Andreas

Spoilsport. HMV - speech on 22 August 1939, highlight by me: Nuremberg trial documents on Nizkor.org

What's the effect of that stuff on cattle?

Blitzkrieg in the understanding of 35-40 is the lightning campaign, not the lightning war. When post-40 it transmogrified into lightning war, it became something different. It also failed. The philosopher in me would like to point out that while it is certainly possible to discuss concepts without first agreeing a common definition, there is little point to it, unless you are a French philosopher, in which case happy deconstructing. While I would like to give Abbott a break, I can not do so. The risks the Germans took were (in conventional military thinking at the time) criminally insane. That they got away with it does not mean that they were sane risks. The idea of the lightning campaign was based on a high-risk, high-reward approach. In Russia the insanity was exposed, and the house of cards that Hitler built collapsed. What would have happened if the French had managed to get their act together at e.g. Arras, or even earlier in their Sedan counter-attacks? Mellenthin wrote after the war, and is not the most reliable chronicler anyway, but he is probably closest with what he says. The quote from 6th Army is basically saying "we can still do what we did in 1918, and it still works. Yeah!" Nothing Blitzkriegie about it. As for explaining it with almost no variation - a quick scan through this thread will show that this is not true. In fact you yourself have used two different definitions in one post - Mellenthin is clearly talking about the operational level, i.e. the lightning campaign, and that is pretty much spot on. While the 6th Army quote is talking about the tactical level. Something completely different. Nobody is denying that the Germans fielded some high-quality formations with very good commanders. They would not have lasted until 1945 had that not been the case. But a lot of these commanders rose up the ladder because they were prepared to take the criminally insane risks. They also seem to have had trouble to comprehend the importance of logistical support, or seem to have thought that rapid success can overcome logistical shortcomings. Rommel is the perfect example for this - instead of going for Malta (sane), he went for Egypt (insane). Manstein also committed some serious errors early in Barbarossa due to a willingness to accept (too) high risks, one of them leaving 8.PD pretty wrecked. What the Germans did is the equivalent to investing in junk bonds. It may go very well for a while and net you a lot of money. But if you don't know how to quit while you are ahead you are going to be in a lot of trouble at some point. That point came outside Moscow, Tikhvin, and Rostov in late 1941, and at El Alamein in 1942.

What facts? Are beliefs now equal to facts? Did God appear to these christians and leave some incontrovertible evidence of a) his visit and his command? I believe a dancing green space monkey told me tonight that I should not go to work today. Do you think my boss will accept my opinion based on that 'fact' as right? I think not. The rest of your reasoning is necessarily wrong, since it starts from the wrong premise that beliefs are somehow the same as facts. As for the US and Switzerland - quite apart from the practicalities, neither of them had an agreement to defend Poland with Poland. As for the bit on Rabbi Ziegler, say hello to him - is he the person who will help you find proof on pre-war atrocities against Germans in Dresden?

Common fallacy. In my opinion, the earth is flat. In my opinion, Salmons are Marsupials who live on trees and eat pencils. In my opinion, John D. Salt is a female svelte 20-something Britney Spears look-alike. In my opinion, Stalin was a humanist. In my opinion, Al Capone was a worthy citizen and valuable member of law-abiding society. I could go on all day.

Haha. Yeah right. I have shown you proof in the form of an independently authored article produced for the internal education department of the Bundeswehr, by a retired Bundeswehr officer, from an official Bundeswehr publication website. If it is not good enough for you, that's your problem. By comparison, you have shown nothing thus far supporting your allegations. Happy digging.

Since I am feeling philosophical. What is hilarious about that? I judge because I can. So can you and anyone else. Nothing singular about it. By posting your opinion on an internet discussion forum you make it available for judgement by others. If that bothers you, don't post.

You are obviously not very bright and struggle with reading comprehension. I was talking about Mike's statement that there was no such thing as Blitzkrieg. That is wrong. There was such a thing as Blitzkrieg. Maybe it is just the aforementioned dimness and lack of reading comprehension on your part. Alternatively I think you are in need of psychiatric help if you believe I have been labelling you anything, and chasing you round the forums. It is you who is doing the stalking. Your time would be better employed backing up your statements in other threads.

I have already done that.

Well, I just don't fancy wading through the brown muck that goes for an opinion in your posts when I come to the forum. Any proof on Danzig atrocities yet?

That Wikipedia quote is wrong on a number of levels. Maybe I should bother to correct it.

What, and let you pollute the forum with this nazi rubbish? I think not. I take it that means we won't see any proof from you on your assertions? What a surprise.

I think there is no reason to dignify any of the neo-nazi claptrap you have been posting with its own thread.

Yes, and historically this was the only reason Germany cited for going to war with Poland. Give your head a shake. </font>

I think that your assessment of the thread as 'silly and pointless' is moronic. The same goes for your analogy with fish in the sea and that you are now trying to paint Michael as the one who started the insults. Is that better? The thread served a purpose, even though Michael's initial premise was wrong. There was such a thing as Blitzkrieg, but it shifted in its meaning even during the war. Being wrong on the premise however does not make the thread silly and pointless - these fora are there for information exchange and learning as much as for discussions about mods, or campaigns. If it bothers you so much, don't open the thread. Quite apart from the fact that I learned something about the Lewis gun.

Since I import it there for personal conspicious consumption.

In German it would be the "eierlegende Wollmilchsau".

In German it would be the "eierlegende Wollmilchsau".

</font>

How about some facts for a change? Poland had no claim, and made no claim on Danzig that was not backed by international law. Germany did. Poland accepted the status quo of the international treaties. Germany did not. Germany nullified the non-aggression treaty from 1939. Hitler ordered the attack on Poland on 3rd April 1939. Poland did not nullify the contract, and did not order to go to war. Poland had not repeatedly lied about its intention and had not taken land of its neighbours, or destroyed independent states and made itself completely untrustworthy in the process. Germany did. Poland did not conduct a take-over of Danzig before the start of the war. Germany did. Poland did not put a couple of prisoners into polish uniforms and shot them outside a small radio station near Gleiwitz to manufacture a reason to go to war. Germany did. BTW - Russia never got Danzig. You must be thinking of Koenigsberg, in which case I suggest buying an atlas. So, now that we have settled this, how about proof of the claims for the Polish atrocities?

It's going to be a wargame.

It's Riesling, you Vodka slobbering caricature of reason.

Confused? Let me help you out - post some proof for those alleged pre-war atrocities against Germans in Danzig, a city under the government of Germans at the time, with a majority German population. It would be nice if, unlike all your other arguments about what Poland should or should not have done, and how evil everybody was with Germany, this proof did not come from neo-nazi or revisionist websites or books. Clearer now?

Where have I called you a neo-nazi? For the record, I have not made my mind up about that, but your point about the corridor is making me lean into that direction, since it can not be explained by simple stupidity on your part. Regardless, it is however blindingly obvious that your arguments are regurgitated rubbish out of the same neo-nazi drawer that contains gems such as "Barbarossa was a preventive war", "Dresden was as bad as the holocaust", and "Hitler was not all bad, it was Himmler who was the evil guy". We are still waiting for any proof on those Danzig atrocities. In your own time. Claiming that Winston also did propaganda is not it.

More neo-nazi propaganda. 1. Well yes, so was southern Denmark, Silesia, and any number of other areas. It's tough if you lose a war, but Danzig was still under more control than any of these, e.g. it introduced the racial laws in 1938. 2. A 25km corridor which would have cut Poland off from the coast. Hardly acceptable especially after the Poles had witnessed what happened to Czechoslovakia. 3. Any proof other than the Goebbels propaganda machine or regurgitations of it from Naziwebsites/books for that? I really do not expect an intelligent response from someone like you, but you can not expect to pollute this forum with your neo-nazi tripe without it being challenged.