Two articles help us understand the causes of the British hatred of Germans and Germany during the past one hundred years.

Hundred Years of War against Germany

...

Secret speech of Winston S. Churchill in March 1936 in the Lower House:[8]

"For four hundred years the foreign policy of England has been to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating Power on the Continent [...]. Faced by Philip II of Spain, against Louis XIV under William III and Marlborough, against Napoleon, against William II of Germany, it would have been easy and must have been very tempting to join with the stronger and share the fruits of his conquest. However, we always took the harder course, joined with the less strong Powers, made a combination among them, and thus defeated and frustrated the Continental military tyrant whoever he was, whatever nation he led. Thus we preserved the liberties of Europe [...].

Observe that the policy of England takes no account of which nation it is that seeks the overlordship of Europe. The question is not whether it is Spain, or the French Monarchy, or the French Empire, or the German Empire, or the Hitler régime. It has nothing to do with rulers or nations; it is concerned solely with whoever is the strongest or the potentially dominating tyrant. Therefore, we should not be afraid of being accused of being pro-French or anti-German. If the circumstances were reversed, we could equally be pro-German and anti-French. It is a law of public policy which we are following, and not a mere expedient dictated by accidental circumstances, or likes and dislikes, or any other sentiment.

The question, therefore, arises which is today the Power in Europe which is the strongest, and which seeks in a dangerous and oppressive sense to dominate. Today, for this year, probably for part of 1937, the French Army is the strongest in Europe. But no one is afraid of France. Everyone knows that France wants to be let alone, and that with her it is only a case of self-preservation. Everyone knows that the French are peaceful and overhung by fear. [...]

Germany, on the other hand, fears no one. She is arming in a manner which has never been seen in German history. She is led by a handful of triumphant desperadoes. The money is running short, discontents are arising beneath these despotic rulers. Very soon they will have to choose, on the one hand, between economic and financial collapse or internal upheaval, and on the other, a war which could have no other object, and which, if successful, can have no other result, than a Germanised Europe under Nazi control. Therefore, it seems to me that all the old conditions present themselves again, and that our national salvation depends upon our gathering once again all the forces of Europe to contain, to restrain, and if necessary to frustrate, German domination. For, believe me, if any of those other Powers, Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II, had with our aid become the absolute masters of Europe, they could have despoiled us, reduced us to insignificance and penury on the morrow of their victory."

...

http://vho.org/tr/2003/4/Werner373-385.html

Dealing in Hate: The development of anti-German propaganda

...


The sources of Anglo-German estrangement had become quite apparent years before the first World War. Naval rivalry plus Germany's astonishing industrial and commercial growth, which was viewed with increasing alarm in Great Britain, all tended to create a growing rift between the two nations. British publicists and historians, ever sensitive to the wishes of the Foreign Office, soon began to reflect this new state of affairs in their writings about Germany. What is more, this change in the British climate of opinion created a similar change in American opinion of Germany. Even at the turn of the century it was already evident that a good deal of anti-German sentiment was definitely setting in in the American press. One very important but little known reason which serves to explain this was the utter dependence of a large segment of the American press upon British sources for information about European and particularly German affairs. The Germanophobic Harmsworth press of Great Britain played and especially powerful role in this fascinating game of manipulating American opinion. The anti-German sentiments expressed in the widely read articles of F. W. Wile in The New York Times exemplified this British inspired transformation in American thinking in an especially effective way.26

...

http://www.ihr.org/books/connors/dealinginhate.html

Thank you - sincerely!

[QUOTE=F.W. Braun]Two articles help us understand the causes of the British hatred of Germans and Germany during the past one hundred years.

Fred old fruit, the hundred years war had nowt to do with that animosity.
I think you ought to have dwelt more on World Wars one and two.

The use of Jew-developed poison gas against British troops in WW1, and teensy weensy incidents that may also have caused an inkling of British antagonism included the Luftwaffe's destruction of Coventry and other British civilian Cities in the 'Baedekker raids'.

Those incidents went down like a cup of cold sick with the British Race. Lastly do not forget 'Operation SeaLion' whose launch was foiled by the actions of the RAF. The Invasion Plan really got the British people's backs up at the thought of becoming vassals to the German people.

...the hundred years war had nowt to do with that animosity.
I think you ought to have dwelt more on World Wars one and two.

You obviously haven't even glanced at the articles.

The use of Jew-developed poison gas against British troops in WW1, and teensy weensy incidents that may also have caused an inkling of British antagonism included the Luftwaffe's destruction of Coventry and other British civilian Cities in the 'Baedekker raids'.

Funny BS. The Operation Sealion didn't take place because of Hitler's misplaced admiration of the British and their Empire and because of his foolish hope that he'll eventually succeed in concluding a long-lasting peace with Britain. Arguably Hitler's greatest error was to think that he could reach a mutually beneficial arrangement with Britain. He should've finished the British when they were scurrying off like rats at Dunkirk, instead of giving the order to pull back at the last moment (to the furious amazement of Guderian et al.). The entire war could've been over then and there. His unrequited love of the British Empire did more to sink the Third Reich than anything else (that and the stupid alliance with the hapless and traitorous Italians).

Those incidents went down like a cup of cold sick with the British Race. Lastly do not forget 'Operation SeaLion' whose launch was foiled by the actions of the RAF. The Invasion Plan really got the British people's backs up at the thought of becoming vassals to the German people.

Hilarious.

The first civilian bombings were done by the British. This was long before the Germans were forced to retaliate. Read on.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Hitchens_replies.html

..........the British, by their own admission, initiated unrestricted bombing of civilian areas ought to merit for them membership in the select society of "war criminals." The unbelieving reader need only consult the testimony of the British officials J. M. Spaight and Sir Arthur Harris, for incontrovertible proof of this charge.99 A decision of the British Air Ministry made on May 11, 1940, to attack targets in Western Germany instituted the practice of bombing purely civilian objectives. This "epoch-making event," as F. J. P. Veale correctly describes it, marked an ominous departure from the rule that hostilities are to be limited to operations against enemy military forces alone.100 Spaight, former Principal Secretary of the Air Ministry, makes the following amazing comment on the decision of May 11, 1940:

Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11, 1940, the publicity it deserves. That surely was a mistake. It was a splendid decision.101

But the "great decision," the "splendid decision" of May 11, 1940, which was ultimately to cost the lives of millions, including thousands of Mr. Spaight's own countrymen, was to have an even more grisly sequel, for, according to Sir Charles Snow who had charge of selecting scientific personnel for war research in Great Britain in World War II, F. A. Lindemann, a Cabinet member and confidant of Churchill, produced in early 1942 a remarkable Cabinet paper on the subject of the strategic bombing of Germany:

It described, in quantitative terms, the effect on Germany of a British bombing offensive in the next eighteen months (approximately March 1942-September 1943). The paper laid down a strategic policy. The bombing must be directed essentially against German working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space round them, and so are bound to waste bombs ...102

One wonders if it was the cultivated humanitarianism inherent in this decision to assure the death of more working class Germans per bomb which entitled the Allies, and in particular the British, to sit in moral judgment on German leaders at Nuremberg in 1946!

99. J. M. Spaight, Bombing Vindicated (London: Geoffrey Bles, Ltd., 1944) and Sir Arthur Harris, bomber Offensive (London: Collins, 1947).

100. F. J. P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism (Apppleton: C. C. Nelson Publishing Company, 1953), p. 122.

101. Spaight, op. cit., p. 7.

102. C. P. Snow, Science and Government (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), p. 48.

Letter to PBS on fraudulent 'documentary' about the 'Blitz'

Dr. A.R. WESSERLE
16 March 1981
PBS Television "The Blitz"

Sirs:

Rarely have I come across a television broadcast more vicious in intent and more warped in execution than your recent "Blitz on Britain." As a survivor of the mass air raid executed against my native city of Prague, Bohemia, on the Christian Holy Day of Palm Sunday, 1945, by the Anglo-American strategic bomber force - a raid that maimed or murdered thousands a few seconds before the conclusion of the Second World War - I say this:

1. There can be no comparison between the brutality of the Anglo-American bomber offensive, on one hand, and the minimality of the German-Italian efforts, on the other. As the commander of the British strategic air offensive, Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris shows in his Bomber Offensive (Macmillan, New York, 1947) 23 German cities had more than 60 percent of their built-up area destroyed; 46 had half of it destroyed. 31 communities had more than 500 acres obliterated: Berlin, 6427 acres: Hamburg, 6200 acres; Duesseldorf, 2003; Cologne (through air attack), 1994. By contrast, the three favorite targets of the Luftwaffe: London, Plymouth and Coventry, had 600 acres, 400, and just over 100 acres destroyed.

2. Anglo-American strategic bombers, according to official sources of the West German government in 1962, dropped 2,690,000 metric tons of bombs on Continental Europe; 1,350,000 tons were dropped on Germany within its 1937 boundaries; 180,000 tons on Austria and the Balkans; 590,000 tons on France; 370,000 tons on Italy; and 200,000 tons on miscellaneous targets such as Bohemia, Slovakia and Poland. By contrast, Germany dropped a total of 74,172 tons of bombs as well as V-1 and V-2 rockets and "buzz bombs" on Britain - five percent of what the Anglo-Saxons rained down on Germany. The Federal German Government has established the minimum count - not an estimate - of 635,000 German civilians were killed in France, Italy, Rumania, Hungary, Czecheslovakia, and elsewhere.

3. Both Germany and Britain initiated air raids on naval and military targets as of 3 September 1939. However, when the British attacks on port installations in Northern Germany ended in disaster, with a devastating majority of bombers downed - the Battle of the German Bight - Britain switched over to less costly night air raids on civilian targets such as Berlin and the Ruhr industrial region. By contrast, Germany replied in kind only in the winter months of 1940/41, a year later. Observers indubitably British, such as the late Labour Minister Crossman, the scientist and writer C.P. Snow, and the Earl of Birkenhead, have demonstrated that it was not Germany but Britain that, after May, 1940, unleashed an official policy of unrestricted and unlimited raids on civilian populations under its new Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and his science advisor, Dr. Lindemann. Professor Lindemann, the later Viscount Cherwell, coolly calculated that, by using a force of 10,000 heavy bombers to attack and destroy the 58 largest German cities, one-third of the population of Germany would be "de-housed." The assumption, of course, also was that out of those 25-27 million homeless at least ten percent - 2.5 to 3 million people - would be killed. On this score alone, Winston Churchill and his advisors deserve to rank among the maddest mass murderers in history. In fact, as West German records show, 131 German towns were hit by heavy strategic raids. Only the courage of the Luftwaffe pilots, the effectiveness of the air defense network and the strength of the fire fighting organization worked together to prevent a bloodbath to the extent envisioned by the Prime Minister.

4. Blood baths did occur when conditions were right. When the Anglo-American bombing policy reached its first grand climax in a raid on Hamburg that stretched over several days and nights in July, 1943, a minimum of 40,000 to 50,000 civilians burned to death. With the defensive power of the Reich worn down in the second half of 1944 and in 1945, the Anglo-Saxons indulged in ever more massive extermination raids against Europe. Communities of little or no military value, even if attacked previously, were now pulverized, preferably under conditions of the utmost horror. Christian holy days, and dates and sites of famous art festivals were select occasions for raids. Many of the most beautiful cities of Europe and the world were systematically pounded into nothingness, often during the last weeks of the war, among them: Wuerzburg, Hildesheim, Darmstadt, Kassel, Nürnberg, Braunschweig. Little Pforzheim in south-west Germany had 17,000 people killed. Dresden, one of the great art centers and in 1945 a refuge for perhaps a million civilians, was decimated with the loss of at least 100,000 souls. Europe from Monte Cassino to Luebeck and Rostock on the Baltic, from Caen and Lisieux in France to Pilsen, Prague, Bruenn, Budapest and Bucharest reeled under the barbaric blows of the bombers.

5. Nor did the extermination raids stop with Europe. Cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay demonstrated in. the Far East that record kills could be achieved without resort to atomic weapons. By applying the lessons learned in Europe to the wooden architecture of the Asian mainland and Japan he raised "fire storms" which surpassed even those of Hamburg, n Japanese civilians were killed through bombing. Millions of others fell victim to it, from Mukden, Manchuria, to Rangoon, Burma. It goes without saying that LeMay and his colleagues could not have carried out their campaigns of mass annihilation without the backing of the highest political leaders in the land. In fact, the United States Government had placed orders for the immediate development of four-engined, superheavy, very-long-range bombers (the XB 15, the B-17, the XB 19, the B-24 and the B-29) starting in 1934. Thus, the Roosevelt Administration had begun to lay plans for offensive, strategic, global war back in 1933, the year of its inception. With the later exception of Britain, none of the other "large" powers followed suit: neither France, Italy and Germany, nor Soviet Russia and Japan the latter with extensive holdings in the Pacific. These are sobering facts. PBS, with its record of fine programming, has much to lose if it insists on presenting biassed reports such as "Blitz on Britain" or "UXB." If you care to tap the unplumbed depths of sentimentality, envy and hatred, start a comic strip. In the meantime, we'll change channels.
Give poor Alistair Cooke, who has been mightily discomfited of late, a much-needed respite.

Sincerely, Dr. A.R. Wesserle

Source: Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 381-384.[QUOTE]

In addition:

[QUOTE]“As early as 1953 H.M. Stationary Office published the first volume of a work ‘The Royal Air Force’, 1939-1945 entitled ‘The Fight at Odds’, a book described as “officially commissioned and based throughout on official documents which had been read and approved by the Air Ministry Historical Branch.” The author , Mr. Dennis Richards, states plainly the destruction of oil plants and factories was only a secondary purpose of the British air attacks on Germany which began in May 1940. The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it is impossible to carry on a modern war. Mr Dennis Richards writes: “If the Royal Air Force raided the Ruhr, destroying oil plants with it’s most accurately placed bombs and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retalliation against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. The attack on the Ruhr, in other words, was an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London “. p. 122

This passage merely confirmed what Mr. Spaight had so incautiously disclosed in 1944 in his by then forgotten book ‘Bombing Vindicated’. The popular belief that Hitler started unrestricted bombing still persisted and is, in fact, widely held at present day.

The third and last phase of the British air offensive against Germany began in March 1942 with the adoption of the Lindemann Plan by the British War Cabinet, and continued until the end of the war in May, 1945. The bombing during this period was not, as the Germans complained, indiscriminate. On the contrary, it was concentrated on working-class houses because, as professor Lindemann maintained, a higher percentage of bloodshed per ton of explosives dropped could be expected from bombing houses built close together, rather than by bombing higher class houses surrounded by gardens.”

source: ‘Advance to Barbarism - the Development of Total Warfare’, by F.J.P. Veale, p.184-185

Quote from Fred W.Brown: "Funny BS. The Operation Sealion didn't take place because of Hitler's misplaced admiration of the British and their Empire"

If Hitler had any admiration for the British or their Empire, whether misplaced or otherwise would he have allowed the bombing of the British in their cities such as Coventry and London ? Was misplaced admiration also expressed by having Operation Sealion reach the last stage where the troops were ready and waiting to set off in the invasion barges. Only the RAF saved Britain from the invasion, not any retrospective flush of 'admiration'.
:rolleyes:

Quote from Fred W.Brown: "Funny BS. The Operation Sealion didn't take place because of Hitler's misplaced admiration of the British and their Empire"

If Hitler had any admiration for the British or their Empire, whether misplaced or otherwise would he have allowed the bombing of the British in their cities such as Coventry and London ? Was misplaced admiration also expressed by having Operation Sealion reach the last stage where the troops were ready and waiting to set off in the invasion barges. Only the RAF saved Britain from the invasion, not any retrospective flush of 'admiration'.
:rolleyes:

Last post on this:

Hitler wasn't afraid of the RAF, Sealion didn't occur because of his hesitations and tergiversations motivated by his hope that an agreement could still be reached with Britain; and at that time he didn't want to do anything that would make a peace agreement more difficult to reach (he was even willing to militarily guarantee the British Empire as part of a general peace settlement). Everyone who knows anything about the Second World War is aware of Hitler's fondness for the British and his admiration of the British Empire; and that Germany made five peace offers to Britain (six if you count the Hess flight).

F. W. Braun, are you an English Nazi-sympathizer?

F. W. Braun, are you an English Nazi-sympathizer?

No, I'm just a "Nazi-sympathizer" trying to set the record straight in the face of an ongoing avalanche of lies and disinformation whenever the subject of WW II comes up. ;)

No, I'm just a "Nazi-sympathizer" trying to set the record straight in the face of an ongoing avalanche of lies and disinformation whenever the subject of WW II comes up. ;)

A the son of a Nazi Party member who cared not for politics but who endured much fighting, I was brought up to believe in promoting the truth and honesty by my old pater:

Based on his advice that National Socialism is a system designed to ensure that the truth and facts must take precedence over all, I firmly believe that Nazis would rather catch syphilis than endure your 'sympathy' . I would.
:)

A the son of a Nazi Party member who cared not for politics but who endured much fighting, I was brought up to believe in promoting the truth and honesty by my old pater:

And I'm the Easter Bunny.

Based on his advice that National Socialism is a system designed to ensure that the truth and facts must take precedence over all, I firmly believe that Nazis would rather catch syphilis than endure your 'sympathy' . I would.
:)

*Laughs and throws popcorn at Dasyurus Maculatus*

(I thought this was the Civil Forum.)