Was Churchill overrated? - Page 7

Kruska · #**151** (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2009, 04:30 PM

Hello Drucius,

you obviously and sadly though, didn't get the message old chummy,

The bagpipe is a very harmonious instrument if used and played properly and skillfull - it is a torture to soul and teeth if meerly squeezed, tormented and sensless blown into.

So I would dearly suggest that either you actually try to learn it in an appropriate way instead of wasting your and others time and interest by uttering sensless, offensive, squeeling, biased and mindharming sounds.

In which case it just adds unjustified to a very disturbing impression and judgement upon bagpipeplayers in general.

Regards
Kruska

brndirt1 · #**152** (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2009, 05:06 PM

Kruska, do you know the difference between an onion and a bagpipe? Nobody cries when you take a knife to a bagpipe and slash it to shreds!

Kruska · #**153** (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brndirt1

Kruska, do you know the difference between an onion and a bagpipe? Nobody cries when you take a knife to a bagpipe and slash it to shreds!

Hello brndirt1,

no honestly, I like to hear a bagpipe that is played well - especially when my Scottish friend handles it masterfully, and after 5-6 beers (German size) I will even ask him to continue.

Regards
Kruska

TiredOldSoldier · #**154** (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2009, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello brndirt1,

no honestly, I like to hear a bagpipe that is played well - especially when my Scottish friend handles it masterfully, and after 5-6 beers (German size) I will even ask him to continue.

Regards
Kruska

De gustibus non disputandum est.

Julius Ceasar

Drucius · #**155** (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2009, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello redcoat,

Berlin, 2. Aug. source; Frankfurter Zeitung
Eine französische Abteilung hat bei dem elsässischen Orte Reppe die deutsche Grenze überschritten. Damit steht fest, daß Frankreich ebenso wie Rußland uns ohne Kriegserklärung angegriffen hat. 2)

Berlin, 2. Aug.
A French detatchment has crossed the German border near the village of Reppe in Alsacce. Therefore it is for certain that France as well as Russia have attacked us without a declaration of war.

Berlin, 3. Aug. (W. B. Amtliche Mitteilung.)
Bisher haben deutsche Truppen dem erteilten Befehle gemäß, die französische Grenze nicht überschritten. Dagegen greifen seit gestern französische Truppen ohne Kriegserklärung unsere Grenzposten an. Sie haben, obwohl uns die französische Regierung noch vor wenigen Tagen die Innehaltung einer unbesetzten Zone von 10 Kilometern zugesagt hat, an verschiedenen Stellen die deutsche Grenze überschritten. Französische Kompanien halten seit gestern Nacht deutsche Ortschaften besetzt. Bomben werfende Flieger kommen seit gestern nach Baden, Bayern und unter Verletzung der belgischen Neutralität über belgischen Gebiet nach der Rheinprovinz und versuchen, unsere Bahnen zu zerstören. Frankreich hat damit den Angriff gegen uns eröffnet und den Kriegszustand hergestellt. Die Reichssicherheit zwingt uns zu Gegenmaßnahmen. Seine Majestät der Kaiser hat die erforderlichen Befehle erteilt. Der deutsche Botschafter in Paris ist angewiesen worden, seine Pässe zu fordern. 2)

Berlin 3rd August offical government report,
So far German troops according to the order given have not crossed the French border. However French troops since yesterday (2nd August) are attacking our border guard posts. they have crossed the German border on several places. French company's have occupied since yesterday evening (2nd August) several German towns. Bomb throwing aircraft have
been sighted over Baden and Bavaria and by violation of the Belgium neutrality are crossing Belgium airspace in order to attack railwaylines in the Rhineland. France therefore has opened hostilities against us and has set the state of war. The responsibility towards our countries security, forces us to take countermeasures, the Kaiser has given the respective orders.

This German information differs from the english website that states, however without naming a source:
2nd August

France entered at four points.
Patrol kill French soldiers 10 km over frontier near Belfort

As for Russia:

obwohl Kaiser Wilhelm am 1. August in seinem letzten Telegramm an den Zaren (Deutsche Dokumente Nr. 600) diesen dringend bat, seine Truppen anzuweisen, auf keinen Fall die deutsche Grenze zu verletzen, fielen noch am selben Tage russische Abteilungen in deutsches Gebiet ein. (Deutsche Dokumente Nr. 629, 662, 664, Untersuchungsausschuß, Heft 2, S. 16, Anm.)

Even though the Kaiser in his last telegram on 1st of August to the Zar sincerely requested him to order his troops not to violate the German border, Russian units (detachments) on the same day entered German territory (German documents Nr. 629, 662, 664,)

Unfortunatly (at least I believe so) you do not speak German, otherwise the offical investigation account in 1922 reveals the entire picture that lead to WWI - it shows and documents very clearly that Russias military leadership (not the Zar) clearly intended to attack Germany - even before Austria and Germany fully mobilized. France had pledged full support to Russias intention on 24th July (7 days before Germany mobilized) -Englands king George had promised Wilhelms brother Heinrich, that GB would stay neutral.(German documents 207, 374)

Hu, lucky I found an English website too

, which verifys the German report, however without naming a source:
First World War.com - On This Day - 1 August 1914

1st August 1914
Germany, having ostensibly ordered general mobilisation 5 p.m., declares war on Russia 7.10 p.m.; makes out that Russians had crossed frontier in afternoon and begun war. (Declaration drafted before noon.)

Also interesting sidenote same english website: 2nd August 1914

England assures France that British fleet will stop German fleet if latter attacks French shipping in Channel.

(In that case GB would have positioned herself against Germany 2 days before Germany attacked Belgium)

Kriegsausbruch 1914 - Die russische Gesamtmobilmachung
Die Deutschen Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch 1914

Regards
Kruska

"Makes out" means "pretends". Your verifying website is pointing out that the German declaration of war was drafted before the Russians are supposed to have violated German borders. It's clear that the Germans cooked up a pretext to declare war because war was what they wanted. Which is the point I was making, really.

Drucius · #**156** (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2009, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

try and read again - maybe next time you get it right

I got nothing wrong, German military spending is clearly far higher than the UKs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

In contra to you I know the difference between a colony or crown colony and an independent Empire such as Austro-Hungaria. Check a KIA list in regards to Britains losses during WWI and you might understand who got killed on behalf and besides the British.

What's your point? Germany was an Empire, so was Turkey, so was Austro-Hungary. So what? Is there a difference between a Pole fighting for the German Empire and a Kiwi fighting for the British? No, there isn't so stop being silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

If I got the numbers about right - there were about 90,000 Brits and colonials fighting against 4000 Germans and their colonials in German-East-Afrika (todays Tansania). BTW the Brits didn't win.

Um...irrelevant or what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Just replace Germany with the term West-Germany if that makes it easier for you to follow - the content of the comparrison stays the same.

What rubbish. Where's the source? Where's the reason for this irrelevance even being here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

That Britain got into a war on behalf of another nation's souveranity (according to British history

) whilst Germany has no problem at all to face the fact that it got into a war to protect and defend its own interests. The postings that you are following in between redcoat and me have nothing to do with the rating thread of Winston Churchill. Haven't you noticed??

More self-serving nonsense, it's clear in every WWI history I've read (and I've read a ton) that Germany were the aggressor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Exactly, see how many British and their colonials died for 'supposedly" defending solely Belgium neutrality. Britain declared war on Germany -chummy - not the other way around.

Because Germany invaded Belgium, yes. What's your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

This is how wars get started old chummy. (taking interest in other countries) India or its Maharanis never declared war on Britain, but somehow Britain got interested in India, North America, South America, Caribbien, Africa, Australia, Afgahnistan, Malaysia, Burma, China, Indonesia, etc. etc. and GB couldn't be bothered about the souveranity of those states involved plus meddeling in Continental Europe, which to you seems to be totally allright but not for others hmm?

So you admit that Germany wanted to have an overseas empire just like Britain's? Now we're getting somewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

I believe that the English language terms this as Hipocracy

Refuting a pack of misinformation isn't hipocracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Germany was in alliance with Austria - Austria was in quarrels with Serbia - Russia was in alliance with Serbia you can follow so far?

Serbian terrorists murder the archduke of Austria - Austria has solid reasons to believe that the Serbian government is behind this. Austria however can't punish Serbia without risking Russian interference - therefore the Kaiser tells them "No matter what - I will stand to my alliance and respect an independent souverain nation in its rights"

Is that what he was doing when Germany invaded neutral Belgium?

More rubbish.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire must have been gutted when Serbia conceded to 8 out of 10 of Austria's ludicrous demands; it meant they didn't have a valid excuse to declare war on them. But they went ahead and did it anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Just as GB later did in regards to Belgium!!!

So the UK did enter the war because Germany invaded Belgium, yes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Austria declares war on Serbia - Russia mobilizes - the Kaiser begs the Zar to demobilize - the Zar doesn't - Germany declares war on Russia - Russian troops enter East Prussia the following day.

According to you, Russian troops were attacking Germany's border before Germany declared war. You're clearly just making this stuff up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Now I find it extremly interesting that the Germans who "according to some people and historians" wanted the war, were not ready to do so, but the Russians were able to attack first.

even the French Army AFAIK opened up hostillities first.

Now the Russian CoS admitted later on that the Zar could not have demobilized anyway - since the Russian military had already decided on the 25th of July to attack Germany.

Source? None.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Now go and exersise on your bagpipes whilst I will be clapping on my Lederhosen

(German posting style upon receiving a certain British postingstyle)

Regards
Kruska

Go slap a Pickelhaube.

Slipdigit · #**157** (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2009, 09:30 PM

Gentlemen,

I'm a not wanting to get involved in what was a discussion but now has decomposed into something else. I tried to let this go for a while thinking you would get it back on track, which is Was Churchill overrated?

If you want to continue down the tangent you are on at present, do it via private messages. But when you do, remember that rules of etiquette toward one another still apply.

Kruska · #**158** (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2009, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drucius

"Makes out" means "pretends". Your verifying website is pointing out that the German declaration of war was drafted before the Russians are supposed to have violated German borders. It's clear that the Germans cooked up a pretext to declare war because war was what they wanted. Which is the point I was making, really.

make out = pretend?? to make out an enemy means = to see/to recognize/to spot, it doesn't imply to make up = imagine or pretending/faking. The 3 incidents are recorded (German documents Nr. 629, 662, 664,).

dict.cc Wörterbuch :: to make out :: Deutsch-Englisch-Übersetzung
to make out ausmachen
ermitteln
feststellen
herausfinden
unterscheiden
ausnehmen

AFAIK the Americans even use this expresion in regards to dating.

That a war declaration is drafted before it is handed over I believe to be common sense. Upon the Zar's full mobilisation order and the fruitless telegrams between Willy and Nicky towards the ultimatum of 1st of August it is understood that the Kaiser had to prepare for war by the 1st of August.

Otherwise what be the meaning or sense of an ultimatum.?

Quote:

to declare war because war was what they wanted. Which is the point I was making, really

That is your personal opinion backed by nothing and in contra to the Willy/Nicky letters and the whole recorded rundown of protocols and documents provided in 1922 and maybe you could actually start to read up on the numerous quotes and webpages given istead of uttering mindless bagpipe sounds.

Why should I slap a Pickelhaube? those are priceless artifacts and collector items
But nevertheless I find even a bit of priceless British humor in it

Anyway I just noticed Slipdigits post, since your reply post 156 clearly shows that this topic is way above your comprehension I will glady retire from this absurd theatrical display of your randomised blah, blah.

De gustibus non disputandum est.
Indeed it applies to your posting style and my interpretation of it.

Regards
Kruska

Slipdigit · #**159** (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2009, 09:47 PM

Gentlemen, Again,

I'm a not wanting to get involved in what was a discussion but now has decomposed into something else. I tried to let this go for a while thinking you would get it back on track, which is Was Churchill overrated?

If you want to continue down the tangent you are on at present, do it via private messages. But when you do, remember that rules of etiquette toward one another still apply.

Drucius · #**160** (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2009, 10:09 PM

Posted in error, apologies.

Kruska · #**161** (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2009, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipdigit

Gentlemen, Again,

I'm a not wanting to get involved in what was a discussion but now has decomposed into something else. I tried to let this go for a while thinking you would get it back on track, which is Was Churchill overrated?

If you want to continue down the tangent you are on at present, do it via private messages. But when you do, remember that rules of etiquette toward one another still apply.

Hello Slipdigit,

in that case please feel free to close this thread since the question in regards to Churchill has been answered a long time ago and IMO anyone with unbiased historical knowledge would know that Churchill was definitly
not overrated.

Regards
Kruska

Drucius · #**162** (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2009, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

make out = pretend?? to make out an enemy means = to see/to recognize/to spot, it doesn't imply to make up = imagine or pretending/faking.

Phrasal Verb: Make out

Meaning: Pretend
Example: He MADE OUT that he was ill so that he didn't have to go to school.

Make out - English Phrasal Verb - UsingEnglish.com

Just so you know.

Kruska · #**163** (**permalink**) July 22nd, 2009, 10:46 PM

Just for you to widen your horizon

to make out [assert, claim] behaupten
to make out [manage to read] entziffern
to make out [pretend, assert falsely] vorgeben
to make out [manage to see or hear] ausmachen

I believe the first and last one hit the nail

If the question arises if a glass is half full or half empty - I am dead sure that you will choose just one option.

Kruska

Drucius · #**164** (**permalink**) July 23rd, 2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Just for you to widen your horizon

to make out [assert, claim] behaupten
to make out [manage to read] entziffern
to make out [pretend, assert falsely] vorgeben
to make out [manage to see or hear] ausmachen

I believe the first and last one hit the nail

If the question arises if a glass is half full or half empty - I am dead sure that you will choose just one option.

Kruska

Kruska, clearly I've been speaking English a lot longer than you have and am more aware of its useage and idiom. There is no way in hell that website supports any of that tommyrot you've been peddling, trust me.

That's my last word on the matter.

Kruska · #**165** (**permalink**) July 23rd, 2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Drucius;404200]Kruska, clearly I've been speaking English a lot longer than you have....

what makes you so sure?? besides maybe just assuming as usual

Sniping in France 1914-18: With Notes on the Scientific Training ... - Google Buchsuche-Ergebnisseite
von Hesketh Vernon Hesketh Prichard, General Lord ... - 2004 - History - 143 Seiten
Nothing, however, was to be seen of him, though we could clearly make out the nest he had built in one of the trees and, on the ground, what appeared to be ...

Quote:

That's my last word on the matter.

Why? it's getting to be really hilarious with you, in the movie "the Green Berets" this vietnam boy keeps saying

.... you very funny!

Kruska

Slipdigit · #**166** (**permalink**) July 24th, 2009, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drucius

That's my last word on the matter.

I certainly expect so, from both of you.

And please do not carry this argument to another thread.

Jock Williams · #**167** (**permalink**) July 24th, 2009, 01:31 PM

Churchill was a magnificent wartime leader for Britain and the Commonwealth "He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle" -but in truth he was pretty much a deadass failure as a strategist and tactician.

He considered himselof a military expert when in truth he was a rank amateur -having actually served with his regiment after Sandhurst for about a year and then gadding about the world as a war correspondent. Similarly he "commanded" a battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers in the trenches in an inactive area for a few months -but was largely absent -politicking in England.

Others have mentioned his military disasters -and they are right. Fortunately he had Alexander, Montgomery, Harris, Tedder and Alanbrooke and a host of other competent soldiers, sailors and airmen advising him and (usually) stopping him from doing something absolutely stupid most of the time.

Nonetheless he single-handedly inspired the free world to stand up to Hitler at a time when he alone had the guts to do so. For this alone he deserves immortality.

His military shortcomings can be forgiven in the light of his leadership successes.

Jock Williams Yogi 13

Kruska · #**168** (**permalink**) July 24th, 2009, 04:23 PM

Hello Jock Williams,

I don't think it is fair to blame the military incompetence of certain British generals on Churchill. He didn't really have much of a choice.

So after Gott was gone who else could he have entrusted the command with. If he hadn't more or less threatened Monty, the fellow would have dug himself in forever. The only British exeption IMO was Slim. The others were a bunch of morons and could only be victorious due to obvious supremacy in numbers and logistics or in the comfy shade of the Americans.

look at Percival - a total failure and arrogant as ever when he had his capitulation talks with Yamashita.

Churchill was in first line a politician who wasn't blind to reality - as such he masterfully proceeded in his plan to savekeep Britains interests.

Regards
Kruska

Jock Williams · #**169** (**permalink**) July 25th, 2009, 05:20 PM

It is said that Churchill mobilized the English language and sent it into battle. His speeches galvanised the british people and indeed the entire British Commonwealth and kept them in the fight until the entry of the United States.

Unfortunately Churchill also considered himself a master tactician and strategist -and these he most assuredly WASN'T!

No matter -he picked some excellent officers (Montgomery, Alexander, Harris, Tedder and Alanbrooke) and helped them to get the job done. He supported Eisenhower totally and developed a great friendship with Roosevelt -and those two moves had a huge part in eventual Allied victory.

He wasn't perfect -but we will not likely see his equal again!

Jock Williams Yogi 13

Kruska · #**170** (**permalink**) July 25th, 2009, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jock Williams

Unfortunately Churchill also considered himself a master tactician and strategist -and these he most assuredly WASN'T!

Hello Jock Williams,

could you please give or forward me an example

Regards
Kruska

redcoat · #**171** (**permalink**) July 26th, 2009, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello Jock Williams,

I don't think it is fair to blame the military incompetence of certain British generals on Churchill. He didn't really have much of a choice.

Indeed, Churchill can in no way be blamed for the tactical shortcomings of the British army

Quote:

So after Gott was gone who else could he have entrusted the command with.

Monty was the choice of his Chief of Staff, Sir Alan Brooke.

Quote:

If he hadn't more or less threatened Monty, the fellow would have dug himself in forever.

Monty didn't take any notice Of Churchill's bluster, He attacked when he was ready and not before

Quote:

The only British exeption IMO was Slim. The others were a bunch of morons and could only be victorious due to obvious supremacy in numbers and logistics or in the comfy shade of the Americans.

In the first battle Monty and Rommel fought the numbers in armour and troops were nearly equal

Jaeger · #**172** (**permalink**) July 26th, 2009, 12:43 AM

Quote:

So after Gott was gone who else could he have entrusted the command with. If he hadn't more or less threatened Monty, the fellow would have dug himself in forever. The only British exeption IMO was Slim. The others were a bunch of morons and could only be victorious due to obvious supremacy in numbers and logistics or in the comfy shade of the Americans.

This won't cut it Kruska.

You are displaying a knowledge so far below par, that I find it difficult to beleive that you actually mean it.

Kruska · #**173** (**permalink**) July 26th, 2009, 01:59 AM

Hello Jaeger,

Quote:

This won't cut it Kruska.

sorry mate, but is has to ...

I am not going to get myself into a Monty thread . Discussing or trying to convience a Pro Monty in an Anglo-Saxon Forum is like trying to convience the Pope in a Vatican gathering that Jesus daddy was actually Josef or some other fellow from this planet.

My sincere appologies to all catholics, or believers

Regards
Kruska

Jaeger · #**174** (**permalink**) July 26th, 2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

I am not going to get myself into a Monty thread

Funny way of staying away from it, but in your post you slated every british officer bar Slim. And now you won't back it up?

I have read a hell of a lot about both british and german commanders, and their doctrines. As you may have noticed I am an army man. I was fosterd on Auftraggstaktik and manouvrewarfare during my education, so if I am biased on the doctrine part it would be towards the germans.

I see from the earlier posts on this thread that there has been some, shall we say, heated arguments with national lines in it? Having your back against the wall will often spawn thoughtless/rash actions like this

Quote:

Discussing or trying to convience a Pro Monty in an Anglo-Saxon Forum is like trying to convience the Pope in a Vatican gathering that Jesus daddy was actually Josef or some other fellow from this planet.

I don't know how to tackle this at all. Firstly I'm from Norse stock, and secondly on a forum that is predominantly American Monty is about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit.

If you set about to hurt the few British rougues about I would consider backing it up with facts as a minimum of decorum.

You seem a nice fellow Kruska, keep up the good work.

Jaeger

Kruska · #**175** (**permalink**) July 26th, 2009, 06:05 PM

Hello Jaeger,

Quote:

Jaeger;Funny way of staying away from it, but in your post you slated every british officer bar Slim. And now you won't back it up?

I do get your point, but I have seen countless posts that meerly forward opinions without ever being backed up - and in the end it becomes meaningless. There are certain topics that aren't made for discussion.

So if someone might feel offended about my opinion in regards to qualities of British Generals in WWII - let them speak up and forward their point of view. - please no Monty!!

If someone would forward that only Guderian was good and all other German generals were morons - I wouldn't have a problem to either ignore this or counter by asking how one could say that Manstein was a moron, depending on the mood I am in.

But this issue is ripped out of context, so let me please rephrase it.

I think it is not fair to blame Churchill for the incompetence of his Generals.

Regards
Kruska