Yes, and they build as well an memorial for the murderer. that's what innocent people do!
Joined Nov 2010
10,011 Posts | 3,078+
Stockport Cheshire UK
I never said he was a warmonger, he was more an ..... being led a merry dance by his military.
i agree here and that let him appear like the most responsible for the war. But that doesn't mean, that others didn't used the chance for a war. France was eager to revise the defeat from 70/71 and Russia wanted to install a pan-slavic hegemony.
Joined Feb 2012
5,934 Posts | 380+
it was Britain that turned both European wars into world wars
That's quite an assertion, and in my view unjustifiable.
Britian was playing they own games.
So did every other nation and the practice continues. It's usually called self-interest for which the US is infamous.in the eyes of other countries.
1.Britain sided with the United States in its 1898 war with Spain;
That was nice of Britain wasn't it? Can't quite see why that had any real influence on events - it was unrelated to eurpoean issues and revolved around an argument over involvement in a rebellion in Cuba. America was flexing it's muscles and the conflict lasted only ten weeks.
2.It was britain settled the Alaska boundary dispute in America’s favor;
That dispute had been going on before America bought Alaska. Russia and Britain had disputed the exact border since at least 1821 and since Canada (as a british empire dominion) was seeking a pacific port naturally the british wanted some say. Unforuunately the americans got their own way and Canada was angry at Britain for what they considered something of a betrayal. In any event it was a minor issue unrelated to the world wars.
3.it was britain who ceded to America the exclusive rights to build, operate, and fortify a canal across Panama.
???? Ownership of the territory that is now the Panama Canal was first Colombian, then French and then American before coming under the control of the Panamanian government in 1999 (from Wikipedia)
Then on 1902, Anglo-Japanese treaty was signed.
In order to build an alliance against russian expansion in the east. All part of normal diplomacy and blaming Britain alone rather ignores the other nations with interests in the area such as France and Germany.
Now when american and asia were secured,Britain now turned to patching up quarrels with her European rivals.
The east was not secure - it hadn't been for some decades - and the colonial jostling of the greater powers was a symptom of growing conflict that was hardly britains fault alone.
In the end,Britain had appeased america, allied with Japan, and entered an entente with France and Russia
Quite. But why did that guarantee Britain's responsibility for global warfare? The truth was that global warfare was the result of colonial interests and resources in a period with rapidly spreading infrastructure and mechanisation, linked to an increasing power struggle between major players that is typical of strong rivalries. As much as you might blame Britain, it was all the rival nations that had a hand in the eventual globalisation of war, and indeed, it was german ambition to join the big league that prompted much of the rivalry to begin with.
That's quite an assertion, and in my view unjustifiable.
Britian was playing they own games.
So did every other nation and the practice continues. It's usually called self-interest for which the US is infamous.in the eyes of other countries.
1.Britain sided with the United States in its 1898 war with Spain;
That was nice of Britain wasn't it? Can't quite see why that had any real influence on events - it was unrelated to eurpoean issues and revolved around an argument over involvement in a rebellion in Cuba. America was flexing it's muscles and the conflict lasted only ten weeks.
2.It was britain settled the Alaska boundary dispute in America’s favor;
That dispute had been going on before America bought Alaska. Russia and Britain had disputed the exact border since at least 1821 and since Canada (as a british empire dominion) was seeking a pacific port naturally the british wanted some say. Unforuunately the americans got their own way and Canada was angry at Britain for what they considered something of a betrayal. In any event it was a minor issue unrelated to the world wars.
3.it was britain who ceded to America the exclusive rights to build, operate, and fortify a canal across Panama.
???? Ownership of the territory that is now the Panama Canal was first Colombian, then French and then American before coming under the control of the Panamanian government in 1999 (from Wikipedia)
Then on 1902, Anglo-Japanese treaty was signed.
In order to build an alliance against russian expansion in the east. All part of normal diplomacy and blaming Britain alone rather ignores the other nations with interests in the area such as France and Germany.
Now when american and asia were secured,Britain now turned to patching up quarrels with her European rivals.
The east was not secure - it hadn't been for some decades - and the colonial jostling of the greater powers was a symptom of growing conflict that was hardly britains fault alone.
In the end,Britain had appeased america, allied with Japan, and entered an entente with France and Russia
Quite. But why did that guarantee Britain's responsibility for global warfare? The truth was that global warfare was the result of colonial interests and resources in a period with rapidly spreading infrastructure and mechanisation, linked to an increasing power struggle between major players that is typical of strong rivalries. As much as you might blame Britain, it was all the rival nations that had a hand in the eventual globalisation of war, and indeed, it was german ambition to join the big league that prompted much of the rivalry to begin with.
Joined Dec 2011
3,569 Posts | 21+
I'm sorry, maybe that's lost in translation but I really don't understand what you mean?
I am sorry. Is this correction helpful? I suppose I am allowed to correct my own textboxQuote:
Originally Posted by beorna
No, sorry. In his memoirs Harris said, that the germans didn't use the chance of aerea bombing in 1940/41 to destroy BRITISH (and of course not german) towns.
The US american Henry Arnold wrote in an report about german destruction in London, that mainly legal targets were hit. About the collateral damage I wrote above.
Against a german terror bombing in those days speaks as well clearly the ammunition. It was in great parts explosive and not incendiary bombs.
Rotterdam and Warsaw, which can morally be called crimes, were as well legal targets according to the HC.
To put the start of moral bombing into the shoes of Hitler is wrong. But of course I can understand, that for the british public the collateral damage was impressive and that they acted under this impression.
I'm sorry, maybe that's lost in translation but I really don't understand what you mean?
Joined Dec 2011
375 Posts | 0+
Albion (twinned with Numenor)
[Originally Posted by beorna
No, sorry. In his memoirs Harris said, that the germans didn't use the chance of aerea bombing in 1940/41 to destroy BRITISH (and of course not german) towns.
The US american Henry Arnold wrote in an report about german destruction in London, that mainly legal targets were hit. About the collateral damage I wrote above.
Against a german terror bombing in those days speaks as well clearly the ammunition. It was in great parts explosive and not incendiary bombs.
Rotterdam and Warsaw, which can morally be called crimes, were as well legal targets according to the HC.
To put the start of moral bombing into the shoes of Hitler is wrong. But of course I can understand, that for the british public the collateral damage was impressive and that they acted under this impression.]
You seriously misrepresent Harris. Have you actually read his book?
In fact Harris explicitly states that German did use area bombing in 1940/41.
"The enemy [Germany] remained, in fact ... in the stage of supposing that the primary object of bombing, when aimed exclusively toward small military objectives, was to break morale. But this did mean that the Germans, as soon as they were defeated in their aim of hitting military objectives by daylight, passed at once to area bombing. And in this they had such successes as must inevitably come, with however little forethought, when a large force attacks an almost undefended country."
"Bomber Offensive" Sir Arthur Harris, Collins 1947 at p.86
Harris argues that the Luftwaffe was not able to use area bombing to destroy the British because the available bomber force was inadequate, not because it was witheld from the role.In the same chapter, he also recounts how British analyse of the damage done to British cities and British industries indicated that damage to the city's infrastructure had a longer term impact on production than direct damage to factories themselves. This was the cornerstone of the British area campaign.
It is generally accepted that German attacks were primarily aimed at industry, but with civilian casualties recognised as occuring. Nonetheless, British city centres were attacked even when their industry lay on the outskirts.
Birmingham, for instance, with its industry located around the periphery, saw its city centre hit on 25th August 1940. Coventry demonstrated how an attack aimed at the centre of a small city could disrupt its industry (as the British repeated at Rostock in 1942). The centre of London was attacked separately from the docks and industrial targets - notably on 29 Dec 40, when the City of London was devastated and where the main aiming point (the attack was curtailed and only the City was heavily attacked) appears to have been the West End - commercial, not industrial.
In October 1940, Luftwaffe crews ceased to be briefed on a specific target and were given instead a target area containing industry, docks etc. hence "area bombing" and the same approach the British would later use.
I note you seem convinced that the Luftwaffe used a minimum of incendaries and very large bombs, compared with the RAF. It is a recognised fact of the Blitz that German use of incendaries increased dramatically as the attacks went on and Luftwaffe tactics were refined (if that is the right word).
For instance; Coventry received 503 tons of HE and 881 incendiary canisters on the night of 14 Nov 40. When the Luftwaffe went back in the Spring of 1941 (8 Apr), with a raid of about half the size (237 aircraft to 449), the amount of HE dropped to 315 tons, but incendiary canisters numbered 710.
The change was even more marked at Southampton, where its first large raid (17 Nov) saw 198 tons of HE and 300 incendiary canisters. At the end of the month (30 Nov-1Dec) the consecutive raids delivered 299 tons of HE but 1184 incendiary canisters. Plymouth saw its first large raid (27 Nov) deliver 110 tons of HE and a mere 170 incendiary cannisters. But the 21-23 April raids, by a bomber force more than three times the size, saw 403 tons of HE delivered, compared to 2568 incendiary cannisters, a fifteen-fold increase.
The Luftwaffe also introduced increasingly large bombs, beginning with arial mines diverted from their primary purpose, and then the Herman and the Satan (4000lbs). These developing weapon mixes had tremendous material effect - Clydebank and Hull, for instance, both lost over 90% of their housing stock.
These developments ended when the Luftwaffe withdrew to support the invasion of Russia, not through any moral nicety on the part of Luftwaffe planners.
The only thing that differentiated the Luftwaffe's attacks during the Blitz of 40/41 and the subsequent RAF attacks on Germany was the scale of the attack. The target sets, aiming techniques and weapon mixes were all employed by the Luftwaffe before the RAF (if only because the RAF was not in a position to take on more distant targets in Germany in force until the end of 1940).
Again, I am not arguing that the British raids were reprisals (although the Luftwaffe often claimed that German raids were, even during the Blitz). There was surprisingly little call for reprisals among the British public, most of it from people in areas that had not been bombed. The point I am making is that the targetting rationales and attack methods had already been employed in the Autumn and Winter of 1940/41 and were not exceptional.
No, sorry. In his memoirs Harris said, that the germans didn't use the chance of aerea bombing in 1940/41 to destroy BRITISH (and of course not german) towns.
The US american Henry Arnold wrote in an report about german destruction in London, that mainly legal targets were hit. About the collateral damage I wrote above.
Against a german terror bombing in those days speaks as well clearly the ammunition. It was in great parts explosive and not incendiary bombs.
Rotterdam and Warsaw, which can morally be called crimes, were as well legal targets according to the HC.
To put the start of moral bombing into the shoes of Hitler is wrong. But of course I can understand, that for the british public the collateral damage was impressive and that they acted under this impression.]
You seriously misrepresent Harris. Have you actually read his book?
In fact Harris explicitly states that German did use area bombing in 1940/41.
"The enemy [Germany] remained, in fact ... in the stage of supposing that the primary object of bombing, when aimed exclusively toward small military objectives, was to break morale. But this did mean that the Germans, as soon as they were defeated in their aim of hitting military objectives by daylight, passed at once to area bombing. And in this they had such successes as must inevitably come, with however little forethought, when a large force attacks an almost undefended country."
"Bomber Offensive" Sir Arthur Harris, Collins 1947 at p.86
Harris argues that the Luftwaffe was not able to use area bombing to destroy the British because the available bomber force was inadequate, not because it was witheld from the role.In the same chapter, he also recounts how British analyse of the damage done to British cities and British industries indicated that damage to the city's infrastructure had a longer term impact on production than direct damage to factories themselves. This was the cornerstone of the British area campaign.
It is generally accepted that German attacks were primarily aimed at industry, but with civilian casualties recognised as occuring. Nonetheless, British city centres were attacked even when their industry lay on the outskirts.
Birmingham, for instance, with its industry located around the periphery, saw its city centre hit on 25th August 1940. Coventry demonstrated how an attack aimed at the centre of a small city could disrupt its industry (as the British repeated at Rostock in 1942). The centre of London was attacked separately from the docks and industrial targets - notably on 29 Dec 40, when the City of London was devastated and where the main aiming point (the attack was curtailed and only the City was heavily attacked) appears to have been the West End - commercial, not industrial.
In October 1940, Luftwaffe crews ceased to be briefed on a specific target and were given instead a target area containing industry, docks etc. hence "area bombing" and the same approach the British would later use.
I note you seem convinced that the Luftwaffe used a minimum of incendaries and very large bombs, compared with the RAF. It is a recognised fact of the Blitz that German use of incendaries increased dramatically as the attacks went on and Luftwaffe tactics were refined (if that is the right word).
For instance; Coventry received 503 tons of HE and 881 incendiary canisters on the night of 14 Nov 40. When the Luftwaffe went back in the Spring of 1941 (8 Apr), with a raid of about half the size (237 aircraft to 449), the amount of HE dropped to 315 tons, but incendiary canisters numbered 710.
The change was even more marked at Southampton, where its first large raid (17 Nov) saw 198 tons of HE and 300 incendiary canisters. At the end of the month (30 Nov-1Dec) the consecutive raids delivered 299 tons of HE but 1184 incendiary canisters. Plymouth saw its first large raid (27 Nov) deliver 110 tons of HE and a mere 170 incendiary cannisters. But the 21-23 April raids, by a bomber force more than three times the size, saw 403 tons of HE delivered, compared to 2568 incendiary cannisters, a fifteen-fold increase.
The Luftwaffe also introduced increasingly large bombs, beginning with arial mines diverted from their primary purpose, and then the Herman and the Satan (4000lbs). These developing weapon mixes had tremendous material effect - Clydebank and Hull, for instance, both lost over 90% of their housing stock.
These developments ended when the Luftwaffe withdrew to support the invasion of Russia, not through any moral nicety on the part of Luftwaffe planners.
The only thing that differentiated the Luftwaffe's attacks during the Blitz of 40/41 and the subsequent RAF attacks on Germany was the scale of the attack. The target sets, aiming techniques and weapon mixes were all employed by the Luftwaffe before the RAF (if only because the RAF was not in a position to take on more distant targets in Germany in force until the end of 1940).
Again, I am not arguing that the British raids were reprisals (although the Luftwaffe often claimed that German raids were, even during the Blitz). There was surprisingly little call for reprisals among the British public, most of it from people in areas that had not been bombed. The point I am making is that the targetting rationales and attack methods had already been employed in the Autumn and Winter of 1940/41 and were not exceptional.
Joined Nov 2011
6,052 Posts | 167+
Confoederatio Helvetica
@CuriousHistorian
Thank you for the informative post, I learned something from it. I agree with your view that there is not much of a difference between the attacks of the Luftwaffe and those of the RAF, except for the technical refinement and the scale.
Another difference, in addition to the scale, is how we judge the attacks today. The huge majority of Germans today is not proud of the accomplishments of the Luftwaffe, and we don't officially honor the soldiers involved. Obviously, British public opinion about the RAF attacks is also not unanimous, given previous posts by several users; but officially, the RAF bomber pilots are held in high esteem, not least because of their high casualty rate.
So were the British pilots morally better than the German pilots? Did they perceive the bombings as a necessary evil, whereas the German were delighted being able to kill civilians? How many of the pilots actually thought about the bigger picture, that the British fought for good, and the Germans for evil? I could imagine that moral considerations didn't play an important role at this level, and that the whole business was rather technical, with the emotions restricted to fear of the own death and the will to return alive. The picture may actually be different for higher command levels, where people had time to think about moral implications and the bigger picture.
Thank you for the informative post, I learned something from it. I agree with your view that there is not much of a difference between the attacks of the Luftwaffe and those of the RAF, except for the technical refinement and the scale.
Another difference, in addition to the scale, is how we judge the attacks today. The huge majority of Germans today is not proud of the accomplishments of the Luftwaffe, and we don't officially honor the soldiers involved. Obviously, British public opinion about the RAF attacks is also not unanimous, given previous posts by several users; but officially, the RAF bomber pilots are held in high esteem, not least because of their high casualty rate.
So were the British pilots morally better than the German pilots? Did they perceive the bombings as a necessary evil, whereas the German were delighted being able to kill civilians? How many of the pilots actually thought about the bigger picture, that the British fought for good, and the Germans for evil? I could imagine that moral considerations didn't play an important role at this level, and that the whole business was rather technical, with the emotions restricted to fear of the own death and the will to return alive. The picture may actually be different for higher command levels, where people had time to think about moral implications and the bigger picture.
Joined Nov 2010
10,011 Posts | 3,078+
Stockport Cheshire UK
The Luftwaffe crews involved in the bombing of Britain are not considered war criminals in the UK, merely servicemen doing their duty.
So was the Luftwaffe now area bombng or was it not? Well, German orders about this are clear. So Germans must have ordered their pilots things they didn't want.
I never denied collateral damage and you probably read, that I called the decision to accept such collateral damage stupid.
In Birmingham the Market hall was damaged. Do you know why? Intention, flawed bombing or other reasons?
I allways wrote about Coventry.
I don't know, what targets in London were chosen and why. I have for the 2nd Great fire 24,000 explosives and 100,000 incendiary bombs
In october the Luftwaffe changed as consequence of heavy losses their strategy of day attacks and flew mainly night raids.
The german standard size was 50, 70 and 250 kg. In the beginning of the war the standard bombs were even smaller and already ordered by the Reichswehr. And till the baedecker Blitz, the percentage of incendiary bombs was small, compared with the british use of it.
Well, I gave the number in tons, you in tons and canisters. That makes it more impressive. But in real it were 503 to of explosives and 31 to of incendiary bombs (31,000 B1E). In april the Luftwaffe dropped 315 to of explosives and 25,000 incendiaries.
I have no further information about Southampton raids. As far as i know were all in all 470to of explosives and 30,000 incendiaries dropped.
Plymouth
"At 7.30pm an German aircraft dropped four flares over the Turnchapel/Mount Batten. One of the hangars at RAF Mount Batten was nit by an explosive. Another bomber hit one of the oil tanks of the Admiralty Oil Fuel Depot.
In april 1941 120 aircrafts attacked Plymoth and the main target was davenport and naval barracks. I have ni numbers for bombs, but doubt your figures of incendiaries.
The SC-1000 and 1800 had a great penetration power. But a Ju 87 could just transport 1 of it and other planes as well.
yes, but I never said the Luftwaffe was nice.
The difference was for all, that Hitler did not want to destroy britain but wanted to force it to a peace. Britain wanted germany to bomb into capitulation.
Yes and you like to ignore all documents which say something else
Joined Nov 2010
10,011 Posts | 3,078+
Stockport Cheshire UK
beorna, we both know that the Luftwaffe bombed Coventry and other British towns and cities in 1940 using the area bombing tactic, so kindly stop pretending otherwise.
Joined Nov 2010
10,011 Posts | 3,078+
Stockport Cheshire UK
Joined Nov 2010
7,886 Posts | 3+
Border of GA and AL
Why do people abhor the way the allies fought World War II? Sure the fighting, bombings, and such were horrendous, but if there was no strategic bombing of the German industrial heartland then who knows how much long the war would have lasted and how many more lives would have been wasted if the Germans could have kept building tanks, planes, firearms artillery and other weapons of war at a fairly regular pace. Hell, the strategic bombing campaigns in France, Norway, and the Netherlands was a large part of the eventual defeat of the German U-Boat force through the destruction of u-boat bases.
That and destroying German industries and factories.
I believe it did shorten the war. It's sort of like raiding the enemy's supply train. If you destroy the enemy's supplies then they cannot fight as effectively and if they can't fight as well because of hunger, cold, heat,etc. then the war will be shorter.
I believe it was a legitimate way to fight the war. I believe World War II was a total war. In total war you destroy the enemy's ability to fight and make war. That's not just destroying their armies, but also destroying their factories and, if necessary, their cities.
Plus they did it, albeit on a much smaller scale, in World War I.
Why?
Joined Nov 2010
10,011 Posts | 3,078+
Stockport Cheshire UK
I for the most part agree, but in my view, once Germany gave her full support to A-H to act against Serbia WW1 was inevitable.
Joined Aug 2010
6,752 Posts | 17+
The Far East
Last edited:
figures have been given in this thread which show clearly the little effect the bombing had on german war production. now if the bombing was heavily effecting it then it was justified yet all it was latter being done for was to crush the moral of the german people of which it was not effecting in that regard. one survivor of the bombing put it this way, if it had only been there house that was destroyed then they would have felt very demoralized yet everyone in the areas house was destroyed so there was a a common feeling of togetherness from there equal suffering.
i believe myself that it didn't shorten the war by a day as it wouldn't end until hitler was dead and it was the russian advance that decided that. a few extra planes and tanks would not have offset the balance that was now against them and the problem for germany in the latter years was not a lack of tanks and such but trained personal and fuel of which they had lost there major supply when the romanian oilfields were overrun.
the bombing was often not targeting industrial plants which due to inaccuracy at the time could not be hit so they carpet bombed whole city's which had little or no effect on the wars outcome.
C'mon, I was just asking himbeorna, we both know that the Luftwaffe bombed Coventry and other British towns and cities in 1940 using the area bombing tactic, so kindly stop pretending otherwise.
. The difference we have here is simply to explain, you and others think, that the British bombing was according to international laws, a usual tactics and identical with the german bombing, who started it first. Different to that i stated, that Britons started air raids first, even if in small scale, first against military targets and since may 1940 more and more against civilian targets as well untill they changed their strategy on moral bombing. I see this kind of bombing as not according with the HC and a war crime, because it is directly targeting non-combattants. The germans used in the beginning carpet bombing as method to have more success cos of the inaccurate technics. I accept this as well for all other nations. But it is a difference, if I make carpet bombing on an area with an military, industrial or other fair target and cause collateral damage or if I make it on residential estates, where I want nothing more than killing as much people as possible. We can call both criminal, but the moral bombing, the willingly killing of non-combattants is for me a crime by all means.
Why was it inevitable? Serbian terrorists with connections into the serbian military and secret service assassinated the A-H archduke and wars started with less important reasons. Why supported Russia Serbia and why do you think that was allowed, but not, that Germany supported its ally A-H? What had France to do with it, if A-H and Serbia or Germany and Russia went to war? Germany couldn't leave its ally alone and A-H did not act as complaisant subject, but had its own vital interests and the nationalistic politics of Serbia and the Pan-Slavic politics of Russia was such a threat.
BTW: May I just remind you to 9/11, the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war?
Joined Nov 2010
10,011 Posts | 3,078+
Stockport Cheshire UK
You can, but I'm unsure of the connection
While it can be seen the the attack might lead to the USA acting against Afghanistan because of their support for the terror group, a lot of people (including me
) are still to this day unsure quite how it lead to Iraq, a nation which was totally uninvolved in the incident. What support? The Al-Qaeda had a right of hospitality there. There was never any evidence, that the Taliban government was involved in it. And Saddam of course had nothing to do with it. so why did you in Iraq support the USA and we all in Afghanistan?You can, but I'm unsure of the connection
While it can be seen the the attack might lead to the USA acting against Afghanistan because of their support for the terror group, a lot of people (including me
What do you think, how had Austria to react?
Beorma,I know that you and Redcoat regard this hread as a private conversation club Beorma but I am still not prepared to let you get away with nonsense that Great Britain ''started area bombing first.
That only proves how grossly deficient your knowledge of this issue really is. Any argument that fails to acknowledge that Nazi Germany invented area terror bombing of civilian populations is- historically speaking--utter twaddle.
Fact- in 1939 the British Cabinet Minister Sir Kingsley Wood was horrified by a suggestion in Neville Chamberlain's Cabinet that the Royal Air Force should firebomb the Black Forest.Wood reacted ''We can't Do that!-it-(the Black Forest) is private property!.
No Nazi German leader ever objected to the Luftwaffe bombing of Warsaw, London Belgrade, Coventry Clydebank on identical grounds.
Yet Kingsley Wood -after watching the German Nazis start the the whole business of trying to exterminate a city population in the Decmber 28 1940 firebombing of London became an enthusiastic convert to area bombing in return for this German invention of the practice.
However, I realise because yiou know that I'm your intellectual master you'll hide away -as usual- behind your normal non- response- awed, no doubt by the unanswerable intellectual quailty of my posts.
So I'll just let you and Redcoat return the safety of your mutual private conversation club.
That only proves how grossly deficient your knowledge of this issue really is. Any argument that fails to acknowledge that Nazi Germany invented area terror bombing of civilian populations is- historically speaking--utter twaddle.
Fact- in 1939 the British Cabinet Minister Sir Kingsley Wood was horrified by a suggestion in Neville Chamberlain's Cabinet that the Royal Air Force should firebomb the Black Forest.Wood reacted ''We can't Do that!-it-(the Black Forest) is private property!.
No Nazi German leader ever objected to the Luftwaffe bombing of Warsaw, London Belgrade, Coventry Clydebank on identical grounds.
Yet Kingsley Wood -after watching the German Nazis start the the whole business of trying to exterminate a city population in the Decmber 28 1940 firebombing of London became an enthusiastic convert to area bombing in return for this German invention of the practice.
However, I realise because yiou know that I'm your intellectual master you'll hide away -as usual- behind your normal non- response- awed, no doubt by the unanswerable intellectual quailty of my posts.
So I'll just let you and Redcoat return the safety of your mutual private conversation club.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-