lost the war in my opinion, because fighting front and rear at the same time is NEVER a good plan.
Point is that we had averted an invasion of Britain and so for us at least, the war was not lost. More like a stalemate.

Europe would never have been liberated without the combined effort of the USA, Britain and Canada this is painfully obvious. Maybe my "they died for nothing" statement was a tad harsh, certainly the German soldiers fighting against the Russians had no illusions of what would happen to their families if the Russian troops got hold of them.
So it might not be unwise to say that at this stage of the war they were'nt exactly fighting for Hitler anymore, but to defend their families from a very nasty bunch of people. The Hitler vs Stalin war was not nice by any means.

I'm not sure that the Allies can be partly blamed for WW2 via the Treaty of Versailles though, because although it was harsh, I think it was designed to stop Germany getting anymore ideas about using their military might. At the end of the day, Germany was on the losing side of WW1 and it had cost millions of lives, so I think being harsh wasn't totally unjustifiable.

Just my tuppence and I could be wrong

 

[Tinky]

Sigurd points out Britain had already beaten the Nazis back before america bothered to turn up... nothing against those who died but the politicians leading them? Our.. cousins have a lot to answer for, both then and now. ​

Nice bit of revisionist history there. Forgetting the effort Russia was putting in ? Forgetting the help the USA was giving the UK before Germany declared war on them ? How far back had Britain pushed the Nazis before the USA turned up by the way ?

 

[Sigurd]

The more "learned" types, like that one. Because I'm not extreme right you disregard my views instantly I know...

The whole war thing? Yes we were pushed to the very limit but we still beat Hitler's Nazis back pretty much alone, to the point that he'd prefer to attack Russia than our tiny island. The whole debate americans give doesn't cut it anyway, as humans they had a moral responsibility to stop Hitler, and yet they didn't even enter the war until Pearl Harbour. Bad show.

If someone else wants to make a seperate thread to discuss this, go ahead, but I'll probably get banned or something if I do

 

[DaGaffer]

http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/lewis_omaha.html

Catsby thinks that historians may disagree with your reasoning for the casualties suffered at Omaha beach

Read it again - frontal assault, no maneuver. You just don't do that without artillery and armour, the Americans used little of the first and next to none of the second (the tanks they did use sank), the British did, and they did advised the Americans to do the same, but the US Army had made a point of ignoring British advice since WWI (often with very good justification - we weren't blessed with many good generals), hence, carnage. They were also unfortunate with reconnaisance and other factors, but I don't think historians disagree with what I said at all, which is hardly surprising since I read it in various books, you know, not, actually being there and all that...

 

[Driwen]

I'm not sure that the Allies can be partly blamed for WW2 via the Treaty of Versailles though, because although it was harsh, I think it was designed to stop Germany getting anymore ideas about using their military might. At the end of the day, Germany was on the losing side of WW1 and it had cost millions of lives, so I think being harsh wasn't totally unjustifiable.

thing is WW1 was something everyone had started not just germany/austria. It was just an escalation and it started with a dead austrian prince and Austra wanting to take Servia (as Servia supported/did the assassination)(and then russia joined, so germany joined in, then france and then UK and you got WW1).
Versaille wasnt needed, the democrats didnt want war. However because of a tactical error (not invading germany, so the german army was never really defeated (atleast that what (some) of the army thought later)) and because of Versaille there was the humiliation and the story that the democrats sold Germany out. This and the crisis of '32 meant that Hitler could get to power. Had germany been allowed to grow as a country and not pay off debts to France and UK, have no control over an important industries province and no real army and instead helped and improved relationships (like after ww2) than ww2 might not have happened.

About battle of britain, Hitler knew he needed airsuppority to succesfully invade Britain and as he didnt have that. He knew he couldnt do that. Now if I read it in this thread correctly, the americans really started helping(maybe some american pilots were in the airforce) after the battle had been won, so Britain saved themself on their own. However as many said the americans were needed to take back europe(and africa?).

 

[Catsby]

Catsby has read it again, but has not changed his original point.
Catsby hopes that this may further clarify the point: Utah was a sucess, whereas Omaha was a more costly sucess.
Catsby acknoleges that the tanks they used sank, but that is hardly their fault, as it was due to the size of the waves and the angle of Omaha compared to the other beaches. In Catsby's opinion, the significant failure point was the generals tactics *combined* with the fact Omaha was significantly more dug in than the other beaches, and has SS troops on it. Catsby believes that these two points would have made any assualt upon this beach a very costly one indeed.

 

[Bodhi]

What are you smoking? Seems I know more about america's little "mistakes" than you... not going to get into it here though, people just get confused and upset through their confusion

Look everybody, Michael Moore has another disciple! Another retard drawn in by the ill-informed rabid ramblings of a pissy whiny Democrat who thinks controversy is more important than the whole truth.

Bush a Nazi? How the fuck in the name of all that is holy did you manage to come up with that one then? Oh I forgot, since coming to power Bush has......

1) Slaughtered millions of jews in concentration camps.

2) Invaded all of his neighbours.

3) Permeated a vision of a master race, clearly borne out by all those slim athletic people you see in the United States. And of course the clear domination in population of white people.

4) Executed political enemies. Did anyone see Kerry's beheading last night? That r00led!

5) Ruled through terror and fear. Opponents such as Michael Moore live in fear of speaking their mind.

Need I go on?

If it wasn't for the United States, modern Britain would look very different indeed. Even if we were still speaking English, we would be living in a war ravaged country, unable to pay to repair the damage of a six year war which nearly drained the resources of an entire country and signalled the end of it's "term" as a superpower. The world as a whole in fact, would be a far worse place. Japan would be in a state, and half those electronics you no doubt use day in day out (altho you seem retarded enough to live in a cave) would never have existed. The rest of Europe would be a mess.

In short, I have 4 words for you. Two of them are shut up. You can work the other two out for yourself.

 

[caLLous]

I bet at least one of the remaining two words would be ****.

 

[Bodhi]

Why have they bleeped out the?

 

[Mofo8]

The whole war thing? Yes we were pushed to the very limit but we still beat Hitler's Nazis back pretty much alone, to the point that he'd prefer to attack Russia than our tiny island. The whole debate americans give doesn't cut it anyway, as humans they had a moral responsibility to stop Hitler, and yet they didn't even enter the war until Pearl Harbour. Bad show.QUOTE]

Erm... I'm as anti-Bush as the next man, and view their current overseas "adventures" as nothing short of diabolical, BUT.....

What age are you? Is this what they're teaching at school these days? Britain did not "beat Hitler's Nazis back pretty much alone, to the point that he'd prefer to attack Russia than our tiny island". We got our ass handed to us in the Battle of France, managed to save a lot of men by a miracle at Dunkirk, and by the skin of our teeth put them off invading by denying them air superiority/supremacy over the skies of England during the Battle of Britain. In the years that followed supplies and material from the USA where vital in keeping our country going. Britain didn't declare war on Germany because of some kind of moral responsibility, they did so because of a political and military pact with Poland, France and others.

As for the yanks winning the war... well, they didn't, but neither did we... or the Russians. It took the combined might of all the Allies, both on the Eastern Front, the Western Front and Italy to beat Germany and her allies.

 

[Sigurd]

Look everybody, Michael Moore has another disciple! Another retard drawn in by the ill-informed rabid ramblings of a pissy whiny Democrat who thinks controversy is more important than the whole truth. Someone else a long slow lingering death from SARS or the Cordelia virus would be too good for.

Bush a Nazi? How the fuck in the name of all that is holy did you manage to come up with that one then? Oh I forgot, since coming to power Bush has......

1) Slaughtered millions of jews in concentration camps.

2) Invaded all of his neighbours.

3) Permeated a vision of a master race, clearly borne out by all those slim athletic people you see in the United States. And of course the clear domination in population of white people.

4) Executed political enemies. Did anyone see Kerry's beheading last night? That r00led!

5) Ruled through terror and fear. Opponents such as Michael Moore live in fear of speaking their mind.

Need I go on?

If it wasn't for the United States, modern Britain would look very different indeed. Even if we were still speaking English, we would be living in a war ravaged country, unable to pay to repair the damage of a six year war which nearly drained the resources of an entire country and signalled the end of it's "term" as a superpower. The world as a whole in fact, would be a far worse place. Japan would be in a state, and half those electronics you no doubt use day in day out (altho you seem retarded enough to live in a cave) would never have existed. The rest of Europe would be a mess.

In short, I have 4 words for you. Two of them are shut up. You can work the other two out for yourself.

I'm sorry you disagree with my opinion. You've only made yourself look like a Nazi, however, with your rapid assumptions and anti-liberal views, as well as general blinkers to the world around you... plus, of course, your choice to tell me I deserve to die of a disease. Not that it's rare to find facism on these forums sadly. Since I don't wish to be banned again I won't rise to your insults however.

Some food for thought (you might need to borrow someone's brain for this action) I actually disagree with a lot of Michael Moore's ideas and grew bored and angry with the one book of his I've tried to read - and so gave up about halfway through. The media... I hate to break this to you... doesn't always tell you, or show you the truth, or the whole truth, and sometimes... yes this comes as a shock I know... the media even lies to you! Now couple this with the fact that a lot of the media is greatly "influenced" by various governments, and that governments don't wish certain details to be revealed - using this evidence we can establish some form of reason behind your inability to focus on the truth of america's human rights atrocities. They aren't widely known, or spoken about. Most americans would like to forget them, those that even know about them. But, my poor, blind friend - I can assure you that these things have happened. At the centre of america lies a core of rotten deciet, lies, butchery, murder, rape and all the worse aspects of human nature. You say conspiracy theories - and scoff; this is exactly the reaction governments and media want from people. The amount of women and children who have died at american hands, often after being raped and tortured would shock even you, my neo-nazi friend, but of course, the public doesn't know just how many have died. The instances I've heard of are bad enough but I don't presume they are the only ones. And yet, america is our saviour? A sumblime country, a leader for us all to look up upon? Or perhaps a bully, a murderer, a rapist, and a supressor of democracy.

I don't care what people think, to be honest - call me a left wing twat or whatever you want, but at least try to open your mind to reason, and see that this country so many of you blindly support is evil at its very core, fanatical, facist and will stop at nothing to achieve its goals (September 11th was most likely contrived by the american government) so try, really try to consider just WHY people hate america so.

 

[Stazbumpa]

I don't care what people think, to be honest - call me a left wing twat or whatever you want, but at least try to open your mind to reason, and see that this country so many of you blindly support is evil at its very core, fanatical, facist and will stop at nothing to achieve its goals (September 11th was most likely contrived by the american government) so try, really try to consider just WHY people hate america so.

Now this is getting fucking silly. Please stop before Bodhi, Xane and anyone else with a brain pull you apart in here. Seriously mate, stop and think before you open your mouth, or in this case, press keys. 9/11 setup by the US government ffs, you HAVE to be about 15 years old, right?

 

[Wij]

The media... I hate to break this to you... doesn't always tell you, or show you the truth, or the whole truth, and sometimes... yes this comes as a shock I know... the media even lies to you! Now couple this with the fact that a lot of the media is greatly "influenced" by various governments, and that governments don't wish certain details to be revealed - using this evidence we can establish some form of reason behind your inability to focus on the truth of Sigurd's human rights atrocities. They aren't widely known, or spoken about. Sigurd would like to forget them, those that he even knows about. But, my poor, blind friend - I can assure you that these things have happened. At the centre of Sigurd lies a core of rotten deciet, lies, butchery, murder, rape and all the worse aspects of human nature. You say conspiracy theories - and scoff; this is exactly Sigurd and media want from people. The amount of women and children who have died at Sigurd's hands, often after being raped and tortured would shock even you, my neo-nazi friend, but of course, the public doesn't know just how many have died. The instances I've heard of are bad enough but I don't presume they are the only ones. And yet, Sigurd is allowed on these forums ? A sumblime poster, a leader for us all to look up upon? Or perhaps a bully, a murderer, a rapist, and a supressor of forum sanity.







Show me your eveidence first.