I think we keep trowing the same arguments to each other all the time… I am not sure if we can get more usefull info out of this dicussion.
As for me, I agree that many of your points make sence and I learned a bit from you. Thanks!
I do not think that you really proved youe point, but neither have I.
In my opinion, the potentially interesting would to find out
How much the german tank forces were “tired” before the stop signal.
What portion of the Luftwaffe was involved in the attack.
Egorka. Some of your answers to this topic will be found under the thread, Most Successful British Tank. Go to the posting in regards to the Battle of Arras and follow the links.
No, it doesn’t. If you keep on finding new documents, getting to interview people who have witnessed history and refuse to talk to most historians, keeping your archives open to other researchers, etc.
Several historians claim that U.S. troops didn’t have order to fire at children during Korean war dispite there are documents to prove it (like mentioned at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/korea_usa_05.shtml). Why didn’t some historians include those documents? Because they have agenda. Does that make them bad historians? Im my opinion: no. American historians generally have strong agenda not to trash America, russian historians generally have strong agenda not to trash Russia, and so on.
There are just amazing number of similar cases in history. They are not bad historians, they just have agenda. It’s human nature. They are not totally discredited - “rarely” they lie on every single phrase. They do need more checking - something spotless politically correct ‘never-leave-my-office’ historians could sometimes use too.
Every historian has his/her agenda which makes them prone to bend, twist, select, distort, lie. Some are more prone to that than others. Some of these agendas are more objectionable than others - Irving’s agenda being the worst kind.
Many, if not most, historians who have written a book about Hitler have never talked to people who actually spent time with Hitler. I think that’s unbeliable prejudicious and intolerant, but doesn’t make them bad historians. I don’t know how much time you have spent researching history, but for example, many manuscripts (like diaries, biographies) are very very much different than books made out of them (especially 1950s, 1960s, 1970s) because of ‘censor-like’ editing etc - so in theory, any historian writing something based on books is very likely writing fiction at some point - but it doesn’t make them bad historians to have agenda like “I do not waste my time to talking to people who actually witnessed history personally.”
Some people have very noble agendas, some have very crappy. There’s freedom to believe in whatever one likes - may that be communism, national socialism, democracy, plutocracy, two party system, one party system…
And the same (“happy to lie in order to further his agenda”) can be said about pretty much every politician and president in every country in the history of the world - but that doesn’t make them bad politicians.
Everybody lies, everybody has right to opinion (no matter how stupid) - Irving lies more than average, Irving has views which are widely despised - but even the judge who ruled against him admitted Irving is excellent at researching historical archives - something I find quite useful to ‘historian’.
Several historians claim that U.S. troops didn’t have order to fire at children during Korean war dispite there are documents to prove it (like mentioned at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa…_usa_05.shtml). Why didn’t some historians include those documents? Because they have agenda.
Your link is dead, and I think this statement is a complete misnomer.
No historian in his/her right mind denies that US troops shot at Korean civilians during the first days of the conflict. They may debate the context and rationales for such brutal acts, but comparing the arguments of context over Irving’s (what amounts too) a giant ass-covering of the German National Socialist Party because of his infatuation for Hitler, is complete bonk. There was even a snippet in a 1950s film starring actor Robert Mitchum as a US Army Col. reluctantly calling in artillery on Korean refugees in order to interdict NKA infiltrators…
And this analogy is far, far too forgiving to that weasel Irving…
I’ll start an Irving thread sometime (when I want to really aggravate myself by reading a lot of semantic bullshit).
I have to say that some of the conspiratorial views expressed in this thread are a bit silly. Hitler liked the British so much he let their Army escape? Very doubtful. Firstly, with no research done on this subject, I’ve always thought the lack of German infantry support to the panzers coupled with Goering’s assertions that air power alone could cut-off, and pound, the British and French into submission. But the RAF fought more effectively in an air cover role than expected. To say Hitler sort of “threw” the battle is like saying Hitler wanted the Allies to be successful at D-Day because he was sleeping and delayed the release of the panzer divisions. Or that he wanted to lose in the Soviet Union, because he invaded in summer, and not spring, and failed to provide adequate winter clothing and supplies for his divisions…
Though sometimes it is overstated, Hitler is a very fallible commander. The “Austrian Corporal” made numerous errors, and this was clearly one of his biggest. Not to mention that Goering was addicted to drugs by this point…
I have to say that some of the conspiratorial views expressed in this thread are a bit silly.
I know that you use word “conspirational” in a demining way here. I think you should get used to the fact, that most of the people on this Globe do not see the world through american glasses. It does not make them conspiracists, my friend.
Hitler liked the British so much he let their Army escape?
Man! Are you serious? You are a grown up and you keep saying this rubbish. I am sorry to sound thst hash. Hitler did not like British! OK? It is not about him feeling fluffy and all warm at heart. It is about him being down to earth pragmatic. So out of the practical points he might have slowed the pressure on the allies.
I personally never claimed that that was the only reason. It was one of many practical conciderations.
By the way, saying that it is not possible would be just as rubish as saying that that was the only reason for the stop signal.
I use the word “conspiratorial,” because some believe there is an underlying “order” or “rationale” for every historical event, as if all outcomes or possibilities can be neatly predicted like a mathematical equation. One that fits well into their political paradigm. They cannot. In fact, history seems to me to be a form of chaos rumbling forward. Very few outcomes of causal events are so thoroughly, or neatly, predicted. This is not an “American” way of looking at things, as indeed many Americans are guilty of such views, for I’ve debated many of them for their conspiratorial view of the world…
I use the word “conspiratorial,” because some believe there is an underlying “order” or “rationale” for every historical event, as if all outcomes or possibilities can be neatly predicted like a mathematical equation.
Man, you completely misunderstood me. Sorry for not being clear enough. This is exactly my point, that life is not explicable by just one fact or reason. That is normaly a propaganda way to simplify situation and present the events in black-white color.
That is why I started this thread, because I think that Hitler wished peace with England (on his own terms of course) and therefore his rathional thinking was affected by this irrational idea.
It is like when objective circumstances may push you into taking a certain decission, but as a contious human being you do something else. Something irrational from the common sence point of view. Out of moral reasons one may chose to do something that harmful to him self - sacrifise, for example.
For God’s sake, have you ever been in love? Then you know.
There were given a few practical reasons that were promting for the stop of the attack. Many of them make a lot of sence and also light the situation better. But we should remember that the irrational idea of Hitler and others may very likely to be the final strow that convinced him.
What you are saying is that Hitler could have just crushed the BEF, and French forces, at Dunkirk on a whim, but deliberately chose not too so he could send his future children to British universities.
This despite the historical record being that the Wehrmacht was overextended, the Allies were just beginning to learn how to fight, and defend themselves against, combined arms warfare --and Hitler had made a gross miscalculation in regards to the Luftwaffe’s ability to interdict any rescue effort, and to essentially pound the Brits into submission without a full on assault with infantry the German Army did not have in that sector.
I surmise the much more likely scenario is that Hitler believes the German air force will sink the meager evacuation fleet, and demoralized British Tommies will run low on ammo and food, and begin surrendering in droves.
But go on thinking there was some Aryan bias and Hitler wanted the British forces to be tucked in snugly to their beds, so he could make the Brits part of the Axis if you like.
You know, our discussion reminds me a sceene form the movie “A Few Good Men” 1992 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/). It is a famous one where Jack Nicholson’s charecter exclames: “You wan the truth? You CAN NOT handle the truth!”. But I am reffering to an other sceene. There is one, where the lowyer (Tom Cruise) questions the millitary doctor from the Base. They roughly have this dialog:[INDENT] Lawyer: “Is it possible that a serious health condition could cause death?” Doctor: “Possibly. There would still be symptoms though.”
Lawyer: “What kind of symptoms? Chest pains?” Doctor: “Yes” Lawyer: “Shortness of breath?” Doctor: “Yes” Lawyer: “Fatigue?” Doctor: “Of course” Lawyer: “Doctor, is this your signature?” Doctor: “Yes it is.” Lawyer: “This in an order for Private Santiago to be put on restricted duty. Would you read your hand written remarks at the bottom of the page, please, sir.” Doctor: “Initial testing negative. Patient complains of chest pains, shortness of breath, and fatigue. Restricted from running distances over five miles for one week.” Lawyer: “Commander, isn’t it possible that Santiago had a serious health condition, and it was that condition, and not some mysterious poison, that caused the accelerated chemical reaction?” Doctor: “No. I personally give the men a physical examination every three months.” Lawyer: “And that’s why it had to be, poison, right, Commander? 'Cause Lord knows, if you put a man with a serious coronary condition back on duty with a clean bill of health, and that man died from a heart related incident, you’d have a lot to answer for, wouldn’t you, doctor?”
[/INDENT]
