Spitfire Mk IX - stability issues

[Karnak]

No Barbi, you're a Nazi appologist for claiming that the Nazi's came to power fairly and legally, for claiming that A.Hitler had the support of the people whereas Churchill did not (massive historical revision there), and for claiming that what the Nazis were doing was no different than what the colonial powers had done.

You are a Nazi appologist for trying to excuse the Nazis by saying "They did it too!!"

That doesn't mean the colonial powers were nice or good or right.  It most certainly was not and most countries have things in their pasts that they're not proud of.  Few come close to the Nazis, Soviets or Imperial Japanese.

[MiloMorai]

Yes Dan, true they were, but if Barbi would stop his 'German is superior, all else is crap', there would be no 'pissing contests' which are only there because Barbi's crap has to be debunked.


Barbi, you are a laugh a minute. Proof of the accusations you stated are required. But then we all know, if your life depended on it you could not tell the truth, being a habitual liar and twister of facts. In fact, you did not show up on that site for a long time, being warned, because you could not control yourself, as you are doing now.

Barbi tell us about how you think British camps in the Boer War were worse (not worser ) than the German concentration/extermination camps.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Karnak
No Barbi, you're a Nazi appologist for claiming that the Nazi's came to power fairly and legally,

[/B]

Hmm. They won the elections in 1933. I guess that`s a commonly accepted historical fact. Of course that doesn`t make them nice people.

for claiming that A.Hitler had the support of the people

[/B]

You say he didn`t?  
Another best for today.

whereas Churchill did not (massive historical revision there),

[/B]

Yeah just because you say so. OK - how many votes WSC got in 1940?


[/QUOTE][/B]and for claiming that what the Nazis were doing was no different than what the colonial powers had done.[/QUOTE]
[/B]

Like, killing masses of people to gain their land, calling them inferior races, planning to put your own colonist in their place - wasn`t that what the BE was doing for centuries?

Oh, wait, I forgot you only post this ***** because you don`t like hearing about British crimes.

You are a Nazi appologist for trying to excuse the Nazis by saying "They did it too!!"

[/B]

No, I am not a nazi apologist just because a sorry prettythanghat on a BB says so.

That doesn't mean the colonial powers were nice or good or right.  It most certainly was not and most countries have things in their pasts that they're not proud of.  Few come close to the Nazis, Soviets or Imperial Japanese.

And you are calling others apologists? ROFLOL. Just read your own crap: "but look at them, they were so much worser than us, let`s forget about our past, and only talk about theirs."

You are an apologist, and a hypocrite.

[Karnak]

Barbi,

Where did I say forget that stuff?  I do not think that it should be forgotten.  It needs to be taught in our history classes so that it never happens again.

You, on the other hand, are claiming that the Nazis came to power legaly.  The did not.  The used lies and violence to set up an environment where they could subvert the law.

As to Churchill, votes and support are not synonomous.  That is an elementry mistake, so much so that I must believe that you are intentionally lying.  Splitting my contrast remark about Hitler and Churchill is another intelectually dishonest method of arguing.  You use it to imply that I claimed Hitler did not have the popular support of the Germans which I did not claim.

Now I will though.  Hitler was elected by a minority of Germans in 1933.  At that time he did not have the general support of the German people.  Later, through effective use of propaganda as well as the poor situation of the German populace, Hitler did have popular support, but like Churchill it could not be counted in votes.


Claiming that the Nazis were no different than the colonial empires is highly misleading and rather Stalinistic.  About the only colonial power that I can think of that can be directly compared would be the Spanish Conquistadores.  The more modern colonial powers did not have the habit of rounding entire people's up and systematically and industrially killing them after using them for slave labor.  They did perpatrate massacres and the diseases they brought in killed millions.  They opressed and enslaved populations.  They setup pupet governments to act as their proxies.  However I cannot think of a single British, as the British seem to be your pet hate,  attempt to exterminate a race of people from the earth or a British goal to eliminate whole peoples that did not yet have power over.


Me a hypocrite?  On some things certainly, but not this.

[Nashwan]

Yeah just because you say so. OK - how many votes WSC got in 1940?

Isegrim, you don't seem to understand the British parliamentary system.

Prime Ministers are not elected by the people.

Members of parliament are elected by the people, they chose a prime minister, and the prime minister serves as long as he has the support of the elected representitives.

Churchill had more support amongst those elected representitives than Chamberllain, or indeed than any British PM.

Karnak, Isegrim holds some rather "strange" views on Germany and the Nazis, for eample the culpability of the Nazis in regards to the millions of Russians pows who died in their care, the legality of murdering hostages in reprisals, the legality of murdering captured British soldiers, the responsibility for starting the war, etc. see for example http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1337
 (page 8 makes interesting reading)

[Angus]

Churchill's first job as a PM was to form a cross-political government. That means, the labour party had it's hand in the war business from Churchill's entry.
That means that Britain was absolutely ready to fight Hitler, regarding politics. The back-up was much more than the back-up Hitler had from the German nation. He got to power technically legally, and then sealed the possibility for a change. The Germans got screwed by the Nazi's, so to say.
Political opponents of Hitler as far down as to the 30's were being executed throughout WW2
Churchill was a very clever man, and foresaw quite clearly what Hitler WAS.
Britain keeping out of the Polish business, or even submitting to Hitler in 1940 would not have stopped a catastrophy. Already in June 1940, Hitler wanted to have a go at the Russians. He did have some admiration for the British, and secondly he considered the Britis with their colonies to be a necessary world power for the worlds equilibrum. Also, he confessed that Germany did not have the Naval power to take care of the British colonies.
(in a positive meaning of the term)
Germany would have waged war against the USSR, and in my opinion might have succeeded there, had their total powers not so largely been tied up in other affairs. With the Brits at war, an incredible amount of the German war effort was tied up. Naval, Air and from the opening of the N-African theater, on land. Later on, on the defensive at multiple fronts.

The Nazi policy, which Churchill seems to have realized amaisingly well already in 1939/40 (The truth all came out in the end) went on none the less. Never has the world seen so good planned wickedness at work, and it continued untill the last days of the war. Germany, the effective nation, was a slave of an inhumane master, the NAZI. Well, they stepped into it, but they never knew what it would become, otherwise they wouldn't have.
That was my WW2 in a teacup. Isengrim/Barbi - feel free to debate it, and I would recommend you start a thread about it.

Now, here comes my fullhearted opinion of waht you were writing in the linked thread, as well as for your input on this thread:

 You should be ashamed for your imbecilic crap, and for bringing it into this forum. Go read very much more books reflecting something than just the Nazi side of WW2.
What Karnak said, i.e. that you are a Nazi apologist, I think it is an understatement.
You seem not to agree with his stab anyway:
"No, I am not a nazi apologist just because a sorry prettythanghat on a BB says so. "

Call me sorry if you like, but I'd consider you a Nazi, rather than a Nazi apologist.
Or a Nazi revisionist.
Take that and I hope you shut up.

[Crumpp]

Izzy,

There is no excuse in the world for what the NAZI's did.  They were an evil blight on the world that needed to be stamped out.  Too bad the World did not recognize the threat the in early 30's.   Hopefully we have learned and will act accordingly.
 
ALL the colonial powers have blood on their hands they are not proud of spilling.
 
There is a HUGE moral leap between adopting harsh measures to protect your citizens in a foreign colony and the systematic murder of an entire race of people who did nothing but contribute to your society as responsible citizens.

Could the colonial powers have handled things much better, OF COURSE.

Too compare the Holocaust with Colonialism though is both intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Now lets get back on topic and save this crap for the O Club.

Crumpp

[Angus]

Bloody well agree.
Izzy, do it


GRRRRR

[Charge]

I fully agree with Guppy and Crumpp. Well said.

-C+

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Karnak, Isegrim holds some rather "strange" views on Germany and the Nazis, for eample the culpability of the Nazis in regards to the millions of Russians pows who died in their care,

[/b]

What exactly "strange" on that ? I said it wasn`t a war crime, unless it was done on purpose, not that they weren`t responsible for it ! Of course with a bit of lying you can try to turn it upside down. Millions of Soviet POWs died in German prison camps, particularly in 1941, being badly supported with food. The same happened in 1945`s allied prison camps, just do some reading on it. I take an equal footing on both, and say neither was a war crime unless it was intended.



As for responsibilty for mass death is concentration camps, let`s see what Nashwan/Hop says about Boer concentration camps (he calls them "detention centers") where apprx. 40 000 people, mostly women and children died of hunger and bad threatment, taken there against their will by the British. Oh, happy colonial times!


Plenty of apoligist, and revisionist crap there:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=56481&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15


"When was the "decision" taken to kill Boer women and children?

AFAIK, camps were set up to remove Boer women and children from the combat zone to prevent them supporting the guerillas. The camps suffered high mortality due to disease and malnutrition initially, but this death rate was brought down, before the Boers capitulated.

Indeed, the British reached a decision to stop bringing Boer women and children into camps before the Boer's capitulated, and this was described as worse than taking them into the camps.

Botha complained at Vereeniging that he had tried to send Boer women and children to the camps, and the British had refused to take them."




Nashwan/Hop is also in strong denial of all British war crimes, and regularly plays the role of an apologist for them.

Here he denies British war crimes commited in the Falklands War :

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=58193&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

Here he denies that the terror bombings in WW2 were war crimes :

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=54871&highlight=

"For the same reason no German was tried for bombing London. Bombing wasn't a crime. "


Here he denies any British responsibility for the terror bombings, blaming it on all the Germans (heavy revisionism included, ie. London wasn`t accidently bombed, trying to make Coventry as an "indiscriminate bombing" etc.)

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=52211&highlight=

He also claims terror bombings, with apprx. 500 000 civillian dead amongst city population, was legal :


"It was perfectly legal to attack any defended town, military objective or not."



He denies the RAF ever did terror bombings :

The death of civilians was never a deliberate RAF policy, either.

Interestingly enough he is in conflict with himself :

A better analogy would be to say a man who firebombed a house didn't intend to kill the occupants, merely to destroy the building. Good luck trying to argue your way out of a murder conviction with that one.


He tries to push the blame over the Americans, denying the British would have done anything wrong :


"The British did bomb military objectives, and the US did firebomb cities. It's worth noting that the US defined military objectives as any city containing, amongst other things, a bridge over a river. As every sizeable city in Europe is built on a river, that included every city in Germany.


Another notorious part of Nashwan/Hop`s post is his Dresden denial. Nashwan/Hop denies and tries to lessen the number of casulties in Dresden (he claims it was less than 40 000), yet at the same time, he claims Dresden firebombing wasn`t a crime at all :

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=52211&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15


"There were more dead in the Blitz than in Dresden....

And Dresden was an operation in support of Russian ground operations, which according to your interpretation of the laws precludes it from being a war crime. "


And that`s only tip of the iceberg. Wanna see more? Just do a post search for Nashwan / Hop.


It`s certainly worths to read Reichskriegsgericht`s last post to Hop.



Now, and you expect that I will take seriously any critics,claims and lies from this hypocrite, immoral pile of ***** liar apologist, trying to make it look like that his own rotten morals are mine ?

I`d sooner accept that from a sewer rat.

Originally posted by Nashwan
the legality of murdering hostages in reprisals,

[/b]

I guess I already explained that in the other thread. It was considered legally acceptable, if rules were followed and the measures weren`t excessive. Even the post-war British army manual know and accepted these repraisal "murders".

the legality of murdering captured British soldiers,

[/B]

Nashwan is a liar. I didn`t say regular British soldiers. I referred to irregular British commandoes/saboteurs, who are not protected by the laws of war, as a result of the way of operations in disguise and undercover. Certainly British commandoes didn`t follow the rules of war at any time of the war, using enemy uniforms as disguise, and they neither took prisoners : surrendered enemy soldiers were shot on spot, as they would make the commando`s movement slower. Fact. As a result they were not considered regular soldiers, and were threated just like partisans. The US Army followed the same way in the Ardennes with captured members of Skorzeny`s german commandoes. There are pictures of their execution by firing squad.


Nashwan also tried to show me an anti-semite in this board already, with a forged quote.

It`s usually for Nashwan to point to others to draw the attention from himself, and his own views.

He has very interesting views on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, I think it wouldn`t be a far off conclusion to see he was very strong, nbt so well hidden anti-semitic feelings. You only have to do a small search for his posts in these boards :

Ie. look at his postings in these matters :


"Like Nahum Korman's?

Korman was the security officer for a settlement near Bethlem. In the morning, some Palestinian children had thrown stones at settler's cars.

Korman drove to a nearby village, grabbed an 11 year old child he thought had been involved, knocked him to the ground, stood on his neck, and hit him on the head with the but of his pistol. The boy suffered a fractured skull and his spinal cord was broken. He died the next day in hospital. Korman got 6 months community service. "

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=115833

and


"Do you condemn your opponents use of ambulances, whilst using them to transport your own soldiers on offensive missions against those opponents?

Do you drop a 2000lb bomb on an inhabited apartment block because it contains a man you want to kill? Do you fire a tank shell at a crowd in a market who are breaking curfew? Do you settle 300 of your citizens in amongst people you deny citizenship to, and set up a free fire zone around the settlement? Do you shoot children dead from a kilometre away when they cross an undefined line 200 yards from the settlement? Do you keep on establishing new settlements, knowing it will deprive the people you deny citizenship to of their freedom of movement, their livelihood, an adequate water supply, and will inevitably lead to the odd "accidental" death?

To focus on Palestinian crimes whilst not even mentioning some of the issues behind them is disengenuous. "

etc.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1265900#post1265900


If you look at his post history, Nashwan is VERY fond of posting negative things on Israel. I asked him several times on how he relates to jews, does he really hates them so much, but I never got an answer to that. He usually moves away at that time.


A little insight into the people who pulled out the "you are a nazi" card in desperation. People like Angie or Milo always do that in the last attempt. First they start to incite flames, provoke argument; they loose those, and in desperation they start fingerpointing and blackmailing. But frankly none of these peabrained crapheads succeeded to find anything on me for which I would need to feel ashamed. Certainly they try to bend it - Angie goes claiming I brought it into the board, and not him and his creting little friend who already got busted from two boards for his racist remarks; which is obvious to see. Nashwan, a strong anti semite and hypocrite apoligist tries to put his own crap on me. Well we have THEIR post history and we have MINE; intelligent men can make their own conclusions on those alone, and the the crap put forward by others.

Oh, and Crumpp,

Originally posted by Nashwan

Too compare the Holocaust with Colonialism though is both intellectually and morally bankrupt.

[/B]

That`s why I never do that. The Holocaust was one of the greatest evils done by mankind, ever, I will fully stand by that. But I don`t want to forget about the other evils done either, whatever the side was. Some on this board do that.

[Angus]

Hello Izzy...er Nazi?
"Plenty of apoligist, and revisionist crap there: "

Suits your stuff above.

No matter how loud you bark, there is nothing you bring up, that can justify the Nazi policy as well as their "achivements" during WW2.
Bad things happened all around in world's history, and it's typical for Nazi apologists actually to bring up Britain's darkests moments. 50 years or so before WW2 as a diversion.

Well, it doesn't work for you bud in this case, in this forum.
Too many readers here are simply too well informed.

A typical thing from you here that I really must put some spotlight on:

"Millions of Soviet POWs died in German prison camps, particularly in 1941, being badly supported with food. The same happened in 1945`s allied prison camps, just do some reading on it. I take an equal footing on both, and say neither was a war crime unless it was intended. "


I have yet to see proof of "MILLIONS OF GERMAN POW'S DYING IN ALLIED CAMPS IN 1945"
Equal footing? Non-intended deaths of russian POW's perhaps?
Units of the SS actually started massacring military POW's as well as others of their opposing nations in 1939 (Poland). High command German officers, up to general rank even, opposed to this. Those characters were usually "drawn" away by various methods. But of course, a lot of POW's also died of starvation etc.
The same multiplied by the hundreds applied to civilians.
World's history has no paralell to the systematic massmurder of the Nazi regime. That of course, got increased with the extreme losses due to famine and disease in many camps.
The Boer camps and deaths, although horrible, only rate as far as perhaps 1% of the Nazi systematic murder number, that allowing still another equal number (or more) of death due to other causes.
You are just smelling like a Nazi apologists untill you prove othervise. Your stuff mostly reminds me of the presentations of the Holocaust denialists actually. (Of which I read quite a bit.)
I challenge you to come forth with this branch of this thread into another forum, O'club for instance. I will debate you untill you bow.

I'll rest the bombing case for now. But I'm itching in my skin

[phookat]

Folks...  I don't think anyone here is saying concentration camps were "good" or "OK".  Leave it at that.

Leave the politics out.  Focus on the planes.

[Crumpp]

Leave the politics out. Focus on the planes.

Amen!

I enjoy history.  I enjoy the History of the Luftwaffe as well.  Nothing to do with politics.

In fact the politics keeps many of the Luftwaffe veterans from recording that history.  Read Gunther Ralls autobiography.  He never fully comes to grips with the horror's of the NAZI's and his role in defending it.  He gets mad when people mention it because by his own addmission, knows their is no excuse and no way to reconcile his comrades bravery and sacrifice with their cause.  In short, he is proud of his comrades but ashamed of his service.  During the war his wife was instrumental in smuggling jews out of Germany.  That is a source of pride for him today.

Crumpp

[Angus]

Crumpp: I'll mail you something about your above stuff

[Charge]

Angus, maybe Izzy wasn't trying to say there was something that would justify anything. Maybe he's apalled by the hypochrisy of certain nations and trying to say that "nazism" is not a nation specific property but a dark "feature" in a human mind regardless of nationality.

An O-club topic.

-C+