German atrocities - Page 3

bub · 08-11-07, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new coup for you

awesome. now the crimes of the german people, somthing history rarely touches, have been exposed for all of us to see. what about the Soviets in Ukraine or the Turks in Armenia or......SHHH- anyway, yeah those bastardly Germans. it isnt enough that they committed these horrifying, and unique, crimes, they've gotten history to completely white wash it over.

i mean, its not as if we're all forced, at intellectual gun point, to read Night, Ann Franks Diary and Another ****ing Holocaust Book beginning in third grade is it?

And thank God the Holocaust hasnt become the politicized gag employed whenever anyone criticizes Isreal or anything any Jewish political organization does ever.

Q: Do I relentlessy talk about German massacres?
A: No, this is the first time

Q: Is this thread aimed at devilizing Germans?
A: Doesn't it rather commemorates the innocent victims of the WWI?

Q: Should I not post historical events you've never heard about because you have often heard about Auschwitz?
A: I don't think so. Furthermore, those are massacres commited during the WWI.

Q: Does it really devilize Germans?
A: On the contrary, I exposed the factors that made them believe the civilians were warriors.

Quote:

1) When, in 1914, they invaded Belgium, they still remembered the 1870-fightings, and were obsessed by sharpshooters.

2) They were also surprised to see our resistance (they just wanted to pass through Belgium to invade France) while they believed we would peacefully allow them to pass.

3) Then, many houses at that time had small narrow openings on their facades (to stabilize scaffoldings when the inhabitants re-paint the facade), which were believed by the Germans to be loopholes for snipers.

4) Furthermore, the noise of the bullets was amplified by the water in the canals (a distant shoot sounded as if it was very close) , and the echo (due to the presence of cliffs or big buildings in stone, like cathedrals) made it impossible to them to guess the origin of the shootings.

All this made the Germans sincerely believe Belgium was full of snipers.

Why don't you rather post this kind of posts to people who (really) bash people all day long? for example the numerous attacks stigmatizing the muslims

Volker · 08-13-07, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

In the end, the Germans got too close to the beach and the ships were ordered not to go back and the surrender was made. If they had kept fighting on, there had been many more deaths and many more sunken ships.

The Britons had a strong fleet and they had airplanes themselves, they could have tried to come back with ammunition and weapons to evacuate the soldiers.

PeteEU · 08-13-07, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

The Britons had a strong fleet and they had airplanes themselves, they could have tried to come back with ammunition and weapons to evacuate the soldiers.

You are totaly ignoring the facts of the time.

1) Yes the UK had the biggest and most powerfull fleet in the world. A fleet who had 2 main jobs. To defend the UK and to keep the German fleet locked up in harbour so that it could not get out and distrupt the vital trade routes to the rest of the world. Especially the latter one was hugely important as the UK imported most of its food and raw material and needed the trade routes to the US and "the empires" to say open. So commiting a large bulk of ones forces to extend the "rescue" and losing quite a number of said forces in doing so, would have been a tactical blunder and a strategic stupidity.. they might have one the battle so to say, but would have lost the war if Germany's navy had gotten out and cut the UK off.

2) The RAF was no where near the size of the Luftwaffe. It would also have the same problem at Dunkirk as the Germans had during the Battle of Britian.. fuel. The RAF could not maintain a constant cover over the beaches from the UK due to the distance and that is IF they had air superiority, which they did not have and would never get with the above mentioned problem.

3) and finaly on top of all that the moral among the troops was ****ty, and it was not a fully functional fighting force by any standards. No moral, barely armed (very few if any tanks for example) and an end result that anyone could predict. Sorry but all was lost at Dunkrik, and no matter how many troops, arms, planes and boats that were thrown into the battle by the British would have changed that fact. Would you risk loosing several major ships, tons of planes and lives to save maybe another 50.000 troops and then not having those ships and planes to defend yourself in an invasion?

Volker · 08-13-07, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

You are totaly ignoring the facts of the time.

1) Yes the UK had the biggest and most powerfull fleet in the world. A fleet who had 2 main jobs. To defend the UK and to keep the German fleet locked up in harbour so that it could not get out and distrupt the vital trade routes to the rest of the world. Especially the latter one was hugely important as the UK imported most of its food and raw material and needed the trade routes to the US and "the empires" to say open. So commiting a large bulk of ones forces to extend the "rescue" and losing quite a number of said forces in doing so, would have been a tactical blunder and a strategic stupidity.. they might have one the battle so to say, but would have lost the war if Germany's navy had gotten out and cut the UK off.

2) The RAF was no where near the size of the Luftwaffe. It would also have the same problem at Dunkirk as the Germans had during the Battle of Britian.. fuel. The RAF could not maintain a constant cover over the beaches from the UK due to the distance and that is IF they had air superiority, which they did not have and would never get with the above mentioned problem.

3) and finaly on top of all that the moral among the troops was ****ty, and it was not a fully functional fighting force by any standards. No moral, barely armed (very few if any tanks for example) and an end result that anyone could predict. Sorry but all was lost at Dunkrik, and no matter how many troops, arms, planes and boats that were thrown into the battle by the British would have changed that fact. Would you risk loosing several major ships, tons of planes and lives to save maybe another 50.000 troops and then not having those ships and planes to defend yourself in an invasion?

The Britons did not know at this time, that large ships could be sunk by airplanes and the Germans had no idea about it, too.
Only the Japanese knew.

Well, the Britons learned it after loosing the Prince of Wales.

The German fleet was not in the harbors, the Bismarck was in the North Atlantic looking for the Hood, for instance.