Europe, Boring Until it's Not
-
- Posts: 5297
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:43 am
- Location: suiþiuþu
Re: Europe, Boring Until it's Not
The Danes at least managed to smuggle all their Jews over to Sweden. They didn't have a Quisling either. They did the best they could in their situation.
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur? - Axel Oxenstierna
Nie lügen die Menschen so viel wie nach einer Jagd, während eines Krieges oder vor Wahlen. - Otto von Bismarck
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
-
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Re: Europe, Boring Until it's Not
You were talking about Denmark, don't try to change the subject.Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:06 amEven though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.Montegriffo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:23 amOK hero, tell me what would have been achieved by fighting to the death, apart from a lot of death?
Surrendering to the Nazis meant certain death for a lot of people, Monty.
What did Denmark have to achieve by continuing to fight a far superior military force, apart from a lot of death?
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Re: Europe, Boring Until it's Not
Six hours more fighting the Germans than the USA spent in 1940.Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:54 amThe Danes fought a six hour war against the Germans, Carlus. Six hours.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Re: Europe, Boring Until it's Not
We were not at war in 1940.Montegriffo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:41 amSix hours more fighting the Germans than the USA spent in 1940.Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:54 amThe Danes fought a six hour war against the Germans, Carlus. Six hours.
Most Americans were completely burned out from saving your asses the last time, and then you proceeded to guarantee that it would happen again. So Americans were like fuck you, then, good luck next time.
Personally, I would prefer to fight for England because you are our mother country and the only thing Anglos have going for ourselves is each other. But WW1 left Americans really fucking pissed off with you guys.
-
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Re: Europe, Boring Until it's Not
OK, now tell me what our fellow Angles/Vikings in Denmark had to gain by continuing to fight the Germans ( fellow Anglo-Saxons) in 1940.Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:51 amWe were not at war in 1940.Montegriffo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:41 amSix hours more fighting the Germans than the USA spent in 1940.Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:54 amThe Danes fought a six hour war against the Germans, Carlus. Six hours.
Most Americans were completely burned out from saving your asses the last time, and then you proceeded to guarantee that it would happen again. So Americans were like fuck you, then, good luck next time.
Personally, I would prefer to fight for England because you are our mother country and the only thing Anglos have going for ourselves is each other. But WW1 left Americans really fucking pissed off with you guys.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
- Posts: 3360
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:36 am
- Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Re: Europe, Boring Until it's Not
Danish politicians led by PM Erik Scavenius since 1st WW had advocated a "neutrality above all else" policy. Politicians at the time gathered that it would "provoke" the Germans if the Danish government started buying new artillery and armor, new rifles, increasing manpower, etc. The idea was that neutrality = not being seen as threatening to the interests of Germany. Hence also the non-aggression pact. PM Scavenius had some advance notice of the invasion via an anti-Nazi German officer. He, his government and the king agreed that Denmark should not offer resistence to Germany and sent out that message via telegraph. Germans had sabotaged the lines several places, so the message did not reach everyone. Hence those six hours of fighting.
Under no circumstance would Denmark have been able to beat the invasion. It was expertly executed and Denmark in WW2 is not a country in a PC strategy game where you can hit a cheat code, get unlimited money and buy all the manpower, artillery, armor and AA guns you need. But, even though we had no allies, even though the government had cut the defense budget to appease Germany and what they considered the best path toward neutrality, even though the German air force easily have done to Copenhagen what they did to Krakow in Poland, we could have delayed German forces in taking the airport here in Aalborg, so Norway could get more time to prepare. They, too, might lose, and we were not allied with them but we should have done so, anyway.
Scavenius is often referred to as a follower of realpolitik in our history books. His policy, from when he was foreign minister to his PM-ship, was one of neutrality that favored Germany. Which makes sense. It's like if some minor Central American country wanted to retain some measure of neutrality and independence, it could either opt for a showdown with the USA, or it could opt for a policy of neutrality that favored US interests. Which option gives the country the longest lifespan?
Doesn't mean people today love, or even praise Scavenius' policy. The sense is that he did something neccesary, not something wanted. Most who dispute that, however point to how strengthening the Danish military could have acted as a political deterrence, challenging Scavenius assumptions about military buildup as provocation.
Under no circumstance would Denmark have been able to beat the invasion. It was expertly executed and Denmark in WW2 is not a country in a PC strategy game where you can hit a cheat code, get unlimited money and buy all the manpower, artillery, armor and AA guns you need. But, even though we had no allies, even though the government had cut the defense budget to appease Germany and what they considered the best path toward neutrality, even though the German air force easily have done to Copenhagen what they did to Krakow in Poland, we could have delayed German forces in taking the airport here in Aalborg, so Norway could get more time to prepare. They, too, might lose, and we were not allied with them but we should have done so, anyway.
Scavenius is often referred to as a follower of realpolitik in our history books. His policy, from when he was foreign minister to his PM-ship, was one of neutrality that favored Germany. Which makes sense. It's like if some minor Central American country wanted to retain some measure of neutrality and independence, it could either opt for a showdown with the USA, or it could opt for a policy of neutrality that favored US interests. Which option gives the country the longest lifespan?
Doesn't mean people today love, or even praise Scavenius' policy. The sense is that he did something neccesary, not something wanted. Most who dispute that, however point to how strengthening the Danish military could have acted as a political deterrence, challenging Scavenius assumptions about military buildup as provocation.
Fame is not flattery. Respect is not agreement.
-
- Posts: 5377
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:04 am
Re: Europe, Boring Until it's Not
Quality over quantity Monte - We did in three years what you couldn't do in 6.Montegriffo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:41 amSix hours more fighting the Germans than the USA spent in 1940.Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:54 amThe Danes fought a six hour war against the Germans, Carlus. Six hours.
-
- Posts: 5377
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:04 am
Re: Europe, Boring Until it's Not
Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:51 amPersonally, I would prefer to fight for England because you are our mother country and the only thing Anglos have going for ourselves is each other.
Shut your filthy tory mouth.
There are no more Lions in England.....
-
- Posts: 5377
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:04 am
Re: Europe, Boring Until it's Not
Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:51 am
Most Americans were completely burned out from saving your asses the last time, and then you proceeded to guarantee that it would happen again. So Americans were like fuck you, then, good luck next time.
IMHO - it was the fucking French more than the Brits that sealed the deal for WWII.....fucking arrogant bastards.