Philip Whitehouse

So why "wrong-doing" ? As I understand it, strategically, the Soviet Union did not require aircraft carriers so wasn't it a good idea to use the hulk as traget practice ?

The origins of WW1 is perhaps the most debated subject in history and it is difficult to pin the sole blame on any particular country: but some are more culpable than others. It was certainly the invasion of Belgium that brought Britain into the war:- whether she would have come in anyway later can only be a matter of conjecture. To that extent the German High Command following the Schieffen Plan is obviously to blame. As to WW2: on the other hand,there's little doubt what caused it. Even the Germans admit it.

That was target practice, what else could it be called ? What "wrong doing "?

I'm not indulging in änti-German rhetoric:- just stating the facts as I understand them (By the way, since we're bringing up irrelevancies ,I have strong family ties with members from Franconia and Upper Bavaria ). I'll try and simplify the course of events. If anything is inaccurate in fact-not opinion- please advise. Yes, the war was triggered by the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinard which may,or may not, have received sanction by the Serbian Government. Although complying with all but one of the demands from Vienna, Austria- Hungary attacked Belgrade;knowing that while (a) such an action might well bring Russia into the conflict they had received (b) a Guarantee from Germany,offering support in the event of war. With me so far ? As predicted, Russia indeed mobilized, but Germany ,without waiting for further developments, such as the mediation offered, jumped in with both feet and declared war. However, because she faced a Dual Entente (Britain did not enter until after the unprovoked invasion of Belgium) ,Germany believed that France posed a more immediate threat and attacked westwards. France, by the way,had played no part in the original dispute and had withdrawn her forces from the frontier so as not to inflame the situation. Germany ignored that and attacked anyway, and invaded Belgium as well as a matter of military convenience (The Schlieffen Plan). For the next four years, Northern France and Belgium were occupied , plundered and the populations starved and made to perform forced labour for Germany. Post-war reparations were supposed to provide recompense for these actions. Again ,if you believe that there are any errors in fact, please advice. If you really believe this is anti-German propoganda ,you really ought to read Prof Fritz Fischer's Griff nach der Wehtmacht (Grasp for World Power;- Germany's war aims in the First World War) and you will see that I'm going easy on Berlin.

But you stated that Hitler called upon the League of Nations to intervene. Please provide more information. As Germany had withdrawn from the League in 1934 he was scarcely in a position to make such an appeal. Besides which ,this was just not the way Adolf operated.

The wrong way around. It was the military that requested the Goverment to sue for peace. The myth of "The Stab in the Back" was conceived by Ludendorff, among others, to cover the failure of the army on the Western Front. Hitler, of course, took the theme up as he wished to discredit the Weimar Regime.

At last, some sense.

You obviously have very little idea about what actually occured during the July Crisis of 1914. Please give the sequence of events as you understand it. Is it not correct that it was Germany that declared war on Russia ? That Germany attacked France- and invaded Belgium to try to do it ? Did not Germany guarantee support for Austria-Hungary:-the famous "Blank Cheque " ? If that's not involvement I don't know what is.

"Hitler called on the League of Nations to Intervene ". Since Germany had withdrawn from the League of Nations how was that possible ?

But,thankfully, he didn't succeed

"Ruled the world...." ? Not quite.

It's true that Finnish troops did wear the German M1916 helmet, (with white covers) But it doesn't necessarily follow that they were issued as a result of any German alliance:-they also used captured Soviet helmets. Further ,the characteristic German helmet were also used by the Chinese army (as previously mentioned) and also the army of the Irish Free State.

The term "received" is merely the result of an "award". Thus, if there was no "award" there would be no reception. But if "award" is not acceptable, then what ? "Invested" ?

Not really. During the "Winter War" (1939-1940) the Finns used a variety of weapons and aircraft almost all sourced from non-German sources. During the "Continuation War"" (1941-1944) it's true that what armour there was and, later, the Me BF-109G were German.

Australia ? I didn't know that Australia was a potential Nazi sanctuary.