Chip on the shoulder, much? 
The only fully mechanised army of 1939 in the world⌠was the BEF. Thatâs one of the reasons the BEF survived the German attack relatively intact, while the French Army largely disintegrated - they could hold it together in a retreat because their logistics could keep up.
The Maginot line DID stop the Germans - unfortunately for the French, that wasnât terribly useful as the Germans went around the edge of it.
Really?
Where were the Americans and Soviets in the first couple of years of the war while Britain and its Commonwealth alone fought the Germans?
And after that, work out the steady contribution of the British Merchant Marine, RN and RAF to the war against Germany and aid to the Soviets, along with British and Commonwealth land forces.
Your comment displays an ill-informed antagonism towards and contempt for Britain which infects your unbalanced views about Dunkirk.
Try to be more balanced in your assessments.
Absolutely. 
But all in good fun. If you ever make it back this way again, and you have time, the first round is on meâŚ
The only fully mechanised army of 1939 in the world⌠was the BEF. Thatâs one of the reasons the BEF survived the German attack relatively intact, while the French Army largely disintegrated - they could hold it together in a retreat because their logistics could keep up.
True. Even the French were somewhat mechanized in part. Unfortunately they sent the bulk of that force north springing the German trap for them in Belgium.
The Maginot line DID stop the Germans - unfortunately for the French, that wasnât terribly useful as the Germans went around the edge of it.
We could on and on with the lack of French foresight. The line and its defense in depth (unlike Eben Emael) did hold the Germans, and unfortunately, 400,000 immobilized Frenchmen. The Military Channel actually is playing the classic âWorld at Warâ series and they had the program on this very subject last evening. There was something about 1939 being the coldest winter in several decades and that causing construction of the line to cease and preventing its extension to the Belgian border. It should be said that the French military never considered the line to be âimpregnable,â it was only to hold the German Army while France mobilized. Some French officers wanted to mass French armor into a massive counter-punch and ignore any German advances into the Low countries. Whether it would have ultimately defeated the German attack or not given the inept French strategy of methodical battle, Gamelin saw this as politically unacceptableâŚ
Okay, so if Hitler wanted peace with Britain so badly, why did he excommunicate Rudolf Hess for trying to negotiate one? Hitler also wanted peace with Soviet Russia, and an armistice with France. How did that work out for Hitlerâs new friends?
Who won the War? I think the Allies did. I donât think weâre collapsing, but our problems go far beyond immigrants and poor govâtâŚ
Iâll be around for 3 weeks over Christmas (northern NJ/PA border), no idea what Iâll be doing then though - probably lots of wedding related stuff I suspect.
Details?
To what extent was this backed up with peaceful gestures, such as not bombing Britain and not attacking British warships and not attacking British land forces?
Do you mean that itâs obvious that Britain wanted war because it allegedly declined Hitlerâs alleged offers of peace?
Certainly not Germany.
Which has nothing to do with WWII and a lot to do with America, Britain and France as nuclear powers confronting the Soviet political and war machine post-war and exhausting it.
That is silly.
Greece is collapsing to some extent due to decades of poor governments. America, Britain and France are not.
Immigration may be an issue in many nations but it is not causing the collapse of any of the nations you mentioned. Indeed, without immigration over several centuries America would not be the powerhouse it is.
If you Google the quote the first thing you notice is the huge number of Far Right Hate Groups who use it. This quote is also a staple of David Icke and those loons who believe the world is manipulated by shape-shifting Lizards! You are in good company my friend, the world of lies, hate and fabrication.
In short it is a quote Said to have been made by Churchill that only appears in the book by Hughes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emrys_Hughes
Hughes, Emrys
Winston Churchill in War and Peace
Glasgow, Unity Publishing, 1950. A critical book by one of Churchillâs foes from the Labour Party. 240 pages, paperback . Worth reading for a different view.
Here is a sample of the nutters who use this quote:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8104
http://www.savethemales.ca/001071.html
Glad you liked my pics, here are some more:
Does it matter who use this quote or if it is true or false?
Where are your arguments to assert this is false?, false like this one on Irak people:
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.
Maybe wiky is another far right hate group,
I can see you have a crush on the russians, fan boy
Lies were the staple of the thuggish Nazi Party. Glad to see you following in their footsteps.
I think a fan boy is someone from a Latin Country using a German name to post. You would have been classed as sub-human by your heroes.
As to who uses it: No.
As to whether it is true or false: Obviously, yes.
As youâre the one using the quote in support of your argument, the burden of proof is upon you. It is impossible to prove that something which does not exist is false as there is no evidence for it, so there is no point asking someone to prove that something which does not exist does not exist.
Letâs keep this to Dunkirk and things related to it.
Letâs not turn this into a flame war and that, as a formal mod warning, goes for all posters in this thread.
One factor that has been ignored in the discussion so far is that the French and British defences and operations were brought undone by the surrender of the Belgians, who failed to hold the line against the Germans and by surrendering opened a gap in the French / Belgian / British line of defence.
This came about because of the probably unconstitutional assumption of power by King Leopold III, who was also in command of his countryâs military forces, to capitulate against the advice of his ministers.
In its own way it equals Hitlerâs assumption of political and military powers.
So, if Leopold III had not done a Hitler, would the Dunkirk situation have occurred as it did and would the Germans have faced a stiffer fight than they did after Belgiumâs surrender?
Why is so much attention being devoted in this thread by some to Churchillâs and Britainâs deficiencies while completely ignoring Leopoldâs and Belgiumâs initial and crucial contribution to them?
Well let us see who is telling liesâŚ
When taking quotes from Holocaust Denier sites, Loony âWorld Conspiracyâ sites and right wing nut job sites you should ALWAYS, ALWAYS check the source.
In this case I did. The book where the quote is claimed to appear is online here:
http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/BritishBulldog.pdf
and page 145 , suprise, suprise, says something completely different:
âEvidence of the first factor appears in a statement which Churchill made to the eminent American businessman General Robert E. Wood. Wood had lunch with Churchill in the latterâs apartment in London in November, 1936, and at that time Churchill remarked to Wood: âGermany is getting too strong and we must smash her.â.â
As I said earlier this quote is used extensively on right-wing denier sites and IT IS A COMPLETE FABRICATION.
See above. Now tell me again, who do you say was a liar?
Crap off topic posts and ad hominem will get you nowhere hereâŚ
M Kenny, your understanding of prewar European history is appauling. If rewriting history means including the history of the other side, then I say bring it on. Otherwize all you have is the history of the victor, which is no history at all.
Anglo American histories of the war are ONLY valuable when they are dealing with their own actions and at most their understanding of the other sides actions and motivations etc. Any actions by the other side can ONLY be understood from POV of their own histories. You should NEVER EVER take the word of a one sides history over the word of the other side , when dealing with the othersides actions.
If you are not doing atleast this much, your words will NEVER represent those of us who live in the real world.
As is your spelling.
Oh I donât know. To the victor belongs the spoils.
As I showed above I am always interested in getting to the source.
Perhaps you can explain how you know I confine myself to âAnglo-Americanâ sources? Do you have a spy-cam in my house and can read my book titles.?
Iâm a german ethnic, and 3 out of 5 of the members of my grandfatherâs family died in Dresden, but Iâm proud of my citizenship as a latinoamerican, besides there are many spanish descendants here, they were highly considered by Hitler for their excellent behavior in the eastern front.
For me a fan boy is someone who collects russian male pictures in his locker
Any comment on the fabricated Churchill quote you used?
I will try to keep this discussion in the historical frame so,
I will refer to this man for the last time as long as I know he is not the subject of this thread:
I also found a very interesting portrait of Churchill, I investigate the autor looking for some relation with right wing groups and all Iâve found is an American professor at the Buffalo State College, and journalist of Chicago University,
I strongly recommend you this reading:
Here is the conclusion:
There is a way of looking at Winston Churchill that is very tempting: that he was a deeply flawed creature, who was summoned at a critical moment to do battle with a uniquely appalling evil, and whose very flaws contributed to a glorious victory â in a way, like Merlin, in C.S. Lewisâs great Christian novel, That Hideous Strength.[169] Such a judgment would, I believe, be superficial. A candid examination of his career, I suggest, yields a different conclusion: that, when all is said and done, Winston Churchill was a Man of Blood and a politico without principle, whose apotheosis serves to corrupt every standard of honesty and morality in politics and history.Ralph Raico
http://mises.org/daily/2973
Back to Dunkirk:
Some friend here ask me for a wetland where panzer operation had succeded, do some reading about this:
Guderian ordered the use of armored forces and ensured success in the much more unfavorable terrain at lake Ilmen during Barbarossa.
And another British General Quote:
âWe shall have lost all our trained soldiers by the next few days-unless a miracle appears to help usâ
Gen. Sir Edmund Ironside, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, 25 May 1940.
But I donât believe in miracles, although everyone has itâs right to have itâs own beliefs . But nowadays there are inquisitors everywhere.
I checked your link and according to that book that quote is false, but It would have been honest from you to tell us what he wrote just after that quote,
âGermany is getting too strong and we must smash her.â But Churchill was surely sufficiently well acquainted with Hitlerâs notorious Anglomania and his almost servile admiration of British imperialism to realize that Hitler was not likely to challenge England unless directly provoked. He wished collaboration with England rather than antagonism.
You keep saying this. But what are the alternate âhistories?â How can you call his understanding of history âappallingâ without providing specific examples?