Did Boris boink her as well?

[vetran]

`stood alone` that sounds very brave when taken out of context.

You are forgetting however that UK was the orchestrator of Munich Betrayal in 1938 where they signed an agreement with the Nazis to appease Hitler by giving him away Czechoslovakia. Even though they were warned by the Soviets that Hitler was out for blood for the whole of Europe. Soviets at the time offered assistance to defend Czechoslovakia if they were allowed to cross the Polish border. But UK failed to listen to the warnings and made a pact with Hitler (and Poland). Later down the line Hitler turned on the rest of Europe and those are the `brave` years of 39-41 that you are talking about. You should really not be selective about your history reading.

Now that is interesting that you see it as a betrayal because Chamberlain saw it as a way to win. Do you think those nice Russians would have stopped at Berlin?

What I understood from "I have in my hand a piece of paper" was it was partially a stalling tactic to re-arm as Hitler had been since 1933, we could have fought off Hitler with a few sofa cushions if we had started in 1938. We didn't give them Czechoslovakia we returned the Sudetenland taken off Germany in the treaty of Versailles.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...in-and-hitler/

At Munich, Chamberlain got an international agreement that Hitler should have the Sudetenland in exchange for Germany making no further demands for land in Europe. Chamberlain said it was ‘Peace for our time’. Hitler said he had ‘No more territorial demands to make in Europe.’ On 1 October German troops occupied the Sudetenland: Hitler had got what he wanted without firing a shot.

Even while Chamberlain was signing the Munich Agreement, he was agreeing a huge increase in spending to increase Britain’s armament in preparation for war. He must have known from the situation outlined to him by General Ismay, that Czechoslovakia was lost, that war was bound to come.

Yes it could have been seen as a betrayal but Hitler had Panzers and Fokkers we had broomsticks.

[DoctorStrangelove]

Now that is interesting that you see it as a betrayal because Chamberlain saw it as a way to win. Do you think those nice Russians would have stopped at Berlin?

What I understood from "I have in my hand a piece of paper" was it was partially a stalling tactic to re-arm as Hitler had been since 1933, we could have fought off Hitler with a few sofa cushions if we had started in 1938. We didn't give them Czechoslovakia we returned the Sudetenland taken off Germany in the treaty of Versailles.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...in-and-hitler/





Yes it could have been seen as a betrayal but Hitler had Panzers and Fokkers we had broomsticks.

And their Generals had read & understood Liddell Hart.

[vetran]

Unfortunately it's what jingoistic xenophobes do.

He also failed to mention that Churchill abandoned our SE Asian colonies to the whims of the Japanese.

Ok let me see, so the UK played little part in the second world war and had to be rescued in 1941 (no real fighting happened before then) by the USA and those nice Russians who we should have got into bed with in 1938 armed with sofa cushions.

Despite shipping being sunk on a daily basis while we fought the AXIS countries in their own and invaded countries, casualties that decimated our Armies and having to pick battle grounds we could actually win we apparently thoughtlessly abandoned people. Next on the agenda is our failure to eliminate the historic recurring famines in India at the height of the war.

You believe we could have protected any Asian colonies against the Japanese who had massive Imperial forces that the American forces couldn't defeat after many years of fighting ,with lots of shiny new equipment, without nuking them twice?

How about that nice Uncle Joe, how often did he abandon people to be obliterated by Adolf? People starved from scorched Earth and Russians perished in their millions while the Germans waltzed through Russia. Russian colonies and satellite states fell like dominos did he abandon them?

I suppose us losing the channel Islands doesn't illustrate how close things were?

Feck me I may be a jingoistic xenophobe in your eyes but I haven't left reality like you and Cannon have in my eyes.

[SueEllen]

Ok let me see, so the UK played little part in the second world war and had to be rescued in 1941 (no real fighting happened before then) by the USA and those nice Russians who we should have got into bed with in 1938 armed with sofa cushions.

Despite shipping being sunk on a daily basis while we fought the AXIS countries in their own and invaded countries, casualties that decimated our Armies and having to pick battle grounds we could actually win we apparently thoughtlessly abandoned people. Next on the agenda is our failure to eliminate the historic recurring famines in India at the height of the war.

You believe we could have protected any Asian colonies against the Japanese who had massive Imperial forces that the American forces couldn't defeat after many years of fighting ,with lots of shiny new equipment, without nuking them twice?

How about that nice Uncle Joe, how often did he abandon people to be obliterated by Adolf? People starved from scorched Earth and Russians perished in their millions while the Germans waltzed through Russia. Russian colonies and satellite states fell like dominos did he abandon them?

I suppose us losing the channel Islands doesn't illustrate how close things were?

Feck me I may be a jingoistic xenophobe in your eyes but I haven't left reality like you and Cannon have in my eyes.

You keep rabbiting on but you seem to not get the point that there is more than one version of history.

[vetran]

You keep rabbiting on but you seem to not get the point that there is more than one version of history.

No there may be many opinions on history. But all opinions should be based on facts if you are documenting history. There is only one history.

Your experience of a war may be different to mine. The facts are the same you just experience different facets.

[Scoobos]

Russia with its greater population and military force did indeed repel and then drive the Germans from Russia then harried them through Europe pillaging & looting as they went.

On form today aren't you.

Ever read Stalingrad, or done any studies of totalitarian regimes , specifically Stalin?

Pillaging and looting.. jesus wept. Many individual soldiers from every side did that, you can't just single out Russia and Germany like they were the only ones. Do some research on Normandy for example. We just called it souvenir taking - its documented from EVERY side of the war, US included.

[SueEllen]

No there may be many opinions on history. But all opinions should be based on facts if you are documenting history. There is only one history.

Your experience of a war may be different to mine. The facts are the same you just experience different facets.

You need to use primary sources if you are going to argue facts. Even then primary sources may be opinions and not facts.

[vetran]

On form today aren't you.

Ever read Stalingrad, or done any studies of totalitarian regimes , specifically Stalin?

Pillaging and looting.. jesus wept. Many individual soldiers from every side did that, you can't just single out Russia and Germany like they were the only ones. Do some research on Normandy for example. We just called it souvenir taking - its documented from EVERY side of the war, US included.

Do explain why almost universally the Germans wanted to surrender to the Allies not the Russians?

My explanation is because many sources suggested the Russians were well known for raping & robbing anyone who surrendered. Combine that with the chance of staying alive as a POW with the Russians was about 1 in 15, admittedly slightly better than being taken by the Japanese you can see the motivation.

Lets try a few jingoist right wing sources...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...ews.features11

'They raped every German female from eight to 80'


"Red Army soldiers don't believe in 'individual liaisons' with German women," wrote the playwright Zakhar Agranenko in his diary when serving as an officer of marine infantry in East Prussia. "Nine, ten, twelve men at a time - they rape them on a collective basis."

Pretty sure that wasn't a common trend with the Americans & British.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...Dbound%20plane.


Though to be fair it may have partially been prompted by the German treatment of Russian women.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32529679

By this stage, German soldiers had been guilty of sexual violence and other horrors in the Soviet Union for almost four years, as Gelfand had become aware as he fought his way to Berlin.

"He went through so many villages in which the Nazis had killed everyone, even small children. And he saw evidence of rape," says his son, Vitaly.

Taking an SS dagger or Luger or NAZI flag was hardly the same as packing up everything and shipping it to Russia.

Berlin lay in smouldering ruins. Hitler had been dead for four weeks. The Soviet Union was the undisputed master of eastern Europe. Working in great secrecy, some Red Army soldiers embarked on a delicate mission: to spirit back home unique cultural treasures belonging to the vanquished Germans.

In June 1945, three chests holding 1,538 gold and silver items were loaded on to a Moscow-bound plane. For more than half a century German experts had little clue as to whether the gold necklaces and eagle brooches dating from the 5th to 8th centuries still existed or had been lost in the second world war.

Admittedly we did gather up art but then we returned it to its proper owners. Something the Russians haven't done.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...men-180949569/

This must be the different histories bit. You think the Red Army & were nice chaps you would invite for dinner ,no worse than those disgusting GIs/Brits and yet the German Civilians knew they were bloodthirsty gang rapists.

Maybe you lot should read a LOT more?

Yes individuals in the Allied forces may have committed atrocities but it wasn't a standard tactic of war but treated as a criminal act.

[Whorty]

<snip>

Feck me I may be a jingoistic xenophobe in your eyes but I haven't left reality like you and Cannon have in my eyes.

All your posts only look at how 'wonderful' Britain was, and everyone else, whichever side they were on, were rubbish. You can't see the good in other countries, and you can never see the negative in Britain. Your views are biased and blinkered.

WW2, like WW1 and other wars, are atrocious. They are not to be proud of. Soldiers from both sides will have been brave, and equally there would be soldiers on both sides 'evil'.

I'm not saying that the one side you portray is all wrong, but yo don't give a balanced view. Please re-read your posts and see why you come across as jingoistic.

[MasterBait]

Certainly true that the US and Russia played a greater part in defeating Hitler, but at least the UK did a lot more than the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys.

As Russia didn't exist as a country at the time this is bulltulip
The Soviet union under Stalin first made a pact with Hitler the Molotov von Ribbentrop pact to split up some territory between them and to invade Poland Later it got soldiers from all the Soviet republics especially as few as possible from Russia itself to die for Stalin. Both my grandfathers who were Ukrainian died in a war that was not theirs, one in Stalingrad ,only to defend a city that had Stalin's name and one in (the so called liberation of) Berlin which was the start of the Soviet occupation of East Germany