-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
The More I Read About Churchill..
- Thread starter Neutron
- Start date
Admiral Trouser
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 513
- Points
- 0
Nope. We sacraficed them for no particular good reason, I beleive. He was still a fair war-time leader, though. Sheer charisma accounted for alot of it, though, in my opinion.
AT
AT
red indian
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 3,441
- Points
- 0
Chapter and verse.........
....the precise reason for the declaration of war was the Polish port of Danzig, and what was known as the "polish corridor" which linked Danzig to the rest of Poland. I am sure Tronny is familliar with the pre WW2 policy of appeasement and the historical arguments resulting from it.
Delaring war on Germany in defence of Poland was of course a sick joke given the state of British armed forces and the prospect of commissioning an expeditionary force with the job of fighting its way through two countries before even reaching Poland.
There were a number of inter war bilateral treaties designed to get the other party to do the fighting for you in the event of war. Britain rather stupidly decided to honour its aggreement with Poland despite the fact that we did not have the means to carry it out. This was partly the result of Britain also honouring its de-armament agreements post WW1.
So thats a bit of background for you Tronny, seeing as Churchill was out of office and sitting on the back benches through out the pre WW2 years and did not become Priminister untill a few weeks before the fall of France whats this got to do with your "contempt" for him?
....the precise reason for the declaration of war was the Polish port of Danzig, and what was known as the "polish corridor" which linked Danzig to the rest of Poland. I am sure Tronny is familliar with the pre WW2 policy of appeasement and the historical arguments resulting from it.
Delaring war on Germany in defence of Poland was of course a sick joke given the state of British armed forces and the prospect of commissioning an expeditionary force with the job of fighting its way through two countries before even reaching Poland.
There were a number of inter war bilateral treaties designed to get the other party to do the fighting for you in the event of war. Britain rather stupidly decided to honour its aggreement with Poland despite the fact that we did not have the means to carry it out. This was partly the result of Britain also honouring its de-armament agreements post WW1.
So thats a bit of background for you Tronny, seeing as Churchill was out of office and sitting on the back benches through out the pre WW2 years and did not become Priminister untill a few weeks before the fall of France whats this got to do with your "contempt" for him?
Neutron
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 3,862
- Points
- 0
Simple..
The way he willingly fucked over the Poles in 1944 when the Russians were launching their East Front offensive, all the while telling everyone he was maintaining a hard front for Polands post war security.
The way he totally sold out the Polish Exile government
The way he was unwilling to help the Poles after publicly proclaiming it was Britains job, then trying to hoist that responsibility on the US.
The way he was more than willing to trade Polish land at the Teheran Conference in order to try to keep up British "influence"
The guy was contemptible.
Tron
The way he willingly fucked over the Poles in 1944 when the Russians were launching their East Front offensive, all the while telling everyone he was maintaining a hard front for Polands post war security.
The way he totally sold out the Polish Exile government
The way he was unwilling to help the Poles after publicly proclaiming it was Britains job, then trying to hoist that responsibility on the US.
The way he was more than willing to trade Polish land at the Teheran Conference in order to try to keep up British "influence"
The guy was contemptible.
Tron
red indian
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 3,441
- Points
- 0
God forbid........
.....of course that the U.S. sought to gain any advantage from WW2. The U.K. is STILL paying you back for your highly valued services during WW2 and we still have a few years to go before we have paid you off.
What did we (the U.K.) get out of WW2? let me tell you Tronny,nothing. Absolutely nothing. Churchill gave away the whole shooting match, the familly silver, the empire.
By 1944 the U.S. were in totall controll of the war, do you deny that? so its hardly suprising he deferred to the U.S. and in any case he was being sidelined by Roosvelt and Stalin by that time.
By the end of the war, the U.S. was turning its back on the U.K. we were a spent Imperical force and we were better off out of the way. We were on our knees and gave away everything we had to give to you. Gold, computer technology, radar, the jet engine, trade tarriffs, and plenty more. The U.S. did very nicely thankyou out of WW2 so dont start coming over all pious about Churchills inconsistencies.
If the U.S. had bothered to listen to Churchill and heed his warnings about the Soviet Union, instead of sucking up to them, the cold war may never have happened. Its one of the great ironies of WW2 that the U.K. an ally, is still in debt to the U.S. but Germany, the enemy, was bank rolled by the U.S. post WW2, and was not asked to pay any reparations.
Churchill gave away an empire for the sake of European freedom, when he could have quite easily settled with Hitler after the Battle of Britain (which the Germans did not win, ......are you going to argue with THAT!!!) which made him realise he could not invade Britain. If Churchill was as bad as you think, what stopped him from taking the easy option? what stopped him from saving the British Empire? what made him go to the trouble of persuading the anti British Americans to join the war on our side, when they were not especially concerned to see us crushed under the nazi boot?
If the U.S. were any more concerned about Poland than Churchill, what stopped them from doing something about it? by 1944 the U.S. ruled the world. The U.S. was much more interested in listening to Stalin than Churchill by the end of 1944. AND THEY WERE WRONG!!! tell me thats not true Tronny!!
So knock off the smug, pious, holier than thou, act. Its the one thing that really pisses me off about the U.S. We in the U.K. are pretty much up to speed on the shamefull aspects of our past history, I am not sure the U.S. is anywhere near as circumspect as yet.
.....of course that the U.S. sought to gain any advantage from WW2. The U.K. is STILL paying you back for your highly valued services during WW2 and we still have a few years to go before we have paid you off.
What did we (the U.K.) get out of WW2? let me tell you Tronny,nothing. Absolutely nothing. Churchill gave away the whole shooting match, the familly silver, the empire.
By 1944 the U.S. were in totall controll of the war, do you deny that? so its hardly suprising he deferred to the U.S. and in any case he was being sidelined by Roosvelt and Stalin by that time.
By the end of the war, the U.S. was turning its back on the U.K. we were a spent Imperical force and we were better off out of the way. We were on our knees and gave away everything we had to give to you. Gold, computer technology, radar, the jet engine, trade tarriffs, and plenty more. The U.S. did very nicely thankyou out of WW2 so dont start coming over all pious about Churchills inconsistencies.
If the U.S. had bothered to listen to Churchill and heed his warnings about the Soviet Union, instead of sucking up to them, the cold war may never have happened. Its one of the great ironies of WW2 that the U.K. an ally, is still in debt to the U.S. but Germany, the enemy, was bank rolled by the U.S. post WW2, and was not asked to pay any reparations.
Churchill gave away an empire for the sake of European freedom, when he could have quite easily settled with Hitler after the Battle of Britain (which the Germans did not win, ......are you going to argue with THAT!!!) which made him realise he could not invade Britain. If Churchill was as bad as you think, what stopped him from taking the easy option? what stopped him from saving the British Empire? what made him go to the trouble of persuading the anti British Americans to join the war on our side, when they were not especially concerned to see us crushed under the nazi boot?
If the U.S. were any more concerned about Poland than Churchill, what stopped them from doing something about it? by 1944 the U.S. ruled the world. The U.S. was much more interested in listening to Stalin than Churchill by the end of 1944. AND THEY WERE WRONG!!! tell me thats not true Tronny!!
So knock off the smug, pious, holier than thou, act. Its the one thing that really pisses me off about the U.S. We in the U.K. are pretty much up to speed on the shamefull aspects of our past history, I am not sure the U.S. is anywhere near as circumspect as yet.
Last edited:
General Zod
Level of Triple Jade Feather
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Messages
- 70,436
- Points
- 0
Well red,General Patton sure as hell didn't suck up to the Soviets Sometimes I wonder if they weren't behind his "accident" he had Another thing that I always wondered about that war is,is why the European nations just didn't invade Germany while they were in Poland I don't think the leaders at the time wanted to offened Herr Shicklegruber so they just sat on their fat asses and all of Europe suffered for it
America originally wanted no part of that war I wonder if the Japanese never would have attacked America if we'd have ever got involved
Please don't turn this into another "It;s all America's fault thread" Maybe at the end of World War One the European nations didn't demaned all those reaprations from Germany,The Nazis may not have come into power Who knows
America originally wanted no part of that war I wonder if the Japanese never would have attacked America if we'd have ever got involved
Please don't turn this into another "It;s all America's fault thread" Maybe at the end of World War One the European nations didn't demaned all those reaprations from Germany,The Nazis may not have come into power Who knows
red indian
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 3,441
- Points
- 0
Good and bad Zod.........
.....bad, in that you think this is an "its all America,s fault" thread,not sure how you work that out from what I have to say. What I am saying is that the U.S. is in the same game as the rest of the planet, SELF INTEREST.
...good in that you very rightly point out the folly of the treaty of Versai in 1919, which was the catylist for WW2 becuase the terms were so onerous that it was bound to stoke up resentment in germany and cause another war.
.....bad, in that you think this is an "its all America,s fault" thread,not sure how you work that out from what I have to say. What I am saying is that the U.S. is in the same game as the rest of the planet, SELF INTEREST.
...good in that you very rightly point out the folly of the treaty of Versai in 1919, which was the catylist for WW2 becuase the terms were so onerous that it was bound to stoke up resentment in germany and cause another war.
Fairfeather
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 276
- Points
- 0
Actually there was a brief flurry of Allied activity between 8 September and 1 October 1939 known as the "Saar Offensive". Took this from a site devoted to a timeline of the Second World War.
On the Western Front... French patrols cross the frontier into Germany near Saarbrucken, marking the beginning of the Saar offensive. A total of 11 divisions advance along a 32 km frontage. There is negligible German opposition. The French mobilization is too slow and their tactical system too inflexible to permit any grander offensive operation. These gentle probes continue until September 17th when a larger advance is supposed to be made but is in fact cancelled because the Polish collapse makes it pointless.
The French were wedded to a defensive Maginot Line mentality and remembering the experience of 1914-18 too well, were simply not up to the task of invading Germany. A weakness that Hitler recognized too well in his decision to invade Poland first.
As for Churchill...well, I guess we could debate his abilities as a wartime leader forever. He made mistakes, but his missteps were never as fatal as those made by his primary opponent, Hitler. He never made a deal with the Nazis which was wise. Stalin did, and the Russian people paid a very heavy price in blood for it. Britain certainly could have done far worse in the leadership department. I think the question to ask is...if not Churchill...then who?
On the Western Front... French patrols cross the frontier into Germany near Saarbrucken, marking the beginning of the Saar offensive. A total of 11 divisions advance along a 32 km frontage. There is negligible German opposition. The French mobilization is too slow and their tactical system too inflexible to permit any grander offensive operation. These gentle probes continue until September 17th when a larger advance is supposed to be made but is in fact cancelled because the Polish collapse makes it pointless.
The French were wedded to a defensive Maginot Line mentality and remembering the experience of 1914-18 too well, were simply not up to the task of invading Germany. A weakness that Hitler recognized too well in his decision to invade Poland first.
As for Churchill...well, I guess we could debate his abilities as a wartime leader forever. He made mistakes, but his missteps were never as fatal as those made by his primary opponent, Hitler. He never made a deal with the Nazis which was wise. Stalin did, and the Russian people paid a very heavy price in blood for it. Britain certainly could have done far worse in the leadership department. I think the question to ask is...if not Churchill...then who?
General Zod
Level of Triple Jade Feather
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Messages
- 70,436
- Points
- 0
Red,I didn't mean you personally Maybe it's just my imagination,but I'm sure someone out there is probably thinking it's all America's fault for that war
red indian
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 3,441
- Points
- 0
Not me Zod!!!........
......we needed your help and you gave it, the point I am making is that Churchill could have taken a very different decision, based on simple self interest, which would not have required U.S. help and would have saved Britain from any discomfort. Instead he choose to save the continent of Europe by sacrificing Britains wealth and laying the country at the mercy of the U.S. and I have to read Tronnies ill informed posts telling me what "contempt" he has for him.
......we needed your help and you gave it, the point I am making is that Churchill could have taken a very different decision, based on simple self interest, which would not have required U.S. help and would have saved Britain from any discomfort. Instead he choose to save the continent of Europe by sacrificing Britains wealth and laying the country at the mercy of the U.S. and I have to read Tronnies ill informed posts telling me what "contempt" he has for him.
Neutron
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 3,862
- Points
- 0
Wait A Minute
Outside of supplying military kight and technology, the US viewed Euprope as an intramural affair. Something Churchill INSISTED on at Tehran!!!. Both Stalin and Churchill insisted any post war European political boundaries were theirs and theirs alone to decide.
Everytime the US tried to intervene, ala the Polish Crisis in 1944 the Brits and Russia said, Uh thanks, you just provide men and money, we'll settle the rest.
Churchill was not being a great guy by "giving up the empire" Britain was losing the Empire as soon as WW1 ended. They simply didn't have the money, or the military to defend it anymore, nor could they effectively govern it. Churchill saw the handwriting on the wall. He also knew the US would not fight for British Colonial rights.
He did nothing to ensure post WW2 European peace. What ensures that peace was a wall of US Tanks and NUclear Weapons. By giving in to Stalins Polish demands he basically fed the lion and made their post war actions much much worse.
He did all this to keep up his image as a "world player" And he did it only for that sake.
Because of his lies over a million additional pOles died. I find that appalling. Stalin out thought him and many yimes used Churchills image of self importance against him
As for the Battle Of Britain. It did nothing to stave off an invasion. The Germans lost half their fleet at Norway. And Norway was a hell of a tough place for the Brits to defend. Had they tried invading Britain they would have been immediately spanked by the Royal Navy and sent home. Hitler never wanted Britain, he felt it wasn't in the world best interest for Britain to fall, AND he knew he didn't have the men, army, Navy, Air force, or logistics to invade Britain.
He also considered the Russians the real enemy.
So far as the Russians killing Patton. That's a joke. They had no fear of Patton and had at least 5 to 8 generals in their army who were far superior to Patton. Zhukov, Rossokkovskii, Valilesev, Chuikov, Koniev, Tolbhukin, Bondadav knew more about warfare, especially mobile warfare than Patton could have learned in a lifetime. Also Russian mobile equipment was far superior to US equipment. They called the Sherman tank the Matchstich for a very good reason and I shudder to think what would have happened to the Shermans had they confronted a column of T34, KV1, 2 or IS Tanks. By 1945 the Russians wrote the book on mobile warfare. We'd have needed a far better General than Patton to beat the Russians. We eventually would have, but not till Patton was relieved.
If Hoth, Manstein, Gudereian, Model, and Paulus couldn't beat the Russkies then Pattong would have hardly been the man to do so.
Tron
Outside of supplying military kight and technology, the US viewed Euprope as an intramural affair. Something Churchill INSISTED on at Tehran!!!. Both Stalin and Churchill insisted any post war European political boundaries were theirs and theirs alone to decide.
Everytime the US tried to intervene, ala the Polish Crisis in 1944 the Brits and Russia said, Uh thanks, you just provide men and money, we'll settle the rest.
Churchill was not being a great guy by "giving up the empire" Britain was losing the Empire as soon as WW1 ended. They simply didn't have the money, or the military to defend it anymore, nor could they effectively govern it. Churchill saw the handwriting on the wall. He also knew the US would not fight for British Colonial rights.
He did nothing to ensure post WW2 European peace. What ensures that peace was a wall of US Tanks and NUclear Weapons. By giving in to Stalins Polish demands he basically fed the lion and made their post war actions much much worse.
He did all this to keep up his image as a "world player" And he did it only for that sake.
Because of his lies over a million additional pOles died. I find that appalling. Stalin out thought him and many yimes used Churchills image of self importance against him
As for the Battle Of Britain. It did nothing to stave off an invasion. The Germans lost half their fleet at Norway. And Norway was a hell of a tough place for the Brits to defend. Had they tried invading Britain they would have been immediately spanked by the Royal Navy and sent home. Hitler never wanted Britain, he felt it wasn't in the world best interest for Britain to fall, AND he knew he didn't have the men, army, Navy, Air force, or logistics to invade Britain.
He also considered the Russians the real enemy.
So far as the Russians killing Patton. That's a joke. They had no fear of Patton and had at least 5 to 8 generals in their army who were far superior to Patton. Zhukov, Rossokkovskii, Valilesev, Chuikov, Koniev, Tolbhukin, Bondadav knew more about warfare, especially mobile warfare than Patton could have learned in a lifetime. Also Russian mobile equipment was far superior to US equipment. They called the Sherman tank the Matchstich for a very good reason and I shudder to think what would have happened to the Shermans had they confronted a column of T34, KV1, 2 or IS Tanks. By 1945 the Russians wrote the book on mobile warfare. We'd have needed a far better General than Patton to beat the Russians. We eventually would have, but not till Patton was relieved.
If Hoth, Manstein, Gudereian, Model, and Paulus couldn't beat the Russkies then Pattong would have hardly been the man to do so.
Tron
General Zod
Level of Triple Jade Feather
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Messages
- 70,436
- Points
- 0
Great points about the Sherman vs T34 and KV or JS tanks Neutron But remember,those U.S. tankers knew how to beat the German Tigers and Panthers So I really think they could have beaten the Russian tanks Remember a little war in Korea? Those Sherman tanks gave a very good account against those "superior" T34's But I supposse you know more about stuff like that than any of us I am no expert on armored warfare I just like to build model tanks
Now,some points about Russian tactics Everything I have read about them suggests they would only make an attack when they had overwhelming supperiority Smart move But they had very inflexible rules as far as deviating from orders from above For example,artillery support They would start the bombardment then stop If the poor bastard infantry ran into tough opposition it was tough shit for ole Ivan
The Soviet Union lost 26 million people in that war Personnally that was due to Stalin's incompetence in my opinion Were the big battles fought against the USSR? Yes But if it wasn't for the air war fought by the Western Allies, maybe,just maybe that war would have been fought a lot longer And where oh where was the mighty Russian bear in the war against Japan? They (the Russians) would not have been able to fight the Germans and Japanese both in my opinion The Russians would have ran out of people for the meat grinder
All this is just a simple truck drivers opinion on that war Not meant to inflamme anyone Just glad for the thread started by Neutron Thank you😀
Now,some points about Russian tactics Everything I have read about them suggests they would only make an attack when they had overwhelming supperiority Smart move But they had very inflexible rules as far as deviating from orders from above For example,artillery support They would start the bombardment then stop If the poor bastard infantry ran into tough opposition it was tough shit for ole Ivan
The Soviet Union lost 26 million people in that war Personnally that was due to Stalin's incompetence in my opinion Were the big battles fought against the USSR? Yes But if it wasn't for the air war fought by the Western Allies, maybe,just maybe that war would have been fought a lot longer And where oh where was the mighty Russian bear in the war against Japan? They (the Russians) would not have been able to fight the Germans and Japanese both in my opinion The Russians would have ran out of people for the meat grinder
All this is just a simple truck drivers opinion on that war Not meant to inflamme anyone Just glad for the thread started by Neutron Thank you😀
Last edited:
Neutron
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 3,862
- Points
- 0
gen.zod said:
Everything you just said was a Myth...
The Shermans did terrible against the German tanks. In Korea the Sherman was barely deployed against the T34. By the 50s the T 54 was the main battle tank.
What you said about Soviet Tactics does NOT apply after late 1941. By 1943 they wre one of the most flexible battle forces in the world. It should be noted at Operation Uranus, the emcirclement of Stalingrad the Russians actually only deployed 75% of the forces available to Germany. Same with it's followups Operations Saturn and Mars.
At Kursk, where the Russians broke the back of the Wehrmacht
the Russians and Germans were at numerical equality.
All three Operations turned the tide against the Germans, ALL were flexible operations conducted on the fly. AND all were in situations where the Russians were NOT at numerical Superiority.
In fact one of the weaknesses of Russian strategy was not utilizing their manpower superiority.
As for the Russian Deaths. 9.8 million were Russian soldiers. This has NOTHING to do with poor Russian tactics. Except at the beginning of the war. Russia lost 125,000 people BEFORE GERMANY BOTHERED DECLARING WAR!!. 15 million Russians were killed due to the realities and brutality of the Eastern FRont. Again nothing to do with strategy, it had everything to do with the Germans declaring Russian civilians as Untermensch (still legally German law). I suggest you read up on Untermensch. The majority of the Russian casualties were due to fighting an extremely skilled enemy who were dug into fortified positions. This always favors the defender and results in out of the ordinary casualties to the offensive. It's interesting to note the US Casualties in the Pacific on a PER captita basis were higher than the Russian Military. Given the fact the Russians were facing 80% of the German military and almost 90% of their economy what they managed to pull off is astounding.
What you said about the Air War is pure bullshit. It disrupted German transportsation BUT at the END of WW2 the German war machine was putting out 25% more than BEFORE the bombing campaign started.
As for Japan. Russian was under no obligation to fight Japan. They'd already beat Japan in a war in 1936/37. Zhukov earned his rep in those wars. The Russians had no mutual defense pact with the Allies and in every conferencewith the other Allies it was agreed Russia was under no obligation to fight Japan (thank God, if they were they wouldn't have been able to transfer divisions to the Eastern Front in 1942). Germany was the primary enemy for all involved. Also Russia does NOT consider WW2 as being a world war. They consider it an invasion and call it the Great Patriotic War..
I suggest you read the following, Erickson, beevor, Glanz. Start with Beevor because he gives the best overview. Then go on to the others.
Tron
General Zod
Level of Triple Jade Feather
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Messages
- 70,436
- Points
- 0
I bow down to your superior knowledge You know more about it than any of us😛
General Zod
Level of Triple Jade Feather
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Messages
- 70,436
- Points
- 0
Re: Hmm...
Cosmo,what did he do to those Canadians?cosmo_ac said:
Well, don't quote me Zod, because i can't remember all the details, but basically this is what happened. I beleive it was pre-WW2, just before, and Japan was on the offensive. It was invading CHina, which Britan had rule over several spots. Now, churchill knew he couldn't defend China from Japan, and worry about hitler, so, he asked the Canadians to send in a small troup (1500 soldiers) basically to just watch over the place, not telling them about the advancing Japanese. He KNEW that Japan was coming, but didn't tell us and used us as a token gesture. So, 1500 Canadian solders who were deemed unfit for battle were sent to basically just sit around. they weren't supposed to see any action, they were just suposed to be there.
Anyway, the Japanese attacked and drove the Canadian soldiers out of the city they were defending and across the river. This is refered as the "rape of *city name*" because at this point, all woman in the city were considerd *****s and the men were left for the slaughter. Anyway,the advancing Japanese attacked the Canadians again with a force of i believe 30,000 soldiers. The Canadians held off the Japanese for three days before they were defeated. These were the first Canadian victoms of WW2.
Afterwards, the Canadians were put in Japanese POW camps, which if i remember right, had about 5 times the death rate of Oshwits (I know that's spelt wrong)
Now, these details are a bit sketchie, because it's been a while, but that's the general gist of it, i believe.
Anyway, the Japanese attacked and drove the Canadian soldiers out of the city they were defending and across the river. This is refered as the "rape of *city name*" because at this point, all woman in the city were considerd *****s and the men were left for the slaughter. Anyway,the advancing Japanese attacked the Canadians again with a force of i believe 30,000 soldiers. The Canadians held off the Japanese for three days before they were defeated. These were the first Canadian victoms of WW2.
Afterwards, the Canadians were put in Japanese POW camps, which if i remember right, had about 5 times the death rate of Oshwits (I know that's spelt wrong)
Now, these details are a bit sketchie, because it's been a while, but that's the general gist of it, i believe.
Last edited:
Haltickling
2nd Level Green Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 4,353
- Points
- 0
Sorry, what still active German law are you talking about? I may not know that much about military and strategy, but I know our law quite well. Any law about racial privileges is strictly against the German constitution. Perhaps you could clarify that.Neutron said:
Your referring the the Rape of Nanking, which was a huge shame on Japanese History. So shameful that after the war, the Rape of Nanking was removed from all history books and Japan refuses to talk about it. I heard it's illegal to be mentioned at all.
red indian
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 3,441
- Points
- 0
Sorry Tron.......
.....its just not possible to follow your thinking. You can not combine hindsight with contemporary decisions, and make a cogent argument.
.....its just not possible to follow your thinking. You can not combine hindsight with contemporary decisions, and make a cogent argument.
Last edited:
Neutron
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 3,862
- Points
- 0
Re: Sorry Tron.......
Day 1: Churchill tells Poles there will be no change of their pre WW2 Boundaries
Day 2: One week later. Churchill tells Stalin the Brits will recognize the Cuzon line as the Eastern Pole Boundary. This allows Russians to take Polish Territory
Day 3: After Tehran, Churchill tells Poles their pre WW1 Territory will be recognized
Day 4: Britain says they will not recognize Russian Territorial Claims at the same time Churchill is informing the Russians the Poles agree to the boundary change provided they can move theire Western Boundary. (Something the Poles never agreed to.
Day 5: Churchill agrees with Russians the Poles need a new government, YET continues to tell that very same Pole government he 1005 Supports them
Day 6: Churchill says Russians will not be allowed to expand their territory.
Day 7: Poles rise against Germany. Russians refuse to help. (and most likely couldn't have helped/
Day 8: Churchill says Poles shouldn't have risen so early without acknoewledging he helped set the date for their uprising.
Day 9: England says it's under Russian influence. Then asks the US to intervene
Day 10: Churchill tells Poles the US will intervene without getting agreement from the US. Then says they will not lose territory..
And on and on. This isn't hindsight or comtemporary backspeak. This his Churchill at his contemptable finest.
Tron
red indian said:
Day 1: Churchill tells Poles there will be no change of their pre WW2 Boundaries
Day 2: One week later. Churchill tells Stalin the Brits will recognize the Cuzon line as the Eastern Pole Boundary. This allows Russians to take Polish Territory
Day 3: After Tehran, Churchill tells Poles their pre WW1 Territory will be recognized
Day 4: Britain says they will not recognize Russian Territorial Claims at the same time Churchill is informing the Russians the Poles agree to the boundary change provided they can move theire Western Boundary. (Something the Poles never agreed to.
Day 5: Churchill agrees with Russians the Poles need a new government, YET continues to tell that very same Pole government he 1005 Supports them
Day 6: Churchill says Russians will not be allowed to expand their territory.
Day 7: Poles rise against Germany. Russians refuse to help. (and most likely couldn't have helped/
Day 8: Churchill says Poles shouldn't have risen so early without acknoewledging he helped set the date for their uprising.
Day 9: England says it's under Russian influence. Then asks the US to intervene
Day 10: Churchill tells Poles the US will intervene without getting agreement from the US. Then says they will not lose territory..
And on and on. This isn't hindsight or comtemporary backspeak. This his Churchill at his contemptable finest.
Tron
Nice job, Neutron. Could you kindly provide sources for your diatribe? Also, I'm still curious about Hal's reply and your lack of reaction to it. Would you mind answering him, or will you continue to spew bile with no backup?
Neutron
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 3,862
- Points
- 0
Road To Berlin...
By John Erickson, professor at the Uni Of Edinburgh and the acknowledged authority on the Eastern Front. Check out the Chapter titled Breaking The Back Of The Wehrmacht. You'l get everything you need about Churchill in that chapter.
For Untermensh, Anthony Beevors Stalingrad, and his Road To Berlin Book.
Beevor is again an acknowledged expert. The Germans never refuted or repealed their Untermensch Law. The ruling was in fact written to specifically get around anti racism statutes by declaring Russians as Non People. Therefore any laws regarding human rights did not apply..
Glanz: Operation Uranus. A Case Study
Tron
By John Erickson, professor at the Uni Of Edinburgh and the acknowledged authority on the Eastern Front. Check out the Chapter titled Breaking The Back Of The Wehrmacht. You'l get everything you need about Churchill in that chapter.
For Untermensh, Anthony Beevors Stalingrad, and his Road To Berlin Book.
Beevor is again an acknowledged expert. The Germans never refuted or repealed their Untermensch Law. The ruling was in fact written to specifically get around anti racism statutes by declaring Russians as Non People. Therefore any laws regarding human rights did not apply..
Glanz: Operation Uranus. A Case Study
Tron
Haltickling
2nd Level Green Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 4,353
- Points
- 0
Re: Road To Berlin...
It's one thing to read historic sources, but it's another thing to understand them... 🙄
It was not necessary to refute every single Nazi law because Germany revised its whole law system when founding the Federal Republic of Germany. Only the laws passed after this founding are legal German law, everything from earlier back has no validity at all. Therefore your statement about Russians being considered "Non People" or "Untermenschen" in German law is completely false.Neutron said:
It's one thing to read historic sources, but it's another thing to understand them... 🙄
Hmmm.
Well I know little about the tactical involvements of WW 2. In Mike, Indy and Steve we've got three guys who know just about everything between them with plenty of overlapping. My thoughts on the political side of things...
I have possibly more contempt for Churchill than Mike does, but for different reasons. Apart from everything mentioned here, this is the man who reccomended the use of phosgene and mustard gas on colonial uprisings in the Middle and Near East. (Referring to those who were horrified at it as "sqeamish liberals".)Like many political leaders in times of strife, he was cunning and charismatic. The people loved him because they saw him as a bastion of strength they could draw on. Sadly it's his kind that caused the Second World War, by a combination of the brutal and evil treatment of German people after Versailles, and the funding of Adolf Hitler's political machine in the early years. (Prescott Bush and Henry Ford among the foremost of the latter, through the oil and steel empire of Fritz Thyssen and the Union Banking Corporation.)
Without the economic and political vacuum created by our leaders in Germany, Hitler would have been laughed at before he got anywhere near politics. As it was, he seemed like the best thing since sliced bread when he got to power. The Jewish people were blamed for the misery when it was in fact the people leading the politics of the UK and the US. (With of course, some help from France.) And without the help of the Pres's grandaddy and his car building buddy, Henry Ford, Adolf wouldn't have had the funds.
Well I know little about the tactical involvements of WW 2. In Mike, Indy and Steve we've got three guys who know just about everything between them with plenty of overlapping. My thoughts on the political side of things...
I have possibly more contempt for Churchill than Mike does, but for different reasons. Apart from everything mentioned here, this is the man who reccomended the use of phosgene and mustard gas on colonial uprisings in the Middle and Near East. (Referring to those who were horrified at it as "sqeamish liberals".)Like many political leaders in times of strife, he was cunning and charismatic. The people loved him because they saw him as a bastion of strength they could draw on. Sadly it's his kind that caused the Second World War, by a combination of the brutal and evil treatment of German people after Versailles, and the funding of Adolf Hitler's political machine in the early years. (Prescott Bush and Henry Ford among the foremost of the latter, through the oil and steel empire of Fritz Thyssen and the Union Banking Corporation.)
Without the economic and political vacuum created by our leaders in Germany, Hitler would have been laughed at before he got anywhere near politics. As it was, he seemed like the best thing since sliced bread when he got to power. The Jewish people were blamed for the misery when it was in fact the people leading the politics of the UK and the US. (With of course, some help from France.) And without the help of the Pres's grandaddy and his car building buddy, Henry Ford, Adolf wouldn't have had the funds.
Last edited:
