You seem to like to go off on side issues. The De Gaulle 'discussion', where you kept insisiting De Gaulle was part of a coup that never took place. Oh, I recall that:
It is truly pathetic how you continue to mischaracerise my statements. I never claimed De Gaulle was part of a coup. And you started that discussion. So that's mischaracterisation one.
Humbug. Mein Kampf was fairly available in the 3rd Reich, to put it mildly. The income from it provided part of mr H's fortune (also mentioned in Kershaw).
More humbug:
Mein Kampf is not under discussion. It's sequel, which you first claimed did not exist, citing a source which mentions its existence as proof that it did not exist
confused
, then claimed was unimportant, and now are dismissing as off-topic, despite the fact that you steered the discussion in this direction. So that's mischaracterisation two
and three.
Which species of monkey are you? My money is on howler monkey myself; the incessant pointless wailing that accomplishes nothing and your interest in flinging poop, but inability to actually strike your target with said poop, are dead giveaways.
No need. You got dick-slapped by two subsequent posts, including by one of the posters I directly mentioned.
Dunkirk or the planned invasion of Britain was the topic, remember?
Are you sure you want to discuss that again? Because I thoroughly humiliated you in that discussion as well, which is why you tried to strike off on a tangent in the belief that the book you Googled would allow you to claim back some debating honour through argument via authority. You just didn't Google hard enough, because your own source disproved your claims.
Since it was you who diverted the topic, that's mischaracterisation four.
Humbug. The first goal of the battle of Britain was to neutralize the RAF. That first goal already failed.
Hitler literally never once spoke or wrote of his goal for the Battle of Britain, and his military skills would tend to contraindicate the traditional scenario. But by all means, continue to make unsupported - and unsupportable, given that there is NO evidence one way or the other about this - claims; I always did enjoy seeing the fish flapping about in desperation on the deck, in the vain belief that it could somehow flap itself back into the ocean.
I'm not sure if you're mischaracterising me here, or Hitler himself, but either way, that's number five.
Obviously. Nazi Germany had no control over Vichy military assets: Vichy was officially 'neutral'; it also did not take part in Hitler's other wars.
Vichy was "neutral" in the same way that the US was "neutral" before Pearl Harbor. Less so, actually, as Vichy directly participated in Operation: Torch, provided ports for the North African campaign, bases of operations in Syria and Lebanon for the attempted Iraqi and Iranian coups, provided 'volunteer' regiments for Operation: Barbarossa, was the site of Operation: Overlord and Operation: Dragoon, provided both paid and slave labour to work in the Reich, rounded up Jews and delivered them to the camps on their own authority
before Otto Abetz requested they do so, and even provided detachments of Waffen SS
for the Battle of Berlin. So we're now up to mischaracterisation number six.
But wait, we have some more ad hominem:
It's only an ad hominem if it is an attack on the arguer in lieu of an attack on the argument. Considering your argument is inferior to the average high school history student's, I demolished it quite quickly before progressing to your public humiliation. Don't feel bad; I wrote my thesis on this topic. When my doctorate becomes official, I will likely publish it. Then you can incorrectly cite my book in your losing online arguments. So we'll count that as number seven.
So, to sum up, you have a 'view', but it's not actually based on any facts. I'm sure that's very interesting. It's also not very much like a historian. As all your personal invectives: not based on actual fact, but hey, let's throw it in there anyway. I'm sorry, that simply doesn't constitute an argument. If anything, it detracts from it.
Such a debate is literally the only thing that historians do, as a profession. We're not chronologists or genealogists. You have a high school understanding of the discipline. So mischaracterisation number eight is of the whole discipline of history itself.
And by the way, anyone who had actually read Kershaw's biography would certainly know that the 'Second Book' has no relevance whatsoever to military operations around Dunkirk or the battle of Britain.
I'm not sure whether to count this as another mischaracterisation, or simply to lump it in with the exact same claim you made earlier. What the hell, I'm feeling generous; let's make it number nine.
But just to remind you, as you seem to have trouble remembering what people actually post,
And we just hit double-digits, ladies and gentlemen.
I already mentioned that Hitler was expecting Britain to offer peace after the fall of France (also in Kershaw).
You sure have developed a hard-on for that book, haven't you? Decided to actually read it in the eleven days between PCH and myself pointing out that you didn't know the book's contents and writing this apologia, did you? Anyway, as I never stated that you said anything different to your above claim, we're now at eleven mischaracterisations.
So it seems rather clear which of us actually read Nemesis.
Cheers.
I never claimed to have read Nemesis. I haven't, nor do I intend to; I am uninterested in reading a biography of possibly the most famous man in the twentieth century, as I doubt I'll come across anything I haven't culled from other sources previously. I certainly won't come across anything I need for my research. So since you seem to be implying that I claimed to have read the book, that's another mischaracterisation to close your post, for a grand total of twelve.
I'm beginning to see why you're so defensive. You're lack of debating skill and reading comprehension must result in you getting your arse handed to you a lot. As a former MMA guy, I know that's not fun.
