Know your history …

I saw a thing on the History channel that backs up what you said about the lack of French resolve. Mostly old German soldiers who all said the same thing. They fought hard at first, but when they started running they did not stop. And that they would fight, but only enough so as not to be considered cowards… and than quickly gave up. In contrast, the captured English soldiers at Dunkirk (whom the Germans had a great deal of respect for, they stayed behind so others could escape) marched to the POW camps singing god save the king.

As far as the WW1 thing Falk, I heard that one. But it doesn’t sit right with me. According to that logic than the Russians could not have fed thier own people/army because of logistics. The weather makes a bit more sense, but still, the vast population that did not starve during the harvest shows that there was food there to be had. And don’t forget, there is the baltic which could have been used for shipping. Also, Railways were being built before the war by the french/british (big reason why Germany attacked).

@F_alk:

@Zooey72:

The only thing I regret about that is that we could not stop the communist take over. How czarist Russia would have dealt with Nazi Germany? Dunno.

Czarist or Menshevik?

The reason the Germans attacked Norway was to beat the English from attacking it and using it as a staging ground to than go after Sweeden. The motivation being that Germany got about 1/2 its Iron Ore imported from Neutral Sweeden.

The second is right, the first not really. The iron ore was shipped from Nowegian ports to Germany, and to prevent a blockade / strategical warfare by the Brits it was necessary to control these ports and the nearby air bases.

Not sure what part you are saying isn’t right. The english would not have dared going into the baltic with its navy, sitting ducks to the German airforce. Even w/o ANY shipping at all… the Russians prob. would have shipped it to Germany (they did supply them until june 22). It would take a while for me to find the refrences on this whole thing, but it was made quite clear by English documents that the goal of a Northern landing was to cut off German Iron/ore imports by using Norway as a staging point to attack Sweeden. I can’t imagine them cutting the Germans off any other way. IMO, 2 quick victories over Norway, than Sweeden would have been the only way to get the desired effect. They didn’t even have to hold either country. Once they had the mines they could have blown it all to hell, than ran back to England and wait for Germany to implode because it could not feed its war machine.

Either way, the point still is that Britian was looking to attack at least one Neutral country. Kinda taking a page from Hitlers book.

More WW2 brain candy. After the V2s started coming down in force Churchill almost gave the order to put chemical weapons in the bombing raids over Germany (in retaliation). Roosevelt told him not to because the Germans had vastly more, and better chemical weapons and that they had an unstopable delivery system. This convinced Churchill not to do it. Not the obvious moral reason not to bomb civilians with chemical weapons. He almost sunk lower than Hitler in this reguard because till the bloody end Germany never utilized its chemical weapons (and they had some nasty ones, make mustard gas look like a skin rash)

Either way, the point still is that Britian was looking to attack at least one Neutral country. Kinda taking a page from Hitlers book.

The second world war is full of examples of Allies invading neutrals.

FDR ordered that 25,000 troops occupy the Azores which were controled by portugal.

the English attacked Iraq, which had a somewhat pro-axis government

The English attacked Dakar which was Vichy French

just a few examples… This preemtive invasion idea works if you can pull it off.

How can somethinf that was banned after the “Lenin’s Bolsheviks” took the power be history “long before Lenin” ?
And of course: The Imperial Regime was history “long before” Lenin was released.

They began in the early part of the 20th century and the Bolsheviks were born from this parent political party because because many people didnt want to have anything to do with Menshevism. Throughout the years they were in direct competition. When the Bolsheviks led by lenin finally push their way into power afer two revolutions they consolidated their power and push out the oppositional parties. In 1921 the Mensheviks were banned . Thats it its not difficult!

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/B/Bolshevi.asp

That is what you said and it still is illogical

Explain this “what” i said?

How can somethinf that was banned after the “Lenin’s Bolsheviks” took the power be history “long before Lenin” ?

..In fact they were banned in 1921 after Lenins' Bolsheviks seized power in 1918\. Your "menshevik" thing was way back in History long before Lenin. ... Thats exactly why the brilliant Germans saw this opportunity to push the allready problematic Tsarist regime.

menshevik party started around 1900 pushing some reforms , while many of its members became dissatisfied with some of the ideas and broke off to form their own party called the Bolsheviks. Eventually these Bolsheviks came to power and banned all the other parties including menshevik party in 1921. My comment was you confused Lenin as a menshevik but he wasnt , he was Bolshevik. That party existed before the Bolsheviks started and got banned after they got into power. Thats your answer.

If Lenin was not released from a Swiss prison, its quite certain the revolution would not have suceeded w/o its charasmatic leader. So thats exactly why the Kaiser allowed it to occur … so he could destroy his enemy from within. Thats a brilliant concept.