[SigTurner]

It has no factual basis and is doesn't follow logic. Your "is so!" response doesn't change this.

Nonsense. Even the Brits were suspicious of French complicity with the Nazi regime during the Battle of France.

While we're on the topic of bad behaviour don't spam other threads with "prove it". I've deleted your bit of childishness.

While were on the topic of bad behavior, if you're going to moderate then moderate, and have the decency to recuse yourself from the discussion if you cannot help but abuse your authority by provoking insults from the membership with your petty obstructing banter.

Meanwhile there is no evidence that there was any complicity between the defenders and attackers

I believe it was Napolean Bonaparte who said "History is the myth men choose to believe."

How about this, Dave: You go on believing that there was absolutely no internal complicity amongst members of the French government, miitary, and industrialists with the Nazi regime if it makes you feel better.

While you're at it, go on believing that the Fascist movement was not financed by European (and American) industrialists out of fear of spreading Communism.

Lastly, go on believing that oil was not a central preoccupation for Hitler and the Nazi regime (as well as every other nation on earth, then as now).


I wish I had nothing better to do than force feed you what is not exactly esoteric information. Unfortunately, I have more important matters of which to attend.

[Smilin' Dave]

Even the Brits were suspicious of French complicity with the Nazi regime during the Battle of France.

Suspicion by itself is not evidence. Britain would surely have found evidence of complicity. Or the French government after the war, which was pretty keen of punishing members of the Vichy government including its leader Petain. Somehow no evidence of a conspiracy arose from those investigations and trials, and no industrialists were put on trial.

I believe it was Napolean Bonaparte who said "History is the myth men choose to believe."

Bonaparte, like you, was entitled to an opinion. He can also be wrong about it. History is not just a story people make it, real history is supposed to be based on events that can be confirmed. What cannot be confirmed should be based on reasonable, logical assumptions. Not conspiracy theories for which no evidence can be presented beyond "it doesn't make sense otherwise" and despite all the evidence that points to other conclusions.

How about this, Dave: You go on believing that there was absolutely no internal complicity amongst members of the French government, miitary, and industrialists with the Nazi regime if it makes you feel better.

I always feel better with the truth, a truth that I can confirm for myself with facts and a truth that seems logically sound.

While you're at it, go on believing that the Fascist movement was not financed by European (and American) industrialists out of fear of spreading Communism.

I've never doubted Fascists received support from industrialists. The Italian Fascists got their start essentially through support from industrialists in the north of Italy. The Nazi Party received considerable support from Fritz Thyssen. This is all well documented, and makes sense. As does the fact that the Italian Fascists and Nazis had a range of supporters, not just industrialists.

What I doubt is that:
- The creation of these parties were the result of industrialists, rather than organic movements that they tried to benefit from
- That there was a European wide conspiracy between industrialists to create a united Europe to ensure their supplies of labour
- That this conspiracy is the most logical explanation for the fall for France

Lastly, go on believing that oil was not a central preoccupation for Hitler and the Nazi regime (as well as every other nation on earth, then as now).

As I've already reminded you, I haven't dismissed oil as being an important factor in strategy, in fact I raised the security of oil fields and refineries in Romania as a factor in the decision to invade the Soviet Union.

What I doubt, and you provide no evidence for beyond a quote from a book by an author whose work I'm unimpressed by, is that it was an 'obsession' . Hitler had obsessions, he wrote a book about them, he and his party associates talked about them a lot, even gave speeches. It wasn't oil that seemed to keep coming up, but 'living space', 'Bolshevism' and Jews.

Unfortunately, I have more important matters of which to attend.

You are free to stop replying any time you want. But I'm under no obligation to pretend you're right.

[SigTurner]

You are free to stop replying any time you want. But I'm under no obligation to pretend you're right.

You're free to believe what you want to believe, Dave, and I am in no position to stop you, especially with your awesome powers of PoFo moderator.

[Rich]

What I doubt is that:
- The creation of these parties were the result of industrialists, rather than organic movements that they tried to benefit from

Yes I agree, again you're case is excellently balanced. Although I think there is a bit more of a case for conspiracy mongering when it comes to the German army and the development of the Nazis.

[SigTurner]

I think there is a bit more of a case for conspiracy mongering when it comes to the German army and the development of the Nazis.

Of course there is. Most human behavior is conducted in conspiracy with other humans. How many things do you actually do in your own life all by your lonesome?

The Nazis, like all successful political parties in the 20th century, received considerable financing from Big Business, reportedly from everyone from IG Farben to Henry Ford. Why? Fear of spreading communism.

Indeed, even the Rothschilds supposedly bankrolled the Nazi party in the beginning, though for very different reasons.

[Smilin' Dave]

Although I think there is a bit more of a case for conspiracy mongering when it comes to the German army and the development of the Nazis.

Yes and no. After all Hitler received some training in oratory etc. from the army after WWI and from memory had actually been ordered to 'infiltrate' the NSDAP by the army (or it might have been another government organ, I forget). Also the early involvement of Erich Luddendorf in Nazi/volkisch politics could be seen as important in forming early alliances and getting the image of legitimacy.

On the other hand I don't think there was a coordinated conspiracy within the army relating to the Nazi party and its rise. Even once they came to power (again through a member of the old guard military, Hindenburg) the Nazis faced opposition from within the army. It might be more a case of the Nazis and army sharing common goals, so they tended to work towards the same ends and help each other out. Similarly the Nazis were often given a 'free pass' by the Police compared to their Communist opponents (IIRC Gorring was running the Prussian Police force before the Nazis even came to power), not necessarily a conspiracy but the act of a fellow traveller. Or the judge that gave Hitler such a lenient sentence (and allowed his court room to become a political showroom) after the failed Beer Hall Putsch (though as I recall, he got a nice job under the Nazi regime afterwards).

Most human behavior is conducted in conspiracy with other humans.

For that to be true you would have to prove that most human interaction is secret, which seems absurd. Especially since we're currently posting on a public message board, rather than scheming in a smokey back room.

How many things do you actually do in your own life all by your lonesome?

Conspiracy by definition pretty much requires more than one person.

Why? Fear of spreading communism.

You seem to be shifting your argument. You original contention was:

You are forgetting that the whole point of the Fascist movement was to politically unify continental Europe for the sake of European industrialists who could no longer compete with American industrialists under the aegis of entirely discrete nations.

[SigTurner]

For that to be true you would have to prove that most human interaction is secret, which seems absurd. Especially since we're currently posting on a public message board, rather than scheming in a smokey back room.

A conspiracy does not necessarily have to be secret.

Conspiracy by definition pretty much requires more than one person.

You think so? How could you tell?

You seem to be shifting your argument.

Let me be clear.

There appears to have been three primary motivations for the Fascist movement in Europe:

1) Fear of spreading communism and the inability to keep it in check through more democratic means.

2) The desire for a quick political unification of Europe into a monolithic industrial and military entity before the individual nations of Europe were squeezed to death by the emerging leviathans of America and the Soviet Union.

3) The desire for Europe to muscle in for its own share of the world's oil reserves so it would not be dependent upon the USA, UK, or the Soviet Union for its energy needs.

Don't ask me to prove it. I don't have the time. You can take it or leave it.

[pugsville]

(1) Fear of communism, partial factor, big factor in fascists receiving support of big business, but why individual people joined I dont think so, and I would point to the often semi socialist kant in fascist propaganda. Alternative to Socialism.

(2) United Europe. Dont make me laugh, Not a factor. No propaganda of fascist writing mentions this to my Knowledge. And the were general extremely nationalistic.

(3) Oil. Import strategic resource. But Not a factor in the social politics of the 1920s and 1930s and the rise of Fascists.

[Smilin' Dave]

A conspiracy does not necessarily have to be secret.

You think so? How could you tell?

Let's look at the definition of conspiracy shall we...

1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

So yeah, it does have to be secret and there does have to be more than one person for it to meet the definition of conspiracy.

Don't ask me to prove it. I don't have the time.

The amount of time and effort you've spent not providing an explaination for your ridiculous conspiracy theory suggests that lack of time isn't the issue, but a lack of material to support your claims.

[fuser]

Don't ask me to prove it. I don't have the time. You can take it or leave it.

Actually Nazis were "Lizard People" from outer space, and they haven't been defeated, they are just hiding on the moon, waiting for the right time to strike again. So, whatever you people are saying is obviously wrong.

And, oh don't ask me to prove it.

[youtube]4KEueJnsu80[/youtube]

[SigTurner]

Let's look at the definition of conspiracy shall we...

1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

I just knew you would be so lame. That's pretty pathetic of you, Dave.

Let's look at the rest of it, shall we?

4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy

"Later on, we'll conspire
as we dream by the fire
To face unafraid
the plans that we made..."

The amount of time and effort you've spent not providing an explaination for your ridiculous conspiracy theory suggests that lack of time isn't the issue, but a lack of material to support your claims.

The material is there to be found. You'll just have to find it on your own. Whether you do or not is not my concern. If you want your history spoon fed to you, boy, you're knocking on the wrong door.

Let me give you some advice: When you study history, you have to read between the lines. Otherwise, you'll see the trees but miss the forest. Most events in human history do not occur independent of other events. As you study history, always ask yourself "What is going on here? What are the dynamics of the times? What are the motivations? Who stands to profit and why?" Across the ages, many of the most important facts of history have been suppressed for reasons of "national security." Indeed, many facts have even been deleted, leaving only conjecture to fill the void. Such political management of recorded history has been going on since the time of Pharoah. This is why all eras of studied human history are forever being revisted and rewritten.

[houndred]

While were on the topic of bad behavior, if you're going to moderate then moderate, and have the decency to recuse yourself from the discussion if you cannot help but abuse your authority by provoking insults from the membership with your petty obstructing banter.

I think that moderators should not be involved in any discussion that they moderate. I am actually on Dave's side in this argument but he has lost the moral position by using his 'authority' .

[Smilin' Dave]

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Want to explain have you have concurrence/combination of action with one person?

All five definitions refer to action by more than one party. I simply quoted the first three because they were the most clearly related to the discussion.

The material is there to be found. You'll just have to find it on your own.

If you can't be bothered to defend your assertions you probably shouldn't make them and you certainly shouldn't carry on like this when someone disagrees with you.

When you study history, you have to read between the lines.

If you can't tell the difference between "reading between the lines" (ie. drawing a logical conclusion from what evidence is available) and flat out making things up (ie. France fell because of an organised conspiracy for which there is not a shred of evidence) then you have no business telling me what history is and is not.

Across the ages, many of the most important facts of history have been suppressed for reasons of "national security."

And the evidence has always surfaced later. Even the existence of the evidence is usually known, even if the exact content is not. Classic example are the archives of the NKVD archives. They're sealed, but there probably won't be any great surprises in there as there is enough evidence from a range of other sources to give us a pretty good idea what would be in there.

Can you direct me to an instance where evidence that would prove your conspiracy theory has been sealed for reasons of national security?

This is why all eras of studied human history are forever being revisted and rewritten.

Serious history is not being revised on the basis of no evidence by people too slack to prove their own contentions.

I think that moderators should not be involved in any discussion that they moderate. I am actually on Dave's side in this argument but he has lost the moral position by using his 'authority' .

My morale position? What nonsense. SigTurner has broken the rules explicitly on two occasions, yet no one questions his moral position. The great morale failure is that users are generally silent when someone breaks the rules but jump up and down when moderators, heavens forbid, post an opinion or try to do their job.

And why can't a moderator moderate a thread they have commented on? I moderate this sub-forum because I have an interest in the area, should I thus cease to contribute on the off chance I upset someone by enforcing the rules? Lets be clear these rules should not come as a surprise, you had to read them as a condition of registering.

Have I abused my power, perhaps shown bias? Absolutely not. Think I have? Go report it in the basement.

[houndred]

ave I abused my power, perhaps shown bias? Absolutely not.

You would say that but then no doubt you approve on moderators being the judges of their own actions.

And why can't a moderator moderate a thread they have commented on?

You 'correct' the threads of people you disagree with. Its a conflict of interest.

It doesn't take long and you get moderators who start banning people they disagree with,

[fuser]

You would say that but then no doubt you approve on moderators being the judges of their own actions

If you don't like Dave's action here, you can complain it in basement. There's no point in discussing that here.

You 'correct' the threads of people you disagree with. Its a conflict of interest.

No, those posts were edited which were in direct violation of the rules. If you don't like the rules, leave this forum, if you think the edited post didn't violated any rule then complain in basement.

It doesn't take long and you get moderators who start banning people they disagree with

You are speculating too much here now and oh yeah, by following your logic from now on I shall "slang" all the moderators here in any thread where they disagree with me and except not to get carded because that would be abuse of power, right.

[SigTurner]

Want to explain have you have concurrence/combination of action with one person?

Want to explain where in the world you EVER got the idea that I believed a conspiracy is possible by one person?

All five definitions refer to action by more than one party. I simply quoted the first three because they were the most clearly related to the discussion.

Please refrain from insulting my intelligence.

If you can't be bothered to defend your assertions you probably shouldn't make them and you certainly shouldn't carry on like this when someone disagrees with you.

Let's face it, Dave. No matter what material I present, you will dismiss it out of hand, just as you dismissed Yergin's work. I'm not about to waste my time.

If you can't tell the difference between "reading between the lines" (ie. drawing a logical conclusion from what evidence is available) and flat out making things up (ie. France fell because of an organised conspiracy for which there is not a shred of evidence) then you have no business telling me what history is and is not.

NEWS FLASH: I'm not the first person to suggest that there was considerable complicity within the French government and the French military which was facilitative in the Nazi's quick victory during the Battle of France.

...but you'll have to do your own research. Sorry, it's better for you this way.

[pugsville]

There is no mystery about the dramatic quick military collapse by France in 1940. The military history is pretty clear the allies plan was the worst possible plan that almost all of their good mobile forces into Belgium where they were cut off by the German sickle thrust. Poor organization, Poor communications, Poor Intelligence. There is no need or support for conspiracy theories I suggest anyone who favors these to do some reading. It's really quite simple.

[Smilin' Dave]

Want to explain where in the world you EVER got the idea that I believed a conspiracy is possible by one person?

Probably when you said this after claiming most human behaviour is conspiratorial:

How many things do you actually do in your own life all by your lonesome?

I guess if you think you can get away with fabricating history, you'll believe you can fabricate a post history that is plain for all to see.

Please refrain from insulting my intelligence.

You want to argue about a dictionary definition, that's what we are going to do until you understand.

just as you dismissed Yergin's work

If you were familiar with some of his fancifal preditions in Russia 2010, which he co-authored, you would understand why I won't just take him at his word.

I'm not the first person to suggest that there was considerable complicity within the French government and the French military which was facilitative in the Nazi's quick victory during the Battle of France.

Multiple people saying the same thing without factual basis or logic doesn't make it correct either.

...but you'll have to do your own research.

No this isn't a case of my having to do research, I've actually done quite a bit on WWII. This is a case of you trying to make me prove your argument for you. It is unbelievable that a critical failing of your own argument (that there is little to no proof for it) is being twisted by you into an attack on my person.

It doesn't take long and you get moderators who start banning people they disagree with,

Amazingly this forum has existing for years now without this happening.

[AuContraireVoltaire]

Two things stick out

1. The uprising in Yugoslavia and volatility of the Balkans

2. The Battle of Britain

With regard to the first event, Hitler needed relative calm in the Balkan states in order to launch his invasion force into Russia (Operation Barbarossa)
The original plan had been for the three Army Groups to cross into the Russian Empire in the early spring, giving the invasion force sufficient time, through its blitzkrieg tactics, to force Russia to capitulate before the notorious autumn rains and Russian winter set in. However the uprising in Yugoslavia delayed the operation until June, since German troops were needed in order to neutralise the insurgents.
Mounting the offensive in June only gave the Germans three months to win a decisive and swift victory, and of course we all know what happened once Army Group South was in sight of Moscow.
The delay in Operation Barbarossa likely saved the Russians, and made sure an Eastern Front remained open to oppose the Nazis.

In the case of the second event, a lot of German generals at the time agree on this as a landmark moment, and a turning-point in the war - contrary to the convention of labelling Stalingrad as the watershed moment - had the Germans won this aerial engagement it would have given them air superiority allowing them to commence Operation Sealion (the invasion of Britain) Britain would have been defeated within a matter of weeks; leaving no possibility of an Allied invasion of Normandy since Britain would not have been able to be used as a launching pad for an amphibious landing, and therefore no opening of a western front.

[Smilin' Dave]

With regard to the first event, Hitler needed relative calm in the Balkan states in order to launch his invasion force into Russia (Operation Barbarossa)
The original plan had been for the three Army Groups to cross into the Russian Empire in the early spring, giving the invasion force sufficient time, through its blitzkrieg tactics, to force Russia to capitulate before the notorious autumn rains and Russian winter set in. However the uprising in Yugoslavia delayed the operation until June, since German troops were needed in order to neutralise the insurgents.
Mounting the offensive in June only gave the Germans three months to win a decisive and swift victory, and of course we all know what happened once Army Group South was in sight of Moscow.
The delay in Operation Barbarossa likely saved the Russians, and made sure an Eastern Front remained open to oppose the Nazis.

1. It's been pretty well confirmed that Operation Barbarossa had been delayed before the Balkans campaign, due to late rains in the Soviet Union (swelling rivers and muddying roads) and from memory the Germans were still making logistical prepartions.
2. The troops diverted came entirely from Army Group South, which left two whole army groups uneffected.
3. Army Group South didn't go near Moscow, Army Group Centre did.