[T and A Man]

I know Guderian forwarded it, but it is commonly known now as the manstein plan, which I described. But it was Hitler who repudiated every other option.

If you don't know what I meant by Fall Gelb,it was a close replica of the Schliffen plan, yes. .. with the first draft having Army Group A heading south of Luxembourg and rushing headlong into the northern tip of the maginot line.

The Schliffen plan was not the right idea, every allied plan was based on them expecting a repeat of it. The father of early armoured doctrine was Liddell-Hart, not De Gaulle, and it was Liddell-Hart who inspired Guderian and Manstein.

[bojangles]

(04-29-2013 08:56 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 08:05 PM)InternationPlayboy Wrote:  

Are you kidding me? Britain was on it's hands and knees. A little longer and Britain would have fallen to the Germans without a doubt had the US not stepped in.

Look, there's shouldn't be much argument about this. The US played a major role in the Allies winning World War II. If you can't see that, then you need to re-read a world war two history book.

The history channel plays a lot of WWII documentaries. There was one talking about U Boats and Wolf Packs and how basically they had nearly starved Britain. One older lady starting crying as she spoke about how on the edge Britain was.

But please don't get me wrong I have mad respect for the British. I mean they fought hard against the German machine.

I blame 1) The Treaty of Versailles and 2) stupid American isolationists who wanted to turn a blind eye to the shit happening in Europe.

Of course, Bush decided to swing totally the other way and start one unjustifiable war.

On a total side note, remembering the Treaty of Versailles and how the victors got a little out on control, I get that it is Alpha to try and assert one as the lead dog etc. But it seems, logically, that just because you won, you need to handle the victory with a degree of class and logic. You treat people like shit, because you can or think you can, at some point people just say fuck it. Ask William Wallace.

The French had no right to treat the Germans like shit, the French are fucking appalling at war and we here in Britain ridicule them constantly for their white flags of surrender.

The Schlieffen Plan was brilliant, just a shame Germany did not execute it well enough in WW1 to take France out completely.

[NY Digital]

(04-30-2013 05:59 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

I get the feeling that in America, you are taught that America is number 1, was number 1 and always will be number 1. Whilst this may help with the continuation of ensuring the mindset a hyper-capitalist competitive society, it probably distorts historical events somewhat. Just look at Hollywood, you'd think America won every war single-handedly with no trauma or loss. It's a very jingoistic society. Especially in the 80's, although it did produce some fist-pumping cool films like Commando etc.

The worst is Transformers movies. They make the American military look like this powerful alien-killing force. Complete BS propaganda.

[Gemini]

(04-29-2013 04:57 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

Europe does have a lot to be thankful for regarding this time perioD. But not so much for the military intervention (which was triggered by Germany declaring war on the US, previous to this the US didn't want to enter the war) as The Marshall Plan which truly saved central Europe from communism.

All true, but without US military might stationed across Western Europe post WWII, there would be no one deterring the Soviets from pushing West once they reached Berlin. Europe needed both the Marshall Plan (to recover) and US military presence for security so that the plan was actually allowed to be implemented. Just look at Afghanistan now. There is no point implementing economic development, if the country is not truly safe/secure.

[Vicious]

(04-30-2013 06:09 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

If you don't know what I meant by Fall Gelb,it was a close replica of the Schliffen plan, yes. .. with the first draft having Army Group A heading south of Luxembourg and rushing headlong into the northern tip of the maginot line.

I believe you are confused, likely you are thinking of the Dyle-Breda plan. Case Yellow was the name of the operation that was carried out.

Like I said just google it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
Code:

Code:

In the first [part of the Battle of France], Fall Gelb (Case Yellow), German armoured units pushed through the Ardennes to cut off and surround the Allied units that had advanced into Belgium. When British and adjacent French forces were pushed back to the sea by the highly mobile and well organised German operation, the British government decided to evacuate the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) as well as several French divisions at Dunkirk in Operation Dynamo.

---------------

Quote:

The Schliffen plan was not the right idea, every allied plan was based on them expecting a repeat of it.

Which is why the first phase of Case Yellow was similar to the Schlieffen plan but deviated as the French had fallen into static, defensive positions.
---------------

Quote:

The father of early armoured doctrine was Liddell-Hart, not De Gaulle, and it was Liddell-Hart who inspired Guderian and Manstein.

Wrong again. That's a falsification by Lidell Hart that's been debunked since long. De Gaulle was a bigger inspiration on Guderian (and in turn Manstein). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#...ddell_Hart
Code:

Code:

Liddell Hart, in letters to Guderian, "imposed his own fabricated version of blitzkrieg on the latter and compelled him to proclaim it as original formula". Historian Kenneth Macksey found Liddell Hart's original letters to Guderian, in the General's papers, requesting that Guderian give him credit for "impressing him" with his ideas of armoured warfare. When Liddell Hart was questioned about this in 1968, and the discrepancy between the English and German editions of Guderian's memoirs, "he gave a conveniently unhelpful though strictly truthful reply. ('There is nothing about the matter in my file of correspondence with Guderian himself except...that I thanked him...for what he said in that additional paragraph'.)"

[Vicious]

(04-30-2013 11:00 AM)Gemini Wrote:  

All true, but without US military might stationed across Western Europe post WWII, there would be no one deterring the Soviets from pushing West once they reached Berlin. Europe needed both the Marshall Plan (to recover) and US military presence for security so that the plan was actually allowed to be implemented. Just look at Afghanistan now. There is no point implementing economic development, if the country is not truly safe/secure.

You're missing the point. This is not something the US did out of magnanimity. It was entirely in their own interest. Which is why I frown at the "US saved your asses" spiel that some with shallow historical insight throw out, because it betrays ignorance of the true motivations that the US had at the time.

With that said it doesn't mean many nations in central Europe shouldn't be grateful for the US aid at the time. Grateful to the generation that fought and worked to keep the nazis and later communists at bay. Not grateful to some internet tough guy who is doing his best to dodge taxes and never served a day in the armed forces (same reason I let Ali be smug on the subject, he has earned it).

Slightly related, great joke I heard at a NYC comedy club recently about today's American generation:
"Grandma, how come you're so hopeless with modern stuff?"
"Sweetie, I used to fuck a guy that killed nazis... I'm pretty sure my vagina changed history."

[Spike]

The US saves our asses is also a well known Tv/movie trope.

An interesting read about it here: America wins the war and America saves the day

[T and A Man]

(04-30-2013 11:03 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 06:09 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

If you don't know what I meant by Fall Gelb,it was a close replica of the Schliffen plan, yes. .. with the first draft having Army Group A heading south of Luxembourg and rushing headlong into the northern tip of the maginot line.

I believe you are confused, likely you are thinking of the Dyle-Breda plan. Case Yellow was the name of the operation that was carried out.

No, I said Fall Gelb, not manstein plan.

Just as OKW always had Fall Weiss for Poland, dating back to the 1920's, and Fall Grun, if the incursion onto Czechesklovakia turned into war, as well as Fall Rot for defence against France coming to the aid of the Czechs.

Fall Gelb was the OKW directive to attack France/Western Europe, it always had been. These 'plan's are strategic, not operational.

How this operation would be conducted would be further refined.

The orginal Fall Gelb, by Halder, used a reinterpretation of the Schliffen Plan with two army groups.

In late 1939, from the link you posted, Hitler overturned in, asking for "Aufmarschanweisung N°2, Fall Gelb,"

As I said, one of them saw the sourthen armour group splinter south of Luxembourg and rush headlong into the edge maginot line. It happaned that a plane carrying these revised 2nd plans landed in Belgium during Sitzkrieg and the allies captured the plans.

Thus the operational conduct of Plan Gelb was altered, this time using the Manstein plan, the fourth operational plan of Fall Gelb.

Quote:

Like I said just google it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
Code:

Code:

In the first [part of the Battle of France], Fall Gelb (Case Yellow), German armoured units pushed through the Ardennes to cut off and surround the Allied units that had advanced into Belgium. When British and adjacent French forces were pushed back to the sea by the highly mobile and well organised German operation, the British government decided to evacuate the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) as well as several French divisions at Dunkirk in Operation Dynamo.

---------------

Quote:

The Schliffen plan was not the right idea, every allied plan was based on them expecting a repeat of it.

Which is why the first phase of Case Yellow was similar to the Schlieffen plan but deviated as the French had fallen into static, defensive positions.

The Schliffen plan was to was encircle the French army. If enacted, i would assetr this would not have been a good outcome as the (retreating) French forces, and the French strategic reserve would have masked the Maginot line.

The concentrated british force, + French 9th and 1st Armies would have been on the german right flank.

The Dyle plan (an allied operational plans) was made to counter a return of the schliffen plan.

Quote:

---------------

Quote:

The father of early armoured doctrine was Liddell-Hart, not De Gaulle, and it was Liddell-Hart who inspired Guderian and Manstein.

Wrong again. That's a falsification by Lidell Hart that's been debunked since long. De Gaulle was a bigger inspiration on Guderian (and in turn Manstein). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#...ddell_Hart
Code:

Code:

Liddell Hart, in letters to Guderian, "imposed his own fabricated version of blitzkrieg on the latter and compelled him to proclaim it as original formula". Historian Kenneth Macksey found Liddell Hart's original letters to Guderian, in the General's papers, requesting that Guderian give him credit for "impressing him" with his ideas of armoured warfare. When Liddell Hart was questioned about this in 1968, and the discrepancy between the English and German editions of Guderian's memoirs, "he gave a conveniently unhelpful though strictly truthful reply. ('There is nothing about the matter in my file of correspondence with Guderian himself except...that I thanked him...for what he said in that additional paragraph'.)"

Which is why is said armoured doctrine, not Blitzkreig. You can look at his here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#...ddell_Hart

"It was the opposite of a doctrine. Blitzkrieg consisted of an avalanche of actions that were sorted out less by design and more by success. In hindsight—and with some help from Liddell Hart—this torrent of action was squeezed into something it never was: an operational design."

Liddell-Hart espoused operational doctrine, Blitzkrieg was not a doctrine. Liddell-Hart's works were all published long before De Gaulle made Colonel.

I agree Liddell-Hart tried to encompass more notoriety from his works by attempting to take credit for the german successes, but he still had the first published theories of armoured doctrine.

[michelin]

LOL

I expected Neil to post something Orange-coloured about his love for the new King of Nassau inauguration.

No bullshit here, instead of a frivolous thread about a Prince, his marrying up an Argentian investment banker (talking about investments...) and Beer, Neil delves into the unresolved (and unresolvable) conflicts of history.

Respect for the Skywalker.

Only minor point: perhaps the thread is a bit too heavy, or polarizing, for this forum? I'm not sure if this thread will clarify doubts on the subjet (the "facts" are different for many amateur historians like us) but hey, it's a legit attempt.

[Tyroc7]

(04-29-2013 05:58 AM)liberman Wrote:  

At the start of 1941 before operation Barbarossa the german military was the most powerful and experienced in the world. It had recently defeated the french army along with the allied expedition force which was thought of at the time as the best in the world in just 6 weeks. The first month of the eastern front against the soviet union was incredibly successful in military terms for the germans. Virtually the entire soviet air force in the western region was destroyed and entire soviet armies had been surrounded and cut off. But the germans massively underestimated the red army ability to mobilize and the determination of the defense so there was no quick victory thus the vast majority of the Wehrmacht was tied up in the eastern front.
Had the Soviet Union collapsed it would be virtually impossible for Britain and America to liberate europe. Likewise had britain made peace with germany after the battle of france the Soviet Union probably would have collapsed after the german invasion regardless of american intervention because there would be no need to defend the atlantic wall with 900 000 solders. Germany ultimately had the power to beat the russians or the western allies but not both and so was defeated.

Interesting what if discussion.
Here’s my two cents:

On Germany defeating the UK: True, the Luftwaffe came close to decimating the RAF. Had the Luftwaffe continued to focus on radar installations instead of cities the air war may have ended differently. It does not necessarily follow, however, that Germany would have been able to invade and defeat the UK because of this thing called the English Channel. Germany was a second rate naval power ill-equipped to carry out and sustain a large scale amphibious operation. As Adam Tooze writes in THE WAGES OF DESTRUCTION “At no point in the war did Germany assemble the naval or aerial forces necessary to dominate the British Isles thought his was not for lack of trying. The task was simply beyond Germany’s industrial resources.” Later he writes “In the summer of 1940, Admiral Raeder and the Kreigsmarine did step up their planning for the construction of a new generation of giant battleships. But these would take years to come to fruition…”

So even with the RAF defeated it is not clear that Germany could have invaded the UK. Germany did not have the fleet to carry out such an invasion nor to supply such an invasion force after it landed.
On Germany almost defeating the USSR except for Hitler’s blunders and US aid: The USSR had help from the US. But Germany also had troops from other axis powers. Check out the order of battle for Operation Barbarossa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_B...xis_forces
. You will notice significant contributions from Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland. True, these troops didn’t measure up to the Werchmacht. But they could and did inflict casualties. The Finns in particular embarrassed the Russians in the Russo-Finnish war and were excellent troops in cold weather fighting. Moreover, until December 7, 1941 the Russians also had to keep between 500,000 – 1 million men in the Far East to guard against a Japanese attack. These troops proved pivotal in throwing the Germans back in front of Moscow.

While we’re conjuring up Hitler’s blunders, what about Stalin’s? Stalin purged his officer corps only a few years before the war. How would the Red Army have performed had their officer ranks been at full strength? The officers who were purged were often the most accomplished and independent thinking (these were the ones who were seen as a threat by Stalin) leaving behind sycophants who were too afraid to tell Stalin he didn’t know what he was doing. Why wasn’t the Red Army better prepared for an invasion that everyone knew was coming. Even without today’s technology you couldn’t line up 3 million men on a border without someone catching wind of this. British intelligence, Japanese intelligence, his own spies and even German deserters all warned the Soviets an invasion was about to come. Stalin’s own generals begged him to move some forces into the rear and to not to try to defend every nook and cranny of their newly conquered territory. Why was the Russian Air Force parked in airfields within striking distance of the Luftwaffe on the eve of the invasion?
If the German army did not have any allies, if the Russians did not have to guard against a Japanese attack, if Stalin had not purged his officer corps, if the Red Army had taken sensible precautions to prepare for a German attack, would the first few months of Eastern front have turned out differently? I suspect so.

One last point about Germany. The Germany military machine was built to win quick wars where the opponent was knocked out in a matter of months at most. The German military doctrine, their weaponry and their industry was all oriented towards quick decisive contests. For example, Germany had no real navy and no strategic bomber. Their tanks, while excellent were less amenable to mass production.
The problem is that the German military machine was fighting a war of attrition first against the British Empire, then the Soviets then the US. It is questionable that Germany could have ‘won’ a war of attrition against any of these powers individually let alone all three combined.

[clever alias]

on the eve of ww2, the us economy was larger than all axis countries combined. us wins, hands down

[Spike]

(05-01-2013 03:14 AM)michelin Wrote:  

LOL

I expected Neil to post something Orange-coloured about his love for the new King of Nassau inauguration.

No bullshit here, instead of a frivolous thread about a Prince, his marrying up an Argentian investment banker (talking about investments...) and Beer, Neil delves into the unresolved (and unresolvable) conflicts of history.

Respect for the Skywalker.

Only minor point: perhaps the thread is a bit too heavy, or polarizing, for this forum? I'm not sure if this thread will clarify doubts on the subjet (the "facts" are different for many amateur historians like us) but hey, it's a legit attempt.

Finally! The first king after 123 years of Queens ( 3 Queens and one Queen/regent)

Didn't wanna start a thread for it. Well all right, a couple of pics then.

Like a boss.
[attachment=11743]

The new Dutch "Argentinian" queen
[attachment=11744]

[Spike]

(05-01-2013 09:34 AM)Tyroc7 Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 05:58 AM)liberman Wrote:  

At the start of 1941 before operation Barbarossa the german military was the most powerful and experienced in the world. It had recently defeated the french army along with the allied expedition force which was thought of at the time as the best in the world in just 6 weeks. The first month of the eastern front against the soviet union was incredibly successful in military terms for the germans. Virtually the entire soviet air force in the western region was destroyed and entire soviet armies had been surrounded and cut off. But the germans massively underestimated the red army ability to mobilize and the determination of the defense so there was no quick victory thus the vast majority of the Wehrmacht was tied up in the eastern front.
Had the Soviet Union collapsed it would be virtually impossible for Britain and America to liberate europe. Likewise had britain made peace with germany after the battle of france the Soviet Union probably would have collapsed after the german invasion regardless of american intervention because there would be no need to defend the atlantic wall with 900 000 solders. Germany ultimately had the power to beat the russians or the western allies but not both and so was defeated.

Interesting what if discussion.
Here’s my two cents:

On Germany defeating the UK: True, the Luftwaffe came close to decimating the RAF. Had the Luftwaffe continued to focus on radar installations instead of cities the air war may have ended differently. It does not necessarily follow, however, that Germany would have been able to invade and defeat the UK because of this thing called the English Channel. Germany was a second rate naval power ill-equipped to carry out and sustain a large scale amphibious operation. As Adam Tooze writes in THE WAGES OF DESTRUCTION “At no point in the war did Germany assemble the naval or aerial forces necessary to dominate the British Isles thought his was not for lack of trying. The task was simply beyond Germany’s industrial resources.” Later he writes “In the summer of 1940, Admiral Raeder and the Kreigsmarine did step up their planning for the construction of a new generation of giant battleships. But these would take years to come to fruition…”

So even with the RAF defeated it is not clear that Germany could have invaded the UK. Germany did not have the fleet to carry out such an invasion nor to supply such an invasion force after it landed.
On Germany almost defeating the USSR except for Hitler’s blunders and US aid: The USSR had help from the US. But Germany also had troops from other axis powers. Check out the order of battle for Operation Barbarossa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_B...xis_forces
. You will notice significant contributions from Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland. True, these troops didn’t measure up to the Werchmacht. But they could and did inflict casualties. The Finns in particular embarrassed the Russians in the Russo-Finnish war and were excellent troops in cold weather fighting. Moreover, until December 7, 1941 the Russians also had to keep between 500,000 – 1 million men in the Far East to guard against a Japanese attack. These troops proved pivotal in throwing the Germans back in front of Moscow.

While we’re conjuring up Hitler’s blunders, what about Stalin’s? Stalin purged his officer corps only a few years before the war. How would the Red Army have performed had their officer ranks been at full strength? The officers who were purged were often the most accomplished and independent thinking (these were the ones who were seen as a threat by Stalin) leaving behind sycophants who were too afraid to tell Stalin he didn’t know what he was doing. Why wasn’t the Red Army better prepared for an invasion that everyone knew was coming. Even without today’s technology you couldn’t line up 3 million men on a border without someone catching wind of this. British intelligence, Japanese intelligence, his own spies and even German deserters all warned the Soviets an invasion was about to come. Stalin’s own generals begged him to move some forces into the rear and to not to try to defend every nook and cranny of their newly conquered territory. Why was the Russian Air Force parked in airfields within striking distance of the Luftwaffe on the eve of the invasion?
If the German army did not have any allies, if the Russians did not have to guard against a Japanese attack, if Stalin had not purged his officer corps, if the Red Army had taken sensible precautions to prepare for a German attack, would the first few months of Eastern front have turned out differently? I suspect so.

One last point about Germany. The Germany military machine was built to win quick wars where the opponent was knocked out in a matter of months at most. The German military doctrine, their weaponry and their industry was all oriented towards quick decisive contests. For example, Germany had no real navy and no strategic bomber. Their tanks, while excellent were less amenable to mass production.
The problem is that the German military machine was fighting a war of attrition first against the British Empire, then the Soviets then the US. It is questionable that Germany could have ‘won’ a war of attrition against any of these powers individually let alone all three combined.

Tyroc7,

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the forum.

Germany naval power was indeed weak but had they bombed all the radar stations it could have destroyed the RAF even with a lesser air force. The bombing raids by the Brits that followed in the years after hurt the German industry so much that they couldn't keep up with supplying the East front and developing their new rockets and other wonder weapons. It was Hitler himself who never believed in rocket power in the 1930's and after the start of the war. His blind faith in the wehrmacht (land forces) kept him from really allocating funds and man/brain power to develop such weapons.
The war would have developed a lot different if it had been raining down V-2's on London from the start of the war when the RAF couldn't do bombing raids.

[Vicious]

(05-01-2013 12:21 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 11:03 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 06:09 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

If you don't know what I meant by Fall Gelb,it was a close replica of the Schliffen plan, yes. .. with the first draft having Army Group A heading south of Luxembourg and rushing headlong into the northern tip of the maginot line.

I believe you are confused, likely you are thinking of the Dyle-Breda plan. Case Yellow was the name of the operation that was carried out.

No, I said Fall Gelb, not manstein plan.

What does the first draft of the have to do with anything? The name for the plan was Fall Gelb (Case Yellow). In my last post I provided you with a source and a direct quote cementing this and refuting your claim.

The end.

Quote:

---------------

Quote:

The father of early armoured doctrine was Liddell-Hart, not De Gaulle, and it was Liddell-Hart who inspired Guderian and Manstein.

Quote:

Wrong again. That's a falsification by Lidell Hart that's been debunked since long. De Gaulle was a bigger inspiration on Guderian (and in turn Manstein). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#...ddell_Hart
Code:

Code:

Liddell Hart, in letters to Guderian, "imposed his own fabricated version of blitzkrieg on the latter and compelled him to proclaim it as original formula". Historian Kenneth Macksey found Liddell Hart's original letters to Guderian, in the General's papers, requesting that Guderian give him credit for "impressing him" with his ideas of armoured warfare. When Liddell Hart was questioned about this in 1968, and the discrepancy between the English and German editions of Guderian's memoirs, "he gave a conveniently unhelpful though strictly truthful reply. ('There is nothing about the matter in my file of correspondence with Guderian himself except...that I thanked him...for what he said in that additional paragraph'.)"

Which is why is said armoured doctrine, not Blitzkreig. You can look at his here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#...ddell_Hart

"It was the opposite of a doctrine. Blitzkrieg consisted of an avalanche of actions that were sorted out less by design and more by success. In hindsight—and with some help from Liddell Hart—this torrent of action was squeezed into something it never was: an operational design."

Liddell-Hart espoused operational doctrine, Blitzkrieg was not a doctrine. Liddell-Hart's works were all published long before De Gaulle made Colonel.

I agree Liddell-Hart tried to encompass more notoriety from his works by attempting to take credit for the german successes, but he still had the first published theories of armoured doctrine.

Again, what does this have to do with anything? I wrote about who influenced Guderian and Manstein. Not a thing about who first published theories on armoured doctorine.

You might as well say Gustaf Adolf The Great influenced them because he was one of the fathers of combined arms (which would be true, but completely irrelevant to this discussion).

[cardguy]

Interesting that the Second World War actually started as a result of a false flag incident on behalf of the Nazis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

[Teedub]

And that's why I get mad with people who insist, with every fiber of their being, that false flags would never happen now.

[cardguy]

They are pretty common throughout history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

Webter Tarpley says that The Gunpowder Plot was a false flag attack. But I have no way of knowing either way since it is so long ago - that it impossible for me to tell which sources to trust.

[cardguy]

For any Brits reading...

Enoch Powell was a fascinating chap. And is a hero to me.

He entered WWII as a private and left as a Brigadier General. He was talent spotted in the kitchens by a superior after responding to a command with a classical quotation.

The guy was a fucking genius. He could speak 12 languages (and started learning Hebrew when he was 80), and was made a classical professor at the age of 25. His favourite country was India, and he was the only one to speak out in parliament against British atrocities in Kenya.

So - I don't consider him to be a racist despite the controversial speech he gave which basically ended his political career (despite widespread support amongst the public at the time).

He got 100% in his final examinations at Grammar School in English. And went on to get a double starred First in Greek and Latin at Cambridge - despite only taking 90 minutes to finish his 'finals' exam (the paper was supposed to last 3 hours). Not bad for a working class boy from Birmingham. Later on - he became friends with Tony Benn as they united in their joint campaign to prevent Britain joining the Common Market.

It is a real shame that a great man's reputation has being hijacked by racists in this country.

And towards the end of his life - he published a new theory about the death of Jesus Christ.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/gos...76685.html

Anyway - all of this is a preamble to what he got up to in WWII.

Enoch was instrumental in helping Britain defeat Irwin Rommel's forces in the Battle of El Alamein. His job was to 'get into the mind of Rommel' and work out a way to out-think him. This mainly involved destroying the supply lines to Rommel's troops.

Anyway - it is pretty impressive when you consider Rommel was one of the greatest military strategists in the history of war. And even more so when you consider the Battle Of El Alamein was the most important battle of the second world war (the Germans needed to win the battle in order to secure oil supplies - badly needed on the Eastern Front - from Egypt).

People don't realise it. But Stalingrad was won on the coasts of Egypt. And Enoch Powell was crucial to that.

On a sidenote. What do you people consider the most important battle in history? Some say The Battle of Kursk or maybe The Battle of Stalingrad.

For me - it is The Siege of Vienna - which took place in 1683.

The Ottoman Army was defeated outside the gates of Vienna. And had they won - the Ottoman Empire would have extended across Europe.

And today, Europe (and therefore America) would be Islamic countries.

To me it is the most important battle in history. And it was the final time that Islam came close to conquering Europe.

Interestingly - I think Osama Bin Laden agrees with me as to the importance of this battle. Since - it took place on September 11th in the year 1683.

Yep - that's right - the Siege of Vienna was the original 9/11. And it is my belief that Bin Laden chose that date for the attacks on America as a deliberate reference to the last time Islam came closest to conquering the west.

[Spike]

You actually believe the Bin laden version?

[cardguy]

I'm not sure what to believe in many ways.

Do you think 9/11 was an inside job? I can't go that far myself. Still waiting for conclusive evidence to back up such claims.

[Emancipator]

The Ottomans just liked to rule over people and weren't too concerned with assimilating conquered lands.
Look at most of the Balkans.

[Spike]

(05-02-2013 02:10 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

I'm not sure what to believe in many ways.

Do you think 9/11 was an inside job? I can't go that far myself. Still waiting for conclusive evidence to back up such claims.

Yes, I believe that but I'm not getting into that whole debate now since it would be a neverending back and forth debate like it has been for the last 12 years.

I'm content with believing what I believe and don't feel the need to convince people otherwise (anymore).

[JohnKreese]

(04-30-2013 05:59 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 05:10 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 08:05 PM)InternationPlayboy Wrote:  

Are you kidding me? Britain was on it's hands and knees. A little longer and Britain would have fallen to the Germans without a doubt had the US not stepped in.

Look, there's shouldn't be much argument about this. The US played a major role in the Allies winning World War II. If you can't see that, then you need to re-read a world war two history book.

You keep saying this, but just what does it mean? The UK (or the Commonwealth if you will) played a major role, as did the SU.

After Germany aborted Operation Sea Lion they no longer had the capacity to invade the British Isles so by what forces would the nation have "fallen"? By the time Germany declared war on the US Britain was no longer a strategic target.

I get the feeling that in America, you are taught that America is number 1, was number 1 and always will be number 1. Whilst this may help with the continuation of ensuring the mindset a hyper-capitalist competitive society, it probably distorts historical events somewhat. Just look at Hollywood, you'd think America won every war single-handedly with no trauma or loss. It's a very jingoistic society. Especially in the 80's, although it did produce some fist-pumping cool films like Commando etc.

Oh, really now?

[Teedub]

(05-02-2013 03:58 PM)JohnKreese Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 05:59 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 05:10 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 08:05 PM)InternationPlayboy Wrote:  

Are you kidding me? Britain was on it's hands and knees. A little longer and Britain would have fallen to the Germans without a doubt had the US not stepped in.

Look, there's shouldn't be much argument about this. The US played a major role in the Allies winning World War II. If you can't see that, then you need to re-read a world war two history book.

You keep saying this, but just what does it mean? The UK (or the Commonwealth if you will) played a major role, as did the SU.

After Germany aborted Operation Sea Lion they no longer had the capacity to invade the British Isles so by what forces would the nation have "fallen"? By the time Germany declared war on the US Britain was no longer a strategic target.

I get the feeling that in America, you are taught that America is number 1, was number 1 and always will be number 1. Whilst this may help with the continuation of ensuring the mindset a hyper-capitalist competitive society, it probably distorts historical events somewhat. Just look at Hollywood, you'd think America won every war single-handedly with no trauma or loss. It's a very jingoistic society. Especially in the 80's, although it did produce some fist-pumping cool films like Commando etc.

Oh, really now?

[Vicious]

(05-02-2013 02:02 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Enoch was instrumental in helping Britain defeat Irwin Rommel's forces in the Battle of El Alamein. His job was to 'get into the mind of Rommel' and work out a way to out-think him. This mainly involved destroying the supply lines to Rommel's troops.

Anyway - it is pretty impressive when you consider Rommel was one of the greatest military strategists in the history of war. And even more so when you consider the Battle Of El Alamein was the most important battle of the second world war (the Germans needed to win the battle in order to secure oil supplies - badly needed on the Eastern Front - from Egypt).

One of the greatest military strategist in the history of war? He wasn't even the best strategist in the german armed forces during WWII. Rommel was a great tactician, the very model of what Von Clausewitz defined as boldness. But as a strategist he was undisciplined and prone to micromanaging. Kesselring's and Rundstedt's records are more impressive, not to mention Manstein which was in another league.

Quote:

People don't realise it. But Stalingrad was won on the coasts of Egypt. And Enoch Powell was crucial to that.

This is just not true. The German presence in North Africa was mainly as an aid to Italy, a favor from Hitler to Mussolini, the theatre held little strategic importance.

Rommel fielded one Army Panzer Corps in North Africa. As a comparison Operation Barbarossa alone included 109 german divisions.

There was no oil supplies to speak of in Egypt. It was in the Caucasus where the most important German strategic objective resided.