What principles?

"To conceal or obscure whatever his real intentions may have been, Hitler dedicated no small part of his diplomatic and propagandistic skill. In his public speeches and diplomatic conversations he monotonously intoned his desire for peace, he signed friendship treaties and nonaggression pacts, he was lavish with assurances of good will. In his conduct of both domestic and foreign affairs he tried to give the appearance of legality, of seeming to conform to standards of German and international law; or, if this were impossible, to explain them on the basis of generally accepted principles that would at least give them the appearance of legitimacy. Upon coming to office he announced that he wanted no more than justice for Germany, a principle that soon developed into a demand for equality in the community of nations and the reestablishment of full German sovereignty. When this goal was achieved with German rearmament and the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, he based a new set of demands on the right of all Germans to self-determination. In each case he appealed to principles the Western world had come to accept as almost sacred.

Not until the German armies marched into a Czechoslovakia deprived of its strategic frontiers and military fortresses by the Munich agreement did Hitler make it perfectly clear that his policy was not based on the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination. Shortly afterward he seemed to make it equally clear that his policy was not based on any principles whatever. For in August 1939 the self-proclaimed defender of European civilisation against Bolshevism concluded a non-aggression pact with the Bolshevik government and proceeded to surrender half of Poland and other large areas of Eastern Europe to Soviet dominion. The champion of the Nordic race then turned his armies against Denmark and Norway, the Netherlands and Britain."

TBC

The champion of the Nordic race then turned his armies against Denmark and Norway, the Netherlands and Britain."

TBC

Was he supposed to sit there and wait to be pounded into dust by these 'Nordic' countries?

Yeah, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands were just itching to pound Germany into dust, now weren't they.


Petr

The quote from JG diary in which Hitler said that methods and legality would not be questioned when they had won springs to mind , it would seem to underpin his principles.

Yeah, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands were just itching to pound Germany into dust, now weren't they.


Petr

Germany could not afford to risk having those countries turn pro-British.

Yeah, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands were just itching to pound Germany into dust, now weren't they. Petr
So was the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

Yeah, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands were just itching to pound Germany into dust, now weren't they.


Petr

You forgot to mention...Britain?

S.t.r.a.w.m.a.n.

Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands were strategic objectives for obvious reasons.

- "S.t.r.a.w.m.a.n."

Britain is a subject of its own, which I do not have time to deal with.


Petr

Nice dodge, brutha.

What agreements as to attacking Germany did Holland have? It was a *NEUTRAL COUNTRY*. That it was a strategic objective is neither hither nor thither. Just because something works, doesn't mean it's right. Although I have seen the definition of "right" and "wrong" change according to who did the thing that is being judged.

What principles?

"To conceal or obscure whatever his real intentions may have been, Hitler [ ...] the Netherlands and Britain."

TBC

Would you mind fully attributing quotations, please, Fade? My first question, upon reading this bilge is, of course, "Who wrote that, and why?"

What kind of evidence is it supposed to be, that someone somewhere at some time wrote something?

More ink has probably been spilled by the perpetrators, their hacks, and their dupes to justify the epic slaughter called WWII before, during, and after the fact, than on any 10 wars you can name. One should be selective, and spend one's time on writings that deal with facts, if one is interested in finding out the facts rather than scoring cheap points at the expense of truth.

So, have you obtained The Forced War, by David Hoggan, yet?

Yeah, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands were just itching to pound Germany into dust, now weren't they.


Petr

That's kind of a simplistic take on the events, don't you think?

What agreements as to attacking Germany did Holland have? It was a *NEUTRAL COUNTRY*. That it was a strategic objective is neither hither nor thither. Just because something works, doesn't mean it's right. Although I have seen the definition of "right" and "wrong" change according to who did the thing that is being judged.

Holland was a 'neutral country,' but anyone who knew anything of the geopolitics of Europe at the time and historically knew that if push came to shove, Holland would be with Britain. The British and the French knew of the vulnerability of the Ruhr regions and the economic importance of western Germany. The second they could place artillery or aircraft on Holland or Belgian soil Germany was running a great risk. Germany could not risk having one of its most important industrial areas if not the most important pounded by artillery fire or swift air raids for some shitty Low Country that historically had been pro-British anyway. Not to mention that the Germans captured British and Dutch intelligence agents working together previous to 'Yellow' anyway, which displayed who was in whose bed.

Would you mind fully attributing quotations, please, Fade?
That comes from the introduction to Volume 1 of Norman Rich's Hitler's War Aims, mugwort. I planned on posting more excerpts so I planned on posting the citation later.

My first question, upon reading this bilge is, of course, "Who wrote that, and why?"
Norman Rich wrote that. His excellent and thoroughly documented study pretty much recapitulates the consensus on the subject. Is Norman Rich one of the Warmasters, mugwort?

What kind of evidence is it supposed to be, that someone somewhere at some time wrote something?
I would say that Hitler's own words are the absolute most devastating evidence against him. They demonstrate a premediated motive on his part.

More ink has probably been spilled by the perpetrators, their hacks, and their dupes to justify the epic slaughter called WWII before, during, and after the fact, than on any 10 wars you can name.
There never had to be a Second World War. In fact, there never would have been a Second World War if Adolf Hitler had been willing to live in peace with his neighbours. Its unfortunate that Hitler's insatiable greed and ethnic hatred drove him to make bloodthirsty wanton attacks upon his neighbours.

One should be selective, and spend one's time on writings that deal with facts, if one is interested in finding out the facts rather than scoring cheap points at the expense of truth.
I know that I am not the only who to notice that you Nazis certainly have an interesting methodology for distinguishing facts from opinion. You hate the Jews and accuse the Jews of engaging in conspiracies to distort the historical record yet cite Jewish authors like John Sack when you find it convenient to do so.

So, have you obtained The Forced War, by David Hoggan, yet?
http://aubiecat.auburn.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&CNT=50&Search_Arg=forced+war&Search_Code=FT*&submit=GO&menu1=%23&PID=7627&SEQ=20041102130408&SID=1

That's kind of a simplistic take on the events, don't you think?Was the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg preparing to attack Germany, mugwort?

Holland was a 'neutral country,' but anyone who knew anything of the geopolitics of Europe at the time and historically knew that if push came to shove, Holland would be with Britain. The British and the French knew of the vulnerability of the Ruhr regions and the economic importance of western Germany. The second they could place artillery or aircraft on Holland or Belgian soil Germany was running a great risk. Germany could not risk having one of its most important industrial areas if not the most important pounded by artillery fire or swift air raids for some shitty Low Country that historically had been pro-British anyway. Not to mention that the Germans captured British and Dutch intelligence agents working together previous to 'Yellow' anyway, which displayed who was in whose bed.

God forbid the Dutch would want to side with the power that WASN'T gobbling down small states wherever it could. Why does Holland supposedly not have a right to protect itself against German aggression?

God forbid the Dutch would want to side with the power that WASN'T gobbling down small states wherever it could. Why does Holland supposedly not have a right to protect itself against German aggression?From the Goebbels Diaries:

26 Novemebr 1939 (Sunday)
"Holland is desperately trying to keep herself out of trouble. But without success. We shall wait a while yet, but then there will be a bitter reckoning in that quarter, too!"

Ibid., p.54

Holland was a 'neutral country,' but anyone who knew anything of the geopolitics of Europe at the time and historically knew that if push came to shove, Holland would be with Britain. The British and the French knew of the vulnerability of the Ruhr regions and the economic importance of western Germany. The second they could place artillery or aircraft on Holland or Belgian soil Germany was running a great risk. Germany could not risk having one of its most important industrial areas if not the most important pounded by artillery fire or swift air raids for some shitty Low Country that historically had been pro-British anyway. Not to mention that the Germans captured British and Dutch intelligence agents working together previous to 'Yellow' anyway, which displayed who was in whose bed.
Holland stayed neutral in the 1st world war and sheltered the Kaiser.

Holland stayed neutral in the 1st world war and sheltered the Kaiser.That is what The Government and The Warmasters want you to believe.

From the Goebbels Diaries:

26 Novemebr 1939 (Sunday)
"Holland is desperately trying to keep herself out of trouble. But without success. We shall wait a while yet, but then there will be a bitter reckoning in that quarter, too!"

Ibid., p.54

Obviously a forgery. The vast and overwhelming Dutch military presented a threat to the peace-loving National Socialists that they could not ignore. In fact, I'm sure incontrivertible proof exists somewhere that had Hitler not pre-emptively invaded Holland they would have allied with Stalin to overwhelm Germany in a crushing Russo-Dutch coordinated attack.

Germany HAD to attack Holland. Her national survival was at stake!

Mugwort , are you referring to the "Veleno Incident" when members of the SS crossed the Dutch border to "capture " / abduct 2 british intelligence officers ?

God forbid the Dutch would want to side with the power that WASN'T gobbling down small states wherever it could. Why does Holland supposedly not have a right to protect itself against German aggression?

It has every right to side with whoever it chooses, but you just forfeited your claim that the Dutch were actually neutral.

From the Goebbels Diaries:

26 Novemebr 1939 (Sunday)
"Holland is desperately trying to keep herself out of trouble. But without success. We shall wait a while yet, but then there will be a bitter reckoning in that quarter, too!"

Ibid., p.54

How much say, exactly, did Goebbels have in foreign policy?

Holland stayed neutral in the 1st world war and sheltered the Kaiser.

Okay.

We were discussing the first World War - when?

Obviously a forgery. The vast and overwhelming Dutch military presented a threat to the peace-loving National Socialists that they could not ignore. In fact, I'm sure incontrivertible proof exists somewhere that had Hitler not pre-emptively invaded Holland they would have allied with Stalin to overwhelm Germany in a crushing Russo-Dutch coordinated attack.

Germany HAD to attack Holland. Her national survival was at stake!

Germany did have to attack Holland. Not because the Dutch were a military threat, though, you are attacking a strawman. They could not risk having Holland or Belgium decide to let the French or British pass through their territory, not to mention directly attacking the Maginot Line or only attacking through one route would have been pretty silly. By attacking through Holland the Germans saved themselves many casualties. It was not worth risking a) the lives of more military personnel or b) the industry of the Ruhr for a couple miniscule Low Countries that could be blitzed through in a couple days.

How much say, exactly, did Goebbels have in foreign policy?He had conservations with Hitler about Hitler's plan for a war against the West.

Mugwort , are you referring to the "Veleno Incident" when members of the SS crossed the Dutch border to "capture " / abduct 2 british intelligence officers ?

One of the supposedly 'British' intelligence officers was a Dutch one. Why were they working together? Dutch intelligence officers were not working with the SS, were they?

Germany did have to attack Holland.This simply isn't true. The Netherlands was a neutral country that had initiated no aggression whatsoever against Germany. The Netherlands had no plan to attack Germany either. The Netherlands was a victim of Nazi aggression, nonetheless.
Not because the Dutch were a military threat, though, you are attacking a strawman. The Dutch did not attack Germany. They did not join France and Britain when these nations (quite wisely) declared war on Hitler over his invasion of Poland. Hitler rewarded the Netherlands by bombing Rotterdam. That says a lot about his character.
They could not risk having Holland or Belgium decide to let the French or British pass through their territory, not to mention directly attacking the Maginot Line or only attacking through one route would have been pretty silly. By attacking through Holland the Germans saved themselves many casualties. The French and the British did not move their forces into Dutch territory. Hitler's war with France and Britain did not necessitate violating the neutrality of the Netherlands either. As Weikel pointed out to you above, the Netherlands maintained its neutrality during the Great War.
It was not worth risking a) the lives of more military personnel or b) the industry of the Ruhr for a couple miniscule Low Countries that could be blitzed through in a couple days.Yes. That is an apt demonstration of the Nazi mentality. It speaks volumes about why historians are also in almost universal agreement about WW2 being caused by Nazi aggression.

He had conservations with Hitler about Hitler's plan for a war against the West.

So everyone who had conversations with Hitler about Hitler's plan for a war against the West is an authority on the Reich's policy with the West?

So everyone who had conversations with Hitler about Hitler's plan for a war against the West is an authority on the Reich's policy with the West?Goebbels is such an authority on Hitler's intentions to attack the West and the neutral countries. We have several other sources which more or less verify the content of these conversations too. Hitler carried out his threat as well. The evidence against him is overwhelming.

Holland was a 'neutral country,' but anyone who knew anything of the geopolitics of Europe at the time and historically knew that if push came to shove, Holland would be with Britain.

Holland stayed neutral in the 1st world war and sheltered the Kaiser.

Okay.

We were discussing the first World War - when?

I believe otto was trying to demonstrate that your claim of pushing coming to shoving "historically" is FALSE, at least in this instance. Can you demonstrate with reputable sources that this is not the case, and that there was a long history of Anglo-Dutch cooperation?

As to your "geopolitics" nonsense circa 1939, You're saying the Dutch were to the point where they'd be willing to sacrifice themselves against a far larger neighbor to preserve an alliance with an ally with a far smaller army and air force than Germany, and who could offer very little in the way of material, never mind direct military help? Please, please, please state your case. It should make for very amusing reading. :rolleyes: I look forward to it.

This simply isn't true. The Netherlands was a neutral country that had initiated no aggression whatsoever against Germany. The Netherlands had no plan to attack Germany either. The Netherlands was a victim of Nazi aggression, nonetheless.

It is true for logistical reasons. The Germans were running a risk having a power vacuum in the area that could be used for either side. If the Allies decided they needed to march through Holland, they would have. The Germans simply beat them to it.


The Dutch did not attack Germany. They did not join France and Britain when these nations (quite wisely) declared war on Hitler over his invasion of Poland. Hitler rewarded the Netherlands by bombing Rotterdam. That says a lot about his character.

The bombing of Rotterdam was an operation to support the glider troops that had already parachuted into the area who were having difficulty. It was a legitimate tactical support operation. Not even the Nuremburg Tribunal questioned it as illegitimate. As for Hitler's character concerning the Rotterdam bombing, I am not so sure that he was the one who ordered it.


Yes. That is an apt demonstration of the Nazi mentality. It speaks volumes about why historians are also in almost universal agreement about WW2 being caused by Nazi aggression.

Nazi aggression was a factor, but historians are also in almost universal agreement concerning the contribution of the Versailles Treaty to the causation of the Second World War. Two hundred years from now historians may even consider the First and Second World War the same war. There were other states who were fairly aggressive in the late 30s as well.

I believe otto was trying to demonstrate that your claim of pushing coming to shoving "historically" is FALSE, at least in this instance. Can you demonstrate with reputable sources that this is not the case, and that there was a long history of Anglo-Dutch cooperation?

There is a longer history of Anglo-Dutch cooperation than Dutch cooperation with anyone else. In terms of European continental wars..
Who did the Dutch align with against the Spanish Hapsburgs?
Against Louis XIV?
The French Revolution?


As to your "geopolitics" nonsense circa 1939, You're saying the Dutch were to the point where they'd be willing to sacrifice themselves against a far larger neighbor to preserve an alliance with an ally with a far smaller army and air force than Germany, and who could offer very little in the way of material, never mind direct military help? Please, please, please state your case. It should make for very amusing reading. :rolleyes: I look forward to it.

The French and the British had a far smaller army and air force than Germany? Are you kidding? Why not include navy as well?

The two oficers SIS section Captain Payne Best and Captain Richard Stevens , both captured.

Who did the Dutch align with against the Spanish Hapsburgs?
Against Louis XIV?
The French Revolution?

That was a case of mutual enemies who were attacking the Netherlands.

In general it was the British who were the active factor, Britain protected the independence of the lowlands to protect ITSELF from invasion. If the lowland states were not invaded they would not become "pro British". Holland would have stayed neutral in WWII out of fear if not invaded but as Managainsttime correctly pointed out in a later post( after he said Hitler couldn't risk Holland going pro British) the invasion of Holland was a support operation for the main force invading France through Belgium( and to decieve the allies into think the Germans were following the textbook Schliefflen plan which did call for the invasion of Holland even though that was not carried out in the 1st world war).

The two oficers SIS section Captain Payne Best and Captain Richard Stevens , both captured.

Yes, there were two British agents captured, along with their driver and another officer. The other officer turned out to be a Dutch intelligence officer. Are you trying to drive a point here, or are you forcing me to read your poorly written posts for no reason?

That was a case of mutual enemies who were attacking the Netherlands.

Not in every case. Louis XIV attacked Spain to secure the Franche-Comte region and Flanders, Netherlands then aligned with England and Sweden before Louis XIV made any gestures toward it. Holland also declared war against France after the French executed Louis XVI. In both cases the Netherlands were not being attacked.

In any case, while the Netherlands declared itself neutral, the Germans had a realistic reason to overrun it imo. It was not the result of some sadistic, insane dictator who wanted to subjugate the world, but because strategically it was the smartest thing to do at the time. If Hitler was bent on attacking every neutral country in Europe for no reason whatsoever other than that he was perhaps a bloodthirsty madman, surely the Swiss, Spanish and Swedish would have fallen. I have reason to doubt that Yellow would have been as successful as it was without blitzing through the Low Countries.

"MAT" I am not forcing you to do anything .
Netherlands and belgium both neutral.
Netherlands and Belgium both invaded by Hitler. Ruhr would have been bombed in any case.
Reason for invasion more to do with aggressive attack than defending or denying airfields.
Hitlers principles, did Norway or Denmark declare war on Germany ?
His principles reflect the actions of his goverment , you may take from this what you will.
Please don't feel forced to do anything on my account.

MAT, Let me start off by apologizing for the tone I took with you in my last post. Didn't mean to come across as such a jerk. Not that i agree with you on much of anything, of course...but that's not at all the same thing. I'll try to take a higher tone from now on.

There is a longer history of Anglo-Dutch cooperation than Dutch cooperation with anyone else. In terms of European continental wars..


Well, yes, but they fought two wars, in one of which, if I recall correctly, a good chunk of London was burnt. Not sure if you can call that a "continental" war, but it hardly reeks of cooperation.

Who did the Dutch align with against the Spanish Hapsburgs?

Agreed, actually. Then they fought the two wars. :p

Against Louis XIV?

This is the War of the Grand Alliance, right? IIRC, England was the LAST country to join the alliance against France. Also, I'd have to check this, but I'm pretty sure there were a couple of minor (or perhaps not so minor) wars on Dutch territory involving France during Louis' reign in which Britain took no part.

The French Revolution?

I don't see how you can say the various "Coalition" Wars were to preserve Dutch independence so much as they were to defeat Napoleon. IOW, England was not at war with France just over the Netherlands, and I'll go out on a limb and say they weren't even primarily at war with the France of Napoleon over this.


The French and the British had a far smaller army and air force than Germany? Are you kidding? Why not include navy as well?

What you were discussing earlier didn't include the French. And even if you had, so what? The French were obviously cowering behind their fortifications, unwilling to wage an offensive war, never mind to send troops to the Netherlands (even if Belgium would grant passage). On paper the French had an impressive sized army, but they were comically slow to mobile, and once moblized sat in place like statues.

I didn't mention navies because the Netherlands and Germany share a fairly long common border. There's not much a navy can do there, I'd say. In fact, I'd like to hear how either France or Britain could even get a substantial enough force into the Netherlands, assuming Germany uncharacteristically honored Dutch neutrality, to pose a credible military threat to Germany. They had not the transport to do it in any sort of reasonable time.

As to the air force, hmmm. I've been reading Charles Lindbergh's Wartime diaries, and that may be coloring my thinking. In Lindbergh's view, France and Britain were woefully behind Germany in terms of both the quality and quantity of the planes in production. But even if they weren't...you'd still have to figure out a way to get the planes based in the Netherlands, while the Germans could literally park their planes on the border.

In sum, I think you're wrong. You're overstating the willingness of either the Dutch or English to act on the other's behalf, and you're not making a credible case that the Holland posed any sort of threat, even in the unlikely event the British or French were willing to somehow try to reinforce them.

This is the War of the Grand Alliance, right? IIRC, England was the LAST country to join the alliance against France. Also, I'd have to check this, but I'm pretty sure there were a couple of minor (or perhaps not so minor) wars on Dutch territory involving France during Louis' reign in which Britain took no part.

There were later wars involving Dutch territory, but the Dutch made the first belligerent moves after Louis attacked Spanish territory. The Dutch allied with both Sweden and England against him and made themselves a target.


I don't see how you can say the various "Coalition" Wars were to preserve Dutch independence so much as they were to defeat Napoleon. IOW, England was not at war with France just over the Netherlands, and I'll go out on a limb and say they weren't even primarily at war with the France of Napoleon over this.

I was not discussing what the wars were intended for, but I was discussing the history of Anglo-Dutch cooperation. Again, the Dutch could have been neutral - they could have even sided with the French, seeing as how they were historically slightly opposed to strong centralized authority - but they risked their security to align themselves with Britain, as almost always. The British were at war with the French, originally, probably because of opportunity, later on it was for 'balance of power politics' as always.


What you were discussing earlier didn't include the French. And even if you had, so what? The French were obviously cowering behind their fortifications, unwilling to wage an offensive war, never mind to send troops to the Netherlands (even if Belgium would grant passage). On paper the French had an impressive sized army, but they were comically slow to mobile, and once moblized sat in place like statues.

Certainly a strong navy would be fairly important seeing that if the Dutch had their ports blockaded, they would be screwed. What is 'on paper' before a war happens is what matters. Nobody was thinking the French and even the British would fight that poorly during Yellow. With all things considered, Britain was in a better position than Germany directly prior to World War 2. They had a larger empire, navy, access to more resources, and arguably an equal if not superior air force. While their army was probably not as proficient and maybe not as large, this is just one factor seeing as the British never fight alone on land anyway.


I didn't mention navies because the Netherlands and Germany share a fairly long common border. There's not much a navy can do there, I'd say. In fact, I'd like to hear how either France or Britain could even get a substantial enough force into the Netherlands, assuming Germany uncharacteristically honored Dutch neutrality, to pose a credible military threat to Germany. They had not the transport to do it in any sort of reasonable time.

Have you ever seen a map of Europe? The British and French could just march in. The BEF and French directly attacking eastward into something like the West Wall would have been suicide. If they planned on making an attack into Germany, they would have to pull the same maneuver or they would have suffered HEAVY casualties, something they did not want to do. Access to the land area and air space of the Low Countries would mean the British and French could pound the Ruhr region from a distance and destroy the Germans economically. This is precisely what Hitler feared which is why he made the first move. AGAIN, was Hitler supposed to stand around and wait to be pounded into dust? The Netherlands and Belgium posed no threat, but the British and French crossing into Belgium and France was a huge threat - and seeing as how, as I mentioned before, a direct attack into Germany from the French border would be suicide, I am sure it is something even the Anglo-French leadership considered.


As to the air force, hmmm. I've been reading Charles Lindbergh's Wartime diaries, and that may be coloring my thinking. In Lindbergh's view, France and Britain were woefully behind Germany in terms of both the quality and quantity of the planes in production. But even if they weren't...you'd still have to figure out a way to get the planes based in the Netherlands, while the Germans could literally park their planes on the border.

This is Lindbergh's opinion. Lindbergh was not in the German, French or British air force so whether or not his opinion is that valid is up to you.


In sum, I think you're wrong. You're overstating the willingness of either the Dutch or English to act on the other's behalf, and you're not making a credible case that the Holland posed any sort of threat, even in the unlikely event the British or French were willing to somehow try to reinforce them.

Where did I say Holland itself posed a military threat? Seriously, you people call 'strawman' a lot, but I never see it used more. Let me put it in bold print for you:

THE THREAT DID NOT COME FROM THE DUTCH MILITARY. THE THREAT CAME FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF BRITAIN AND FRANCE USING HOLLAND AS A BASE OF OPERATIONS AGAINST GERMANY.

A couple small, shitty Low Countries was not worth the risk of losing more German divisions than would be lost otherwise and German industry. Do you guys want any tissues?

If we're going to accept the idea that it's OK for Germany to do what it likes to protect Germany, then are we also going to accept the idea that it's OK for Britain to do what it likes to protect Britain?

I mean, selfishness can't go one way only. The British wanted to protect themselves against German expansionism.

M.A.T.
Your assessment of British power both , R.N. and R.A.F..
The R.N. did not have sufficent ships to protect the trade routes to empire, they proved not to have enough escorts to provide anything but a tissue thin cover to the Atlantic convoys.
Remember Churchill having to almost beg for those 50 old four stack destroyers ?
Capital ships , mostly old out dated the majority of which had seen action at Jutland.
On paper the R.N. looked good but in reality it was weak.
The R.A.F. majority of aircraft poor and not a match for modren fighter aircraft.
The Bomber force , well the Wellington was the only remotely modern aircraft.
Its day light outings had shown it to be extremely vunerable.
Dowding's letter saying that no more fighter aircraft be sent to France , hardly describes a force with aircraft or pilots to spare.
You are describing an air force which in 37-38 was largely bi-plane.

The invasion of Holland had more to do with expansion that defending , the main attack went in at Sedan.
With that success any troops sent into Belgium were already out flanked and at risk of being isolated.

If I might quote the Fuhrer to you regarding Dutch and belgian neutrality and his respect for it :
" I shall attack France and England at the most favourable and earliest moment. Breach of the neutrality of Belgium and Holland is of no importance.
No one will question that when we have won"
A man of principle , the Fuhrer.

Where did I say Holland itself posed a military threat? Seriously, you people call 'strawman' a lot, but I never see it used more. Let me put it in bold print for you:

THE THREAT DID NOT COME FROM THE DUTCH MILITARY. THE THREAT CAME FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF BRITAIN AND FRANCE USING HOLLAND AS A BASE OF OPERATIONS AGAINST GERMANY.

A couple small, shitty Low Countries was not worth the risk of losing more German divisions than would be lost otherwise and German industry. Do you guys want any tissues?

Can you explain why Holland and Belgium's borders are so drastically altered in German plans for post-war Europe, if the reason for occupation was merely to prevent the Allies from making a landing?

Hitler did have principals he was not a amoral man but that said, look at some of the people who had a big influence on his thinking. Machiavelli and Nietzsche and the events and situations he lived threw in his life that molded his world view.

As for the details of the second war to bleed the white race. Hitler did not want a war in the West but he was going to have one in the East sooner or later the Poland attack was to take back the rest of Germanys land and maybe a few other things too. But the West would not make peace and declared war. So he struck them premptive which is the smart thing. But he was too nice and over confident and did not finish the job in the West.

As for the East there seems to be two schools of thought one being that Hitler attacked Stalin frist and broke the pact. And the other that Stalin's forces were gearing up to attack the Axis soon and Hitler just struck frist. There is evidence to support either one and and as well debunk it. It seems a problem that when people start to debate Hitler, they get caught up in moral absolutes either he was totally good or totally bad.

Was he supposed to sit there and wait to be pounded into dust by these 'Nordic' countries?


Its interesting that in post-war plans and maps in Nazi Germany, the Norweigan city of Trondheim was slated to be the world's largest naval port, serving the German fleet.

As for the East there seems to be two schools of thought one being that Hitler attacked Stalin frist and broke the pact. And the other that Stalin's forces were gearing up to attack the Axis soon and Hitler just struck frist. There is evidence to support either one and and as well debunk it.

The best evidence debunking it being the fact that the Soviet military was completely unprepared for war in 1941 in any way, shape, or form.

- "The best evidence debunking it being the fact that the Soviet military was completely unprepared for war in 1941 in any way, shape, or form."


Excuse me, but Stalin already had a huge army ready in 1941 with a huge number of tanks and airplanes. It was not prepared as possible, but pretty prepared anyways.

It was only because Soviets had a lousy leadership that they suffered such losses in the beginning.

If you're going to dispute Viktor Suvorov's scheme, you might as well post some scholarly material. I'd be impressed if you'd be able to convinvingly refute it.


Petr

The best evidence debunking it being the fact that the Soviet military was completely unprepared for war in 1941 in any way, shape, or form.See Gabriel Gorodetsky's Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion.

General Kurt von Tippelskirch estimated in his thorough "Geschichte des Zweiten Weltkriegs (History of the Second World War, 1951)" (I have read the Finnish translation), that USSR did intend to go to war with Germany sooner or later, but probably not yet in 1941 though.

He thought that ice-cold, calculating Kreml politicians wouldn't have risked going into offensive against Germany when it had only tiny amount of its forces tied against England.


Petr

Excuse me, but Stalin already had a huge army ready in 1941 with a huge number of tanks and airplanes. It was not prepared as possible, but pretty prepared anyways.


Stalin had just completed a purge of the upper leadership of the army, and the vast majority of the tanks and aircraft in serve at the time were utter garbage. The Soviets had a bad habit of refusing to throw anything away. So next to modern battle tanks you had tankettes from the 1920s.


It was only because Soviets had a lousy leadership that they suffered such losses in the beginning.


The Red Army along the border was under orders NOT to prepare defensive positions FOR FEAR THAT Germany might take that as a provocation. The notion that a nation bent on an invasion of a state it wasn't even going to prepare itself to defend against for fear of provoking it seems a bit far fetched.


If you're going to dispute Viktor Suvorov's scheme, you might as well post some scholarly material. I'd be impressed if you'd be able to convinvingly refute it.


I'll be happy to do so. I have a book which discusses this in some detail. BTW, as I understand it, one of Suvorov's pillars is a claim from Pravda in the 1980s. :p

- "Stalin had just completed a purge of the upper leadership of the army, ..."


Actually, that had been done already in 1937, four years before that.

Also Heinrich Himmler saw it otherwise: it was precisely the purges that had on the long run made the Soviet army more prepared for a life-and-death conflict with Germany:

"When -- I believe it was in 1937 or 1938 -- the great show trials were being held in Moscow, and the ex-Czarist officer and later Bolshevik general Tuchachevski and other generals were shot, we were, at that time, all over Europe, even in the Party and the SS, of the opinion that the Bolshevik system, and therefore Stalin, had made one of its most serious mistakes. We were absolutely mistaken in this judgment of the situation. We can state this, once and for all, in a spirit of full respect for the truth. I believe that Russia could not have withstood the two years of war -- it is now in the third year of war -- had it retained its ex-Czarist generals."

http://www.cwporter.com/posen.htm


Petr