WW2 - the Axis in the Mediterrenean

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


1) Hitler invaded Poland to get back lost German lands, lost at Versailles.

Sure thing. So why did he invade the Sudetenland and what was left of Czechoslovakia, why did he encourage Hungary and Poland to take pieces of Czechoslovakia, why didn't he take the German speakers of the Tyrol into his greater Germany ?

It had nothing to do with righting the wrongs of Versailles in reality, but all to do with a racist, Volkisch vision of a German-dominated European empire of Aryans ruling over subject races.

Hitler immediately offered peace.

He also claimed that he was Poland's friend, and Czechoslovakia's friend, and Russia's friend- when it suited him.

Are you seriously suggesting that he was being generous then too ?

Don't make me laugh.

He did not want war with Britain and France.

He didn't want a war on two fronts- but nevertheless that's what he took on. I've been over the dubious nature of this peace offer before, in detail.

Clearly you dislike detail.

But that was denied by both France and German on the basis they could not trust Hitler.

Hmm. So the man who had a non-aggression pact with Russia and yet was planning in July 1940 to invade European Russia was a man who could be trusted ?

The same man who had his forces enter Prague, and swallow up what was left of Czechoslovakia ?

Gosh, he does sound entirely trustworthy, doesn't he ?

Hitler invaded the USSR because he was convinced they had fallen in with England and were going to invade Germany.

And yet we haven't seen any evidence of this from you- except your insistence that this is what it said on the Military Channel. Must be true then, eh ?

molly, Churchill siezed two Turkish battleships on August 1, 1914.

No, he didn't. They were not yet in the Turkish navy, and were being built by the British.

Their seizure is "the" reason for Turkey allying with Germany

Utter rubbish.

Believe what you want- the facts say differently:

In 1912, Enver travelled to Germany as a military attache. He learned to speak German fluently, and he returned to Constantinople wearing a waxed moustache slightly curled up at the ends, emulating the Prussian style of Kaiser Wilhelm. In his private conversation, Enver made no secret of his admiration for Germany. Enver's elevation to the Ministry of War was a boon for Germany. He immediately instituted a drastic reorganization. Enver had accepted the post (from the Committee, not the Sultan) only on condition that he should have a free hand, and he proceeded to exercise this with a consuming passion. The Enver-Talaat cadre always feared a revolution that would depose them as they had over their predecessors.

Even before World War I broke out, Enver was already contracting an alliance with Germany. So certain was he that Germany would invest in Ottoman rearmament, that he did not bother consulting with the Committee over the details of such an agreement. For anyone but Enver, failure to consult the Committee would have been a death sentence, particularly since many members of the Committee were either pro-French or simply anti-German. Many saw Germany as just another colonizing power attempting to take over parts of the Empire as the British and French and lately the Italians had. Some, like Jemal Pasha, were openly pro-France, and considered Germany's defeat inevitable in any future war.

Thus, Enver finally signed the alliance with Germany on 2nd August 1914, one day after Germany had declared war on Russia.

http://www.geocities.com/enver1908/

A treaty signed between the Ottoman Empire and the German Empire, two days before the British sequestered the cruisers.

The day after Churchill's act of war, the Ottoman Empire signed an alliance with Germany.

It was not an act of war.

but on August 1, the day Britain committed an act of war on the Ottoman Empire.

It was not an act of war.

I suggest you attempt to prove that it was an act of war. Perhaps by defining what an act of war is- objectively.

Now for the "real" reason for Britian entry into the war and for forcing the Ottoman Empire to choose to side with Germany:

Have you even bothered to find out how many of the ships of the British Navy were coal burning in 1914 ?

More to the point- were you even aware of British-German cooperation on the Baghdad-Berlin Railway ?

No in both cases is my well-founded suspicion.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ecthy


I know he does the stuff you describe, I just don't think it'S a reason to treat him like that no matter what he does.

How does one treat someone who knowingly posts lies ?

Who despite having been corrected and refuted, in detail, still posts the same rubbish again and again- and has the unmitigated gall to accuse other people of being 'propagandists' and yet quotes uncritically from Holocaust-denial websites and anti-semitic sources ?

Really, it's all I can do on occasion to stay polite. Derision is merciful.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


How does one treat someone who knowingly posts lies ?

Who despite having been corrected and refuted, in detail, still posts the same rubbish again and again- and has the unmitigated gall to accuse other people of being 'propagandists' and yet quotes uncritically from Holocaust-denial websites and anti-semitic sources ?

Really, it's all I can do on occasion to stay polite. Derision is merciful.

Crap, and you know it.

Check out the "part deux" thread for an update on WWI. It appears that I was right all along about Churchill and the real reasons for Britain getting into WWI. Moreover, I am not the only one who believes it.

It turns out that much of what we know as history concerning the British entry into WWI against Germany and against the Ottoman empire is British propaganda.

Moreover, it is not me, but you who seems obsessed about the Jews, constantly trying to make the case that Hiter planned WWII to destroy the Jews, in part. I have always and consistently contended that WWII at the start had nothing to do with the Jews, but everything to do with Britain vs. Germany as great powers.

I submit, I have proven my case beyond reasonable doubt to any fair reader.

[germanos]

This thread delivers

Originally posted by Ned


Why are you arguing with me. I am telling you what the Miltary Channel said.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ecthy
90% of the local fuel were consumed by transport? Source?

It's somewhere in "The Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–1945". Several books of this series deal with the 2nd NZ Division in North Africa. Alas, I cannot find the exact book and page anymore.

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-corpus-WH2.html

All books can be accessed freely from this page, together they form a detailed and gripping story of an elite WW2 Division which fought in Greece, Crete, North Africa and Italy.

Since I cannot provide a precise cite, I'm not insisting on the exact numbers. My basic point still stands, though, because like Myrddin I think this is pretty obvious: look at the distances from the ports to Alamein, the bad road network/terrain, and then consider that the motorized transports need fuel for the return leg, too.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

1. the roads in Spain were pretty bad, also, from what I understand. Youre going to be wearing out treads, and needing to stop to replace them. Also, even if you can move the panzer divs themselves, youre not going to be able to move the supplies that way.

2. The key issue is time. You have to move fast, before the UK moves to strengthen the Gib defenses, take Spanish Morocco, set in motion the insurgency in Spain, etc, etc.

3. If you move panzers by road, the secrecy OB posits is impossible.

LOTM, I was just pointing out a gap in your line of argument. Now you've closed it. I, too, think that a German offensive towards Gibraltar through Spain would have been quite risky.

[Ecthy]

It does sound sort of reasonable that they'd need large amounts of fuel for the transport, just didn't imagine it'd be 90%. Still don't feel convinced but I'll leave it at that otherwise we'd engage in a discussion of guesstimations and we're not Americans

What I'd like to highlight is more linked to the connection of the Turkish entry into the war on the German side and the seizre of those ships. Anyone read "The Peace to End All Peace" by David Fromkin?

Fromkin produces a more detailed analysis on those events. he found that Turkey lured Germany into the alliance among other things by promising them one of those dreadnoughts in British production. as molly pointed out correctly those were seized only AFTER the treaty was signed. However, Fromkin found hints that Turkey had knowledge of the seizure already before it was done so he regards it as highly possible Turkey offered the ship to Germany only as a phantome chip. Germany, after the news of the seizure came in, was disappointed but left it at that. One strong argument Fromkin uses IIRC is that Turkey wouldn't even have offered warships they themselves needed so bad to another power , especially if they didn't even know what to expect of an alliance with them. So from the Turkey point of view it would have been a tricky game from the beginning.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Crap, and you know it.

Yes, because you deal it out so often.

It appears that I was right all along about Churchill and the real reasons for Britain getting into WWI. Moreover, I am not the only one who believes it.

A crock.

Churchill was not Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary, and could not involve the British in a war on his own.

Something which seems to have escaped your attention.

You simply choose to ignore that the British were in fact prepared to cooperate with the Germans on the Berlin-Baghdad Railway, and that a short time before, the British had been more worried about Russian influence in the area, not German.

Not only this, but you described Britain's sequestration of two ships it was building for the Turks as an act of war- this isn't the first time you've tried this, and you were corrected before- as you also were over your assertion that Belgian guerillas or civilians fired on German troops in World War One, and that this was the justification for German war crimes.

Pity that you hadn't done any reading about the German policy that had been decided before the war began- a policy intended to shorten the war for the Germans by applying 'terror tactics' and thus cowing the civilian population, so avoiding any possible repeat of the 'people in arms' as happened in France in the Franco-Prussian War.

It turns out that much of what we know as history concerning the British entry into WWI against Germany and against the Ottoman empire is British propaganda.

You might think that, because you've proved time and again that your knowledge is distinctly biased and limited.

Really, watching television and trawling revisionist sites on the internet don't count as valid historical research.

constantly trying to make the case that Hiter planned WWII to destroy the Jews

I'm astonished that you can with straight face ignore what Hitler expounded at length on in 'Mein Kampf'- which you claim to have read- and then put into action as soon as his party came to power in Germany.

You prefer however to gloss over it, because then Herr Hitler might not appear in so tarnished a light.

Moreover, it is not me, but you who seems obsessed about the Jews

Actually it was Hitler.

You seem obsessed with overlooking the destruction of European Jewry and the attempted elimination of East European Ashkenazim culture.

Why, you even declared that the Nazi German regime's behaviour was 'more civilized' than that of the Kaiser's in World War One!

Perhaps that has something to with the avowedly antisemitic websites and Holocaust deniers you like to consult ?

I have always and consistently contended that WWII at the start had nothing to do with the Jews, but everything to do with Britain vs. Germany as great powers.

Which is a peachy way of saying you simply haven't bothered to address any of Hitler's antisemitic remarks or policies in any detail.

Because if you addressed his speeches, his writings and the directives and memoranda to the S.S. , police and Wehrmacht, then it would be impossible to mistake his policies for anything other than those of someone hellbent on destroying finally Germany's and Europe's Jews.

I submit, I have proven my case beyond reasonable doubt to any fair reader.

I submit that with your evident bias, preference for partial reading and ignorance of basic historical facts, you've done nothing of the sort.

Forgive me if I don't tread softly on your dreams.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ecthy
It does sound sort of reasonable that they'd need large amounts of fuel for the transport, just didn't imagine it'd be 90%. Still don't feel convinced but I'll leave it at that otherwise we'd engage in a discussion of guesstimations and we're not Americans

What I'd like to highlight is more linked to the connection of the Turkish entry into the war on the German side and the seizre of those ships. Anyone read "The Peace to End All Peace" by David Fromkin?

Fromkin produces a more detailed analysis on those events. he found that Turkey lured Germany into the alliance among other things by promising them one of those dreadnoughts in British production. as molly pointed out correctly those were seized only AFTER the treaty was signed. However, Fromkin found hints that Turkey had knowledge of the seizure already before it was done so he regards it as highly possible Turkey offered the ship to Germany only as a phantome chip. Germany, after the news of the seizure came in, was disappointed but left it at that. One strong argument Fromkin uses IIRC is that Turkey wouldn't even have offered warships they themselves needed so bad to another power , especially if they didn't even know what to expect of an alliance with them. So from the Turkey point of view it would have been a tricky game from the beginning.

Molly does provide details on the negotiations between Enver Pascha and the Germans, but conflates the timing of the siezures of the two battleships with the sequester of the two German cruisers in the Mediterranean. The siezure of the battleships took place on August 1. Britain was not at war with anyone. Austria had DOW on Serbia. Germany had just DOW on Russia, but not on France. There had been no ultimatum to Belgium, but contrary assurances from the Germans. The issue of what France would do was still open (due to confusion).

I am sure the very hostile reaction in Turkey to the siezures emboldened Enver Pasha to finally sign the alliance with Germany knowing his head was now "safer" from those who were pro-Britain. Besides, he kept the treaty secret from most of the government for some time.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Molly does provide details on the negotiations between Enver Pascha and the Germans, but conflates the timing of the siezures of the two battleships with the sequester of the two German cruisers in the Mediterranean. .

I do nothing of the sort.

Please do feel free to actually quote me instead of providing inaccurate paraphrases to serve your own ends.

The siezure of the battleships took place on August 1. Britain was not at war with anyone.

And ? I wasn't aware that one had to actually declare war before preparing for possible hostilities.

Really, do you think Churchill was spending time in a Trappist monastery in the run up to Germany's invasion of Belgium ?

Austria had DOW on Serbia. Germany had just DOW on Russia, but not on France. There had been no ultimatum to Belgium, but contrary assurances from the Germans. The issue of what France would do was still open (due to confusion).

All of which is so much blah, and simply rehashes what anyone knows. Move along...

I am sure the very hostile reaction in Turkey to the siezures emboldened Enver Pasha to finally sign the alliance with Germany knowing his head was now "safer" from those who were pro-Britain.

Are you really ?


And how, precisely, are you 'sure' of this ? Crystal ball gazing ? Channeling the spirit of Enver Pasha ?

You have von Tirpitz as a spirit guide ?


As before, not interested in your 'opinion', I'm interested in facts.

Besides, he kept the treaty secret from most of the government for some time.

And ? There were pro-British Turks too- and a British admiral with the Turkish navy. And British investment in the Turkish economy.


But please, feel free to ignore any and all 'awkward facts'.

You do, all the time.

[Ned]

molly, on SE Asia, American aid policy to Laos and Vietnam began under Truman.

[Ned]

quote:
Originally posted by Ned


Molly does provide details on the negotiations between Enver Pascha and the Germans, but conflates the timing of the siezures of the two battleships with the sequester of the two German cruisers in the Mediterranean. .


Molly: "I do nothing of the sort."

"Please do feel free to actually quote me instead of providing inaccurate paraphrases to serve your own ends"

From post #158

"A treaty signed between the Ottoman Empire and the German Empire, two days before the British sequestered the cruisers."

The only cruisers involved in this discussion are the two cruisers in the Mediterranean. The two battleships in England were siezed on August 1, one day before the treaty was signed, August 2.

On August 1, Germany was not at war with France and no ultimatum had been issued to Belgium. Still Churchill siezed the Turkish battleships.

[Fake Boris]

On the topic of Afrikakorps fuel, let just note that gasoline weights less than water, and that 1000 liters water = 1 ton. German standard trucks were 32 tons.

The thing is that ammunition, weapons, and spare parts were, and by far, the heaviest things to carry, not fuel itself. So if Rommel gets more trucks and fuel, he's reducing the ratio of fuel that logistics are taking up.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

German standard trucks were 32 tons.

Erm, what?! I think you missed a comma here.

[Fake Boris]