PDA

View Full Version : WW II thread


Pages : [1] 2 3

fantic
May 20th, 2012, 02:50 AM
I'm reading Frederick Taylor's 'Exorcising Hitler', and found out that the Nazi Germany not only contributed to Greek's wartime famine which killed 300,000 people, but also didn't return the gold in the Bank of Greece
(Greek Deputy PM Theodoros Pangalos said the latter in Feb 2010, commenting on modern GER's lack of generosity)

p 154; In WWII, 60% of Soviet prisoners died by Feb 1942(At that time, 800,000 Germans died because of naval blockade-hunger)

In WWI, a mere 5.4 % died in German captivity.

Also, the Germans DELIBERATELY failed to advance into Leningrad; the reason? THEY DIDN'T WANT TO FEED THEM.

So, in the 1st 11 months of the siege, around 650,000 citizen is reported to have died.

SloKid
May 20th, 2012, 02:57 AM
And what exactly is your point if I may ask?

And yes, the Germans tried to starve Leningrad into surrender, but ultimately failing to break the spirit. I've read a book by Michael Jones, that offers a pretty thorough description of the siege and what people had to resort to in order to survive.

fantic
May 20th, 2012, 02:59 AM
just wanted to post some infos about WWII that's all :lol: discussions will also be fine.

yeah I know, the citizens practically ate everything to survive, is what I've heard.

anyway, thus, Germans during the WWII never went hungry until almost the end..the result of their country's brutal policy..you can understand the Red Army soldiers getting mad when they saw how German people lived.

fantic
May 20th, 2012, 03:11 AM
WWII history is such a fascinating topic because it was so apocalyptic;

after finishing that book will read;

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5144TWitNVL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517FTBDEh9L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

and

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51cUwFldeLL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

miffedmax
May 20th, 2012, 03:30 AM
The best thing about World War II:
https://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/imagesforarticles/chieftains_hatch/alamein/aussiecrusader.jpg

Crusaders!!!

Don't try to reason with me about Crusaders. It's like trying to reason with me about Lena D.

Crusaders are the best.

I used to be one of those horrible WWII nerds who knew the speeds and armament of all the planes and tanks, but I can't remember it so well now.

(Some people will tell you the Crusader's awesome rhomboidal turret was really a shot trap, but that's a DAMNABLE LIE!!!)

miffedmax
May 20th, 2012, 03:33 AM
just wanted to post some infos about WWII that's all :lol: discussions will also be fine.

yeah I know, the citizens practically ate everything to survive, is what I've heard.

anyway, thus, Germans during the WWII never went hungry until almost the end..the result of their country's brutal policy..you can understand the Red Army soldiers getting mad when they saw how German people lived.

I remember reading about how many of the Soviet troops were asking "Why did they invade us when they have so much and we have so little?" when they reached Germany, and tales (perhaps apocryphal) of soldiers not knowing what toilets were for and using them to power wash potatoes.

fantic
May 20th, 2012, 03:39 AM
I remember reading about how many of the Soviet troops were asking "Why did they invade us when they have so much and we have so little?" when they reached Germany, and tales (perhaps apocryphal) of soldiers not knowing what toilets were for and using them to power wash potatoes.

That's exactly what I've just read from Taylor's book :lol:

Hence, the more anger..which resulted in mass killing and rape..

fantic
May 20th, 2012, 03:40 AM
The best thing about World War II:
https://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/imagesforarticles/chieftains_hatch/alamein/aussiecrusader.jpg

Crusaders!!!

Don't try to reason with me about Crusaders. It's like trying to reason with me about Lena D.

Crusaders are the best.

I used to be one of those horrible WWII nerds who knew the speeds and armament of all the planes and tanks, but I can't remember it so well now.

(Some people will tell you the Crusader's awesome rhomboidal turret was really a shot trap, but that's a DAMNABLE LIE!!!)

Crusader? Never heard of'em: :lol: Which country's was that? :lol:

Halardfan
May 20th, 2012, 09:37 AM
That's exactly what I've just read from Taylor's book :lol:

Hence, the more anger..which resulted in mass killing and rape..

The Soviets seem to have required little reason for mass murder in World War 2, for example the Katyn Massacre of thousands of Poles.

Lin Lin
May 20th, 2012, 11:53 AM
I would love to read:)

Dani12
May 20th, 2012, 12:24 PM
I'm assuming this discussion is open to all thing WW2. I found it interesting to note that Japan never intended to invade Australia because the undertaking would have been too large. I was told from a young age in school that if it wasn't for our forces, we could be controlled by the Japanese.

I feel bad for the Australian troops that took such pride in defending our nation that the destruction of this myth would somehoe belittle their efforts. Anyway it shouldn't, they still did amazing and helped many other nations. Kokoda will always be a defining moment in Australian war history. The book is a great read for anyone interested in such topics.

miffedmax
May 20th, 2012, 01:12 PM
The Soviets seem to have required little reason for mass murder in World War 2, for example the Katyn Massacre of thousands of Poles.

Well, there was a reason for it--to make sure that these officers (who were not likely to collaborate with the Soviet's Polish liberation army) were eliminated.

It wasn't, perhaps, a good reason. But it was a reason.

A lot of people forget that just as the Western Allies had foreign contingents (Czechs, Poles, Free French, etc.) fighting for them, so did the Soviets.

miffedmax
May 20th, 2012, 01:20 PM
Crusader? Never heard of'em: :lol: Which country's was that? :lol:

British.

I have a dad who fought in the Pacific, and a horde of uncles who fought with the Commonwealth in Europe, so when it comes to the ETO I am really into the Commonwealth stuff. (Even one of my 'merican uncles was attached to a British unit).

Anyway, some people will tell you outrageous lies about the Crusader, like it was mechanically unreliable, undergunned and its armor was paper-thin. They will concede its speed, especially since crews often modified it by removing the governor from the engine enabling it to hit speeds approaching 40 mph.

Halardfan
May 20th, 2012, 03:05 PM
Well, there was a reason for it--to make sure that these officers (who were not likely to collaborate with the Soviet's Polish liberation army) were eliminated.

It wasn't, perhaps, a good reason. But it was a reason.

A lot of people forget that just as the Western Allies had foreign contingents (Czechs, Poles, Free French, etc.) fighting for them, so did the Soviets.

I think ultimately the Ruusians aims were fundementally different. There sacrifice in the war was enormous and that demands our respect. But for eastern Europe theirs was not an army of liberation but of exchanging one occupier for another.

The actions of the Russians in places like Poland and the willingness of western powers like Britain to appease them initially, are shameful.

The many Poles who came to Britain during the war, made a vital contribution to the winning of the war, and were betrayed after the war.

miffedmax
May 20th, 2012, 03:14 PM
I agree with you. However, there were some Poles and others who fought for the Russians because they actually believed that communism was a viable choice to dictatorship (Poland had been a dictatorship before the war) and others who fought for the Soviets because they wanted to free their homeland and had no choice--it was either fight with the Soviets or live under the Germans. A lot of people underestimated Stalin and his plans for post-war Europe.

The Eastern European soldiers who fought for the USSR made many heroic contributions to the war effort and were just as betrayed as those who fought with the Commonwealth. Very few of them envisioned the future that actually happened.

kwilliams
May 20th, 2012, 04:00 PM
I think Fatal Silence by Robert Katz is a really interesting book to read. It doesn't deal as much with Vatican policies as the title or subtitle suggests as there are other topics covered in the book such as Anzio. I found the accounts of Italian resistance fighters and the Ardeatine Massacre to be the most interesting and compelling.

hellas719
May 21st, 2012, 03:03 AM
Fantic, yeah, not many people know or care about what happened in Greece. The conditions were really harsh and I could go on and on telling personal stories from my grandparents but I doubt anyone cares. If you do, feel free to PM me :p

miffedmax
May 21st, 2012, 03:39 AM
"The Gods Were Neutral" is a classic about the Greek Campaign. And Corelli's Mandolin is of course required fiction reading.

fantic
May 21st, 2012, 05:57 AM
Fantic, yeah, not many people know or care about what happened in Greece. The conditions were really harsh and I could go on and on telling personal stories from my grandparents but I doubt anyone cares. If you do, feel free to PM me :p

I think if you write here, the better ;) My grandma also suffered the Korean War(and before that, that brutal Japanese occupation).

fantic
May 21st, 2012, 05:59 AM
I think Fatal Silence by Robert Katz is a really interesting book to read. It doesn't deal as much with Vatican policies as the title or subtitle suggests as there are other topics covered in the book such as Anzio. I found the accounts of Italian resistance fighters and the Ardeatine Massacre to be the most interesting and compelling.

I also read a couple of books about the Italian campaign, and heard it was brutal as hell. Obviously the Italian landscape was perfect for defense so..wonder why did Churchill insist that it as a 'soft' underbelly is beyond me :tape:

fantic
May 21st, 2012, 10:08 PM
continuing to read

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MseUNdwNL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

and according to this the so-called de Nazification process was a sham :lol:
especially when the German personnel who was responsible for it was changed from a leftie to a conservative one. :tape:

Just shows that Nazism and conservatism goes hand in hand :lol:

Yorker
May 21st, 2012, 10:21 PM
I stronlgy recommend All But My Life by Gerda Weissmann Klein, personal account book from her and it's my favorite.

miffedmax
May 22nd, 2012, 12:40 AM
I also read a couple of books about the Italian campaign, and heard it was brutal as hell. Obviously the Italian landscape was perfect for defense so..wonder why did Churchill insist that it as a 'soft' underbelly is beyond me :tape:

He-correctly-believed that Italy would collapse quickly if the Allies invaded it. Kesselring's countermoves to seize control of Italy from right under the Italian and Allies' noses is actually one of the more amazing campaigns of the war.

*JR*
May 22nd, 2012, 01:39 AM
He-correctly-believed that Italy would collapse quickly if the Allies invaded it. Kesselring's countermoves to seize control of Italy from right under the Italian and Allies' noses is actually one of the more amazing campaigns of the war.

Perhaps because of an unintended edge Mussolini had given the Allies earlier in the war. His army got bogged down conquering Greece, :o and the Germans had to come to their rescue, delaying their 1941 invasion of The Banged One's ancestral homeland from March until June. This of course exposed the Germans to more of the Russian winter. Il Duce was a better grandsire (http://www.federalunion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/MUSSOLINI-Alessandra-IT-.jpg) than a wartime leader. ;)

miffedmax
May 22nd, 2012, 02:57 AM
Did you know Lena received her World Fair Diplomate for her work with World War II vets from the former Soviet Union? She has a foundation and has devoted countless hours to raising funds to help provide care for vets. :yeah:

Remix13
May 22nd, 2012, 07:12 AM
A thread about WW2, interesting !

The best thing about World War II:
https://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/imagesforarticles/chieftains_hatch/alamein/aussiecrusader.jpg

Crusaders!!!

Don't try to reason with me about Crusaders. It's like trying to reason with me about Lena D.

Crusaders are the best.

I used to be one of those horrible WWII nerds who knew the speeds and armament of all the planes and tanks, but I can't remember it so well now.

(Some people will tell you the Crusader's awesome rhomboidal turret was really a shot trap, but that's a DAMNABLE LIE!!!)

Although Crusaders were very artistic, it was not the best thing for poor British tankmen :rolleyes:

miffedmax
May 22nd, 2012, 02:03 PM
Well, it was better than the A13.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-CruiserMark3-A13E3.jpg

NoppaNoppa
Jun 3rd, 2012, 11:53 PM
Oh, WW2 :) Stalin planned to invade Finland in five or so days. He forgot one thing... The Finns :devil:

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll164/stienman/finland_be_afraid.jpg

In the end. Helsinki was only western capital on losing side that was not invaded. Nuff said :)

Remix13
Jun 4th, 2012, 07:09 AM
About the Winter War, did you know that Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä, nicknamed "White Death", was the most successful sniper in the WW2 ? He had 505 confirmed kills. He was severely wounded on March 6, 1940, a bullet hit his jaw and also destroyed his left cheek, but he survived and at the age of 96 in April 2002 ! After the war he was hunter and dog breeder in Finland.

He used different tricks to hide himself like putting snow in his mouth to avoid breathing smoke, compacting the snow before him to avoid it to move when he fired, and he used only normal sights instead of optical sights to avoid light reflection. I've read the soviets even tried artillery bombing to kill him, but it didn't work.

Here he is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Simo_hayha_honorary_rifle.jpg/167px-Simo_hayha_honorary_rifle.jpg

Remix13
Jun 4th, 2012, 07:22 AM
Oh and Sabaton, a Swedish power metal band made a song about him (White Death):

q5CaQ37VYvw

This band is specialized in songs about great battles/war of history. They especially made a lot of songs for WW2, about Battle of Normandy, Stalingrad, Koursk, Midway, Battle of the Atlantic, Battle of Berlin and so many others... It's a band for WW2 nerds who like metal :lol:

miffedmax
Jun 4th, 2012, 12:19 PM
My cat is named Simo, after Simo Hayha. (My kids picked the name).

He is only death to bugs, though.

Remix13
Jun 4th, 2012, 01:47 PM
My cat is named Simo, after Simo Hayha. (My kids picked the name).

He is only death to bugs, though.

Your kids know Simo Hayha :eek:
I didn't know he is so famous.

So how many bugs did your cat kill ? Was it soviet bugs ? :lol:

miffedmax
Jun 4th, 2012, 02:12 PM
I've lost count. He got a couple of roaches last night and was very pleased with himself.

He keeps the house pretty much roach and rodent free, though a few always try to come in when the heat starts.

Rollo
Jun 5th, 2012, 04:32 PM
There is a Finnish movie about the Winter War that is a classic IMO. It's a cross between a war movie and a love traingle between a Finnish soldier, a Russian soldier, and a Lapp woman.

anyway, thus, Germans during the WWII never went hungry until almost the end..the result of their country's brutal policy..you can understand the Red Army soldiers getting mad when they saw how German people lived.

I'm not sure it mattered how the Germans lived-the Russians were out for revenge-period.

Speaking of revenge-the Allies deliberately starved millions of Germans to death after the end of World War I. That's gotten little press attention, but it no doubt fed into the bitterness and thrist for revenge the Germans demonstrated in World War II.

We often reap what we sow.

To me the Two World Wars are just one war in two parts-a sort of 30 years war. They destroyed European power, possibly forever, and gave Europe a profund distaste for conflict. The consequences weren't all bad though: the liberation from colonial rule may have been delayed for 50 years or more without the wars.

fantic
Jun 6th, 2012, 08:11 AM
There is a Finnish movie about the Winter War that is a classic IMO. It's a cross between a war movie and a love traingle between a Finnish soldier, a Russian soldier, and a Lapp woman.



I'm not sure it mattered how the Germans lived-the Russians were out for revenge-period.

Speaking of revenge-the Allies deliberately starved millions of Germans to death after the end of World War I. That's gotten little press attention, but it no doubt fed into the bitterness and thrist for revenge the Germans demonstrated in World War II.

We often reap what we sow.

To me the Two World Wars are just one war in two parts-a sort of 30 years war. They destroyed European power, possibly forever, and gave Europe a profund distaste for conflict. The consequences weren't all bad though: the liberation from colonial rule may have been delayed for 50 years or more without the wars.

I thought it was during the war. Blockade. The bitterness and thirst for revenge? I don't think it has much to do with starvation. Germans didn't know what was going on, their leaders deliberately withheld the info at the front, they didn't know it was so bad. Remember, they didn't experience the war on their home soil. So they thought they could've won, thus their hatred on the 'traitors' and the unfair treatment (in their view) at Versailles. And THAT'S what Hitler kept pounding on..

And THAT'S behind the infamous 'Ultimatum'(UNconditional surrender) at the Teheran Conference. The Allies didn't want to make the same mistake. Hell, some wanted the Germans stripped of their industrial capacity and leave to their miserable fate. Eye for an eye, exactly what the Germans intended for the conquered nation's people during the WWII :lol: Luckily for them, some wanted stronger Europe (against USSR of course), and thus argued for a strong Germany, such as George Kennan.

Can we discuss the Spanish Civil War here too? If one argue that WWI and WWII are essentially the same, surely that event can fit in? :)

Remix13
Jun 6th, 2012, 08:37 AM
Spanish civil war surely fits indeed. Germany sent the Condor Legion to fight with nationalist Spain, and they tested new tactics like carpet bombing for example. Italy and Portugal also sent volunteers to help nationalists, on the other hand Soviet Union provided material for Republican Spain. So it's closely related to WW2.

Today is 6th of June, important day concerning WW2 ! With the allied landing in Normandy of 1944.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/NormandySupply_edit.jpg/626px-NormandySupply_edit.jpg

fantic
Jun 6th, 2012, 05:22 PM
I thought it was during the war. Blockade. The bitterness and thirst for revenge? I don't think it has much to do with starvation. Germans didn't know what was going on, their leaders deliberately withheld the info at the front, they didn't know it was so bad. Remember, they didn't experience the war on their home soil. So they thought they could've won, thus their hatred on the 'traitors' and the unfair treatment (in their view) at Versailles. And THAT'S what Hitler kept pounding on..

And THAT'S behind the infamous 'Ultimatum'(UNconditional surrender) at the Teheran Conference. The Allies didn't want to make the same mistake. Hell, some wanted the Germans stripped of their industrial capacity and leave to their miserable fate. Eye for an eye, exactly what the Germans intended for the conquered nation's people during the WWII :lol: Luckily for them, some wanted stronger Europe (against USSR of course), and thus argued for a strong Germany, such as George Kennan.

Can we discuss the Spanish Civil War here too? If one argue that WWI and WWII are essentially the same, surely that event can fit in? :)

if you want to know what happened in Germany AFTER the war;

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MseUNdwNL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

So lucky that I can read all these books at the local library :bounce:

fantic
Jun 6th, 2012, 05:38 PM
Spanish civil war surely fits indeed. Germany sent the Condor Legion to fight with nationalist Spain, and they tested new tactics like carpet bombing for example. Italy and Portugal also sent volunteers to help nationalists, on the other hand Soviet Union provided material for Republican Spain. So it's closely related to WW2.

Today is 6th of June, important day concerning WW2 ! With the allied landing in Normandy of 1944.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/NormandySupply_edit.jpg/626px-NormandySupply_edit.jpg

I can't understand people saying that GER/ITA/PORTUGAL and USSR, their contribution to the civil war was about the same :weirdo: I mean, ITA even sent their TROOPS

Spanish Civil was is such an interesting topic, since Spain was even more radical than France; anarchism, anti-clericalism, etc...

I've read a lot concerning the 2nd republic part(1931-6), Hugh Thomas, Anthony Beevor, Paul Preston, Stanley Payne..quite a polarizing topic, even in academic circles..Payne is more to the right, he focuses on the failure of the Left, and he recently panned Preston's recent book 'Holocaust' as an ultimate failure :hysteric:

For example, on CEDA (the biggest party of the Right, and which the gov leaders tried to block access to the gov, kinda reminds me of Nazi before the takeover), Payne commends their 'restraint', while Preston castigates the party leaders' colluding with the coup d'etat and their cynicism and wile.

For the plight of the peasants(probably the worst in all Europe, the landowners practically saw them as an inferior species :faecpalm: and tried REALLY hard to block reform and to starve them), while Preston spares a lot of space in his book, Payne says dryly 'their treatment was rather harsh' :facepalm: That's basically all he says on that topic, he just generally relies on the overall economic statistics (well both author have respective merits I guess)

Of their 'bete noire'? Payne admits that his is Azana, the Republican(not exactly a Lefty, maybe middle-Left in political spectrum) leader during the Republic, and Preston's is of course Franco. He says that Franco DELIBERATELY delayed winning the war to exterminate the Republican forces fully. He even sacrificed the Italian troops for that end, the war of brutal attrition :hysteric:
Preston dissects the Rebels, Catholic leaders, landowners, the whole Right's bestial mentality (they blatantly aimed at the 'extermination' of the Left and their ideas, so I don't think the term Holocaust is that misleading..while some book reviewers and especially Payne castigates on the choice of the title :lol:)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51bh9jZgzBL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/412YtIzpAqL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Rollo
Jun 6th, 2012, 05:46 PM
I thought it was during the war. Blockade. The bitterness and thirst for revenge? I don't think it has much to do with starvation.

The blockade went on during and after the war.

Link to Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany


Clearly I was way off on the death count, but as you can read from the article the blockade continued AFTER peace was declared in an effort to literally bring Germany to the peace table and accept whatever humiliating terms the Allies (In particular the French) chose to dicate. Wilson warned them about being too harsh and was roundly ignored.

Of course the French recalled their own humilation in 1870..., so one can understrand their position to some extent.

Germans didn't know what was going on, their leaders deliberately withheld the info at the front, they didn't know it was so bad. Remember, they didn't experience the war on their home soil. So they thought they could've won, thus their hatred on the 'traitors' and the unfair treatment (in their view) at Versailles. And THAT'S what Hitler kept pounding on..


All true I agree, but the starvation of unarmed civilians after peace had been declared added a lot of bitterness, how could it not? And Versailles totally laid the seeds of the next war by utterly crushing Germany and laying total blame for the war upon it. Germans surely expected bad terms as the losers, but to have an enemy starve civilians in such a fashion added a lot of salt to the wounds, as did having to admit 100% of the blame for the conflict. As Wilson predicted it had the opppsite effect the Allies hoped for-it just took Germany 15 years to recover.

In much the same way German bombing of civilians in England in the Blitz (and Allied bombing of Germany) had the exact opposite effect of what was intended. Rather than break morale it stiffened it.

Anyhow I'm not trying to defend Germany here. My larger point is death and violence usually begets death and violence. As An American myself I'm both amused and horrified that we still don't seem to get that Arabs had/have at least some gievence against us because of our support for Israel. To me 911 was entirely predicatable-not so much the scale of the attack as the conflist itself.

Wish I knew more about the Spanish Civil War. Did Franco continue to go after Communists after it was over-or did her let sleeping dogs lie?

Franco's decision not to attack Gilbralter really cost Hitler IMO. Has Germany controlled the Meditteranean North Africa may have easily fallen.

fantic
Jun 6th, 2012, 05:51 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519CzDESN5L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

The book that everybody agrees as brilliant. Has a deep understanding of Spain, this book a is historical work on the background to the Spanish Civil War. Some even praise his prose style

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51D1ZDFVQCL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

A classic, pretty long. Thomas was a member of the Thatcher gov, I think.

The West did NOTHING during the Civil War. declared neutral but in effect was obviously indirectly helping the Rebels. British in particular. The spat between Churchill and Eleanor Roosevelt on that topic is a famous episode. The French was as timid as a maid in that era :facepalm: practically a lackey of British, always looked to them for guidance :lol: And FDR was as usual, extremely prudent (maybe too much so :lol:) on the European question until 1941.

fantic
Jun 6th, 2012, 06:04 PM
The blockade went on during and after the war.

Link to Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany


Clearly I was way off on the death count, but as you can read from the article the blockade continued AFTER peace was declared in an effort to literally bring Germany to the peace table and accept whatever humiliating terms the Allies (In particular the French) chose to dicate. Wilson warned them about being too harsh and was roundly ignored.

Of course the French recalled their own humilation in 1870..., so one can understrand their position to some extent.



All true I agree, but the starvation of unarmed civilians after peace had been declared added a lot of bitterness, how could it not? And Versailles totally laid the seeds of the next war by utterly crushing Germany and laying total blame for the war upon it. Germans surely expected bad terms as the losers, but to have an enemy starve civilians in such a fashion added a lot of salt to the wounds, as did having to admit 100% of the blame for the conflict. As Wilson predicted it had the opppsite effect the Allies hoped for-it just took Germany 15 years to recover.

In much the same way German bombing of civilians in England in the Blitz (and Allied bombing of Germany) had the exact opposite effect of what was intended. Rather than break morale it stiffened it.

Anyhow I'm not trying to defend Germany here. My larger point is death and violence usually begets death and violence. As An American myself I'm both amused and horrified that we still don't seem to get that Arabs had/have at least some gievence against us because of our support for Israel. To me 911 was entirely predicatable-not so much the scale of the attack as the conflist itself.

Wish I knew more about the Spanish Civil War. Did Franco continue to go after Communists after it was over-or did her let sleeping dogs lie?

Franco's decision not to attack Gilbralter really cost Hitler IMO. Has Germany controlled the Meditteranean North Africa may have easily fallen.

What do you think about the Unconditional surrender expounded by FDR? That's also laying the TOTAL blame against Germany. 'Tactical' bombing by the British and Americans was also a blatant example of utterly crushing Germany. (What's ironic is that it didn't stop Speer maintaining the arms production rate. So much for disrupting it, as was the Allies' aim..I dunno why Speer wasn't executed :lol: he was SO crucial to the war effort)

Anyway, of Franco, their policy was utter extermination of the Lefty idea. Thus indiscriminate killing in the Rebel zone. Of course the 'work' continued after the war, such as labor camp, etc. But don't know much on that timeframe, after the Civil War, it's on Preston's 'Holocaust's later portion I think, which I haven't read yet, and one should also consult the bio of Franco, which I haven't read either :lol: Both Preston and Payne published it.

And yeah, Franco and Hitler haggled over the term for the entrance of Spain in the War. But Franco wanted extremely favorite terms for Spain, so Hitler backed off.( Franco really benefited DURING the CW also, ITA/GER practically sent their support for free, while the Republic had to drain their gold reserve to pay USSR) Payne has a whole book on this topic, didn't read that yet.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RV4%2BxhR7L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

*JR*
Jun 6th, 2012, 11:59 PM
I thought it was during the war. Blockade. The bitterness and thirst for revenge? I don't think it has much to do with starvation. Germans didn't know what was going on, their leaders deliberately withheld the info at the front, they didn't know it was so bad. Remember, they didn't experience the war on their home soil. So they thought they could've won, thus their hatred on the 'traitors' and the unfair treatment (in their view) at Versailles. And THAT'S what Hitler kept pounding on...

Prediction of the century, made @ Versailles in June 1919 by French Marshal Ferdinand Foch, who made a comeback from like 2 sets and 2 breaks down :tape: called The Miracle of the Marne in 1914. HE had more claim on having the French Open named for him than that biplane pilot Roland Garros. :p (Hell, we needed a cartoon character to take down Baron Von Richthoven). :tape:

[Among those who commented was Marshal Ferdinand Foch who predicted with eerie precision that: "This is not Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years."] (Sept 11, 1939 being almost exactly 20 years later). :eek: BTW, the cartoon character "hero of WW I" was a compatriot of the original Peppermint Patty. ;)

fSrjFtTPtbo

miffedmax
Jun 7th, 2012, 03:30 AM
Never believe what those damn sons of convicts said. It was a good Canadian what got him ;)

And of course the Flying Circus was never a match for the Black Flight. Nobody was.
http://www.barryweekleyart.com/aviation/Black%20Flight,%20Naval%2010.jpg

But that's another war.

wild.river
Jun 7th, 2012, 06:10 AM
may god bless those brave souls who fought in that war on either side.
may the bureaucrats who instigated the conflict from their cushy sofas burn in hell.

http://media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/18/47918-004-F57A34B1.jpg
canadians landing in juno beach 68 years ago

Remix13
Jun 7th, 2012, 08:21 AM
Juno Beach is the sector of Courseulles sur Mer, it's about 10 minutes from where my parents live (which is more Sword Beach). There is a museum (well, there are tons of WW2 museums in Normandy) and remains of German bunkers in Courseulles and Graye sur Mer (there is a good spot to fish seabass in front of the bunker, there are no more war boats, but fishing boats now), a Canadian cemetery in not far (in the village of Revier, you can also fish trouts in the river there).

wild.river
Jun 7th, 2012, 05:51 PM
Juno Beach is the sector of Courseulles sur Mer, it's about 10 minutes from where my parents live (which is more Sword Beach). There is a museum (well, there are tons of WW2 museums in Normandy) and remains of German bunkers in Courseulles and Graye sur Mer (there is a good spot to fish seabass in front of the bunker, there are no more war boats, but fishing boats now), a Canadian cemetery in not far (in the village of Revier, you can also fish trouts in the river there).

http://concierge.typepad.com/cntraveler__80days/images/2007/05/14/juno_beach.jpg

is this sort of what it looks like now?

i've never visited a major battlefield, though i want to see juno beach, ypres, somme, el alamein etc. it must feel really strange walking on that ground.

Remix13
Jun 7th, 2012, 06:11 PM
Yes it looks like that now. Except some remains of bunkers and museums , you can't tell there was war there, the see erased everything. There are the big concrete blocks from the Arromanche artificial harbour which are still there though.

If you go in some areas of northern/east France, there are the battlefields of the WW1, and you can still see the trenches and artillery shells holes, it's much more impressive. It looks like that near Verdun:

http://www.drttours.co.uk/Pages/Resources/verdun8.jpeg

wild.river
Jun 7th, 2012, 06:36 PM
Yes it looks like that now. Except some remains of bunkers and museums , you can't tell there was war there, the see erased everything. There are the big concrete blocks from the Arromanche artificial harbour which are still there though.

If you go in some areas of northern/east France, there are the battlefields of the WW1, and you can still see the trenches and artillery shells holes, it's much more impressive. It looks like that near Verdun:

http://www.drttours.co.uk/Pages/Resources/verdun8.jpeg

:eek:

is that a deserted historic place now or does it get a lot of tourists?

miffedmax
Jun 7th, 2012, 06:45 PM
Juno was a such a tough battle, and so overlooked--I suspect because it was the Canadian beach. Going right into a built up area made it particularly tough. Despite facing the second heaviest defenses after Omaha, the Canadian 3rd Division made the furthest penetration inland of any Allied unit. Me Mum's cousins* did themselves proud.


(*well, in truth, any cousins of hers would have been distant cousins indeed, since her relatives were actually in the 1st Division which was deployed in Italy).

My dad was in the Pacific.

Remix13
Jun 7th, 2012, 07:11 PM
:eek:

is that a deserted historic place now or does it get a lot of tourists?

It's not deserted and there are some tourists. As you see the grass is quite clean and the area is preserved.

NoppaNoppa
Jun 7th, 2012, 08:05 PM
Russian Army Commander Makarov is pissed off!

He thinks Finland should have no co-operation with NATO whatsoever. Some might remember that USA/NATO missile shield in Poland? Today Russia proposed their version. THEIR SHIELD covers three Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) and Finland...

Here we go again :rolleyes: Hope international media picks this. This is nothing but bullying from Russian part. Then again, for some odd reason, our current foreign minister is as red as they come :mad:

fantic
Jun 20th, 2012, 09:38 PM
from Wiki page of Arthur Harris;

"Despite protests from Germany as well as some in Britain,[32] the Bomber Harris Trust (an RAF veterans' organisation formed to defend the good name of their commander) erected a statue of him outside the RAF Church of St. Clement Danes, London in 1992. It was unveiled by Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother who looked surprised when she was jeered by protesters, one of whom shouted "Harris was a war criminal". The line on the statue reads "The Nation owes them all an immense debt." The statue had to be kept under 24-hour guard for a period of months as it was often vandalised by protesters and iconoclasts.[33][34][35][36]"

I wonder if there was any attempt of Harris' life?

I'm reading
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5144TWitNVL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
and I recommend it wholeheartedly for the European campaign of WWII. He examines every aspect and from every point of view too, quite fair imo.

Political professor once told us that Anglo-Saxons are the most brutal, in Harris is a prime example of that I guess :lol: (And the Area Bombing wasn't event particularly successful :tape: Harris predicted numerous times that bombing would lead them to victory :tape: but the ground forces found otherwise :tape: )

Halardfan
Jun 20th, 2012, 11:01 PM
from Wiki page of Arthur Harris;

"Despite protests from Germany as well as some in Britain,[32] the Bomber Harris Trust (an RAF veterans' organisation formed to defend the good name of their commander) erected a statue of him outside the RAF Church of St. Clement Danes, London in 1992. It was unveiled by Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother who looked surprised when she was jeered by protesters, one of whom shouted "Harris was a war criminal". The line on the statue reads "The Nation owes them all an immense debt." The statue had to be kept under 24-hour guard for a period of months as it was often vandalised by protesters and iconoclasts.[33][34][35][36]"

I wonder if there was any attempt of Harris' life?

I'm reading
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5144TWitNVL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
and I recommend it wholeheartedly for the European campaign of WWII. He examines every aspect and from every point of view too, quite fair imo.

Political professor once told us that Anglo-Saxons are the most brutal, in Harris is a prime example of that I guess :lol: (And the Area Bombing wasn't event particularly successful :tape: Harris predicted numerous times that bombing would lead them to victory :tape: but the ground forces found otherwise :tape: )

Not convinced that the so called Anglo-Saxons were the most brutal in World War 2...

The reality was that all sides commited dreadful acts, though the weight of blame should fall on those who started the war...I live now in Japan, a country which both commited dreadful acts and ultimately suffered terribly from them. It's an amazing country, and it's surreal to think of all that happened here not so long ago.

fantic
Jun 21st, 2012, 02:35 AM
oh, I wasn't talking about WWII, the professor said 'generally' :lol: Harris was also called 'butcher' by the way :lol: Germans and Russians were of course more brutal, Japanese absolutely, in WWII. By the way unlike Germany, Japan was very stingy in saying sorry to the victims nation; hence, sometimes tense relationships with China and two Koreas.

miffedmax
Jun 21st, 2012, 03:04 AM
On the other hand, the Allied bombing campaign tied up hundreds of thousands of men and countless resources that might have otherwise been deployed against the troops on the ground, and from 1941-43 were really all the Western powers could do to take pressure off the USSR. While the bombing campaign was not a complete success, it was never the complete failure some critics paint it up to be--especially once the RAF and USAAF started to focus on Germany's fuel supplies.

Also, while much is made of the fact German production did actually increase despite the Allied air offensive, there's no doubt that it was affected, though again never as much as the British and Americans thought it would be.

miffedmax
Jun 21st, 2012, 03:07 AM
I'm reading about Operation Totalize.

Superior Canadian technology wins the day--

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/7553/kangaroobpn2.jpg

Remix13
Jun 21st, 2012, 06:34 AM
It looks like some kind of M7 Priest with the gun removed. Mighty Canadians don't need guns to win a battle, guns are for pussies :worship:

fantic
Jun 21st, 2012, 07:41 AM
On the other hand, the Allied bombing campaign tied up hundreds of thousands of men and countless resources that might have otherwise been deployed against the troops on the ground, and from 1941-43 were really all the Western powers could do to take pressure off the USSR. While the bombing campaign was not a complete success, it was never the complete failure some critics paint it up to be--especially once the RAF and USAAF started to focus on Germany's fuel supplies.

Also, while much is made of the fact German production did actually increase despite the Allied air offensive, there's no doubt that it was affected, though again never as much as the British and Americans thought it would be.

You're right, just that the concept of 'Area Bombing' didn't achieve much, even militarily. I heard that the Dresden railroad wasn't even that much destroyed after the bombing :tape: AND with the horrendous casualties for civilians to boot. No wonder some Germans call it Holocaust..

Well, Churchill did have to show something to assuage Stalin :tape: for not opening the 2nd Front early enough.

Mashi
Jun 21st, 2012, 01:02 PM
Do you find it fair that France was among the winners of WWII while we cooperated with Hitler?
I think it is, because we still had the Resistance but not sure though :confused:

Remix13
Jun 21st, 2012, 01:58 PM
Do you find it fair that France was among the winners of WWII while we cooperated with Hitler?
I think it is, because we still had the Resistance but not sure though :confused:

The Resistance had a great role of course but don't forget Free French Forces leaded by De Gaulle who fought in Africa and took part of the liberation of Europe.

miffedmax
Jun 21st, 2012, 02:35 PM
It looks like some kind of M7 Priest with the gun removed. Mighty Canadians don't need guns to win a battle, guns are for pussies :worship:

It is. The Canadians used them during Totalize. Known as "Defrocked Priest" or "Kangaroos" they were the first true Armored Personal Carriers with much better mobility and protection that halftracks. While Totalize was only a partial success, the idea of the Kangaroo caught on and lots of Priests, Shermans and Churchills were converted for Commonwealth, U.S. and Free French units.

(The Canadians used the Priest because they were originally issued Priests for D-day. Once ashore and with their logistics set up, they converted back to their standard 25-lbers and new Sexton sp guns. So they had a bunch of Priests just sitting around, which they decided to put to good use).

fantic
Jun 21st, 2012, 05:27 PM
Do you find it fair that France was among the winners of WWII while we cooperated with Hitler?
I think it is, because we still had the Resistance but not sure though :confused:

I don't think it's fair, since France actually fought against the Allies at Africa :facepalm: And the others' contribution was rather negligible too. Hell, Yugoslavia better contributed to the war effort than France. But Churchill believed in strong France, so he insisted that France be the part of the committees. That was a political decision, to be sure :shrug:

*JR*
Jun 24th, 2012, 02:56 PM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22178299.jpg

miffedmax
Jun 24th, 2012, 03:25 PM
http://www.warwheels.net/images/otter_MkI_haugh3.jpg

More war-winning Canadian technology. The Otter recon car.

As for invading the USSR, there was actually a contingent in the Nazi hierarchy that viewed the Ukrainians and Belorussians as Aryans, distinct from the Russians. Had they actually split some of the republics off and turned them into allies, the war might have gone differently. A lot of Soviet citizens volunteered to fight against the communists government, but the Nazis quickly showed they were an even worse alternative.

wild.river
Jun 24th, 2012, 11:57 PM
http://www.warwheels.net/images/otter_MkI_haugh3.jpg

More war-winning Canadian technology. The Otter recon car.

As for invading the USSR, there was actually a contingent in the Nazi hierarchy that viewed the Ukrainians and Belorussians as Aryans, distinct from the Russians. Had they actually split some of the republics off and turned them into allies, the war might have gone differently. A lot of Soviet citizens volunteered to fight against the communists government, but the Nazis quickly showed they were an even worse alternative.

canada :bounce:

the arbitrariness of racial prejudice sometimes fascinates me. like in apartheid south africa, hong kong natives were "white" but chinese were not.

PhilePhile
Jun 25th, 2012, 07:17 AM
Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS_foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts) (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Source: Warfare and Diplomatic History Blog (http://warfareandiplomacy.blogspot.ca/2012/05/follow-up-on-516-post.html)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uXWto0jBdi0/T7s8o986_YI/AAAAAAAAADE/A89yF_tij_A/s1600/SS+Legions.jpg



German (no connection to the Waffen-SS or Wehrmacht) trained and equiped division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-trained_divisions_in_the_National_Revolutionary_Ar my) under Chiang Kai-shek [Nationalist Party, the Kuomintang (KMT)] :

theatlantic.com (http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/07/world-war-ii-conflict-spreads-around-the-globe/100107/)
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/ww2_5/w01_07110168.jpg


In a movie ...

oIjt5y7YMyo

PhilePhile
Jun 25th, 2012, 07:31 AM
canada :bounce:

the arbitrariness of racial prejudice sometimes fascinates me. like in apartheid south africa, hong kong natives were "white" but chinese were not.

And now?

Gwshgdx990o

Remix13
Jun 25th, 2012, 08:56 AM
http://www.warwheels.net/images/otter_MkI_haugh3.jpg

More war-winning Canadian technology. The Otter recon car.


I think the enemies probably directly fled when they saw this beast of war, even a Tiger had no chance against it :devil:

Look at all these guns and the heavy armor enhanced by a rescue wheel !

miffedmax
Jun 25th, 2012, 05:08 PM
I think the enemies probably directly fled when they saw this beast of war, even a Tiger had no chance against it :devil:

Look at all these guns and the heavy armor enhanced by a rescue wheel !

http://kksphotos.com/images/otter-yawning.jpg

Silly man! Every one knows that Otters don't fight Tigers!


However, Otters have friends in high places...
http://hushkit.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/stroud_typhoon_small.jpg

http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/photos/0293_c_1_sm.jpg

Boom! Boom!

http://rrparks.mcn.org/fortross/images/otter02.jpg

Oh, Otter laughs and laughs some more!

Remix13
Jun 26th, 2012, 06:57 AM
The Typhoon (it's maybe a Tempest on your pic, I'm not sure) is a mighty plane indeed :fiery:

This is a replica in the Memorial Museum in Caen, Normandy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Memorial_Avion.jpg/320px-Memorial_Avion.jpg

This is the wreck of tank ace Michael Wittmann's Tiger after possibly being hit by a Typhoon rocket, one of probable scenario, with the hit of a Sherman Firefly possible too, maybe Max will claim the Tiger has been destroyed by a Crusader :lol:

http://www.network54.com/Realm/101Tiger/007.jpg

Anyway the Typhoons were the nightmare of German tankmen. Far more dangerous than most of Allied crappy tanks.

ranfurly
Jun 26th, 2012, 09:50 AM
If my Uncle was interested in tennis, he would love this thread, a devout Military Historian, specialising in WW2 Artillery especially German Railroad Guns and German Artillery, Geogrpahical Maps and the Scottish regiments and involvement During World War 2, He's published articles on the Gustav Dora (German Rail Gun) and the Boer War,

Anyway, There was a video taken by a German Soldier in Normandy I believe, for the life of me I can't find it, I saw it on the History Channel, of a Scottish Lone Piper piping, and the Germans showing the respect and letting him pipe through on his way, leading others into battle,

The drone of the bagpipes, in that time and space, just an amazing thought and illusion to hear such a terrifying and ghostly sound upon battle.

miffedmax
Jun 26th, 2012, 11:59 AM
The Typhoon (it's maybe a Tempest on your pic, I'm not sure) is a mighty plane indeed :fiery:

This is a replica in the Memorial Museum in Caen, Normandy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Memorial_Avion.jpg/320px-Memorial_Avion.jpg

This is the wreck of tank ace Michael Wittmann's Tiger after possibly being hit by a Typhoon rocket, one of probable scenario, with the hit of a Sherman Firefly possible too, maybe Max will claim the Tiger has been destroyed by a Crusader :lol:

http://www.network54.com/Realm/101Tiger/007.jpg

Anyway the Typhoons were the nightmare of German tankmen. Far more dangerous than most of Allied crappy tanks.

The destruction of Wittman's Tiger (and the rest of his depleted company) is usually credited to A Squadron of the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry, (with the kill shot fired by Trooper Elkins) during a counterattack on advancing Canadian and British troops during Totalize. Some sources claim the shot was fired by a Sherbrookes Fusiliers Sherman, but given the way Wittman's tank was comprehensively destroyed it was most likely a flank shot, which would support Elkin's claim.

Regardless, it was certainly a Firefly and not a Typhoon that got Wittman--and most likely a British one.

Remix13
Jun 27th, 2012, 06:38 AM
Indeed the Firefly option seems more likely, but the Typhoon option is more representative of German tanks being slaughtered by Allied air superiority and fighter-bombers.

The Tiger on the picture was probably ammo-racked judging by the torn turret. No chance of survival for the crew.

fantic
Jul 5th, 2012, 12:41 AM
am reading

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61RsbTZPfBL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Can anything be more pathetic than the Fall of France? At one town Germans found that French soldiers were behind bars
for 2 days when they arrived(they locked themselves) :tape: The Germans of course ridiculed the idea of 'Grande Nation'.

Gamelin is one of the worst generals of all time, but Reynaud made a cardinal error by appointing Maxime Weygand, ultra
conservative in his stead. Weygand blamed the fall of France not to the generals but to Popular Front and schoolteachers
:help: And of course vociferously argued for the immediate peace with Germany, backed by Petain. Both were obsessed with
'revolutionary' elements; as they say, 'Better Hitler than Blum' :facepalm: Weygand even argued that Paris was occupied
by the communist leader Thorez during a cabinet meeting; Georges Mandel (one of the few who stood up to the end) promptly
called Paris to check it out, and of course it was false :haha:
Naturally some historians argue that the 3rd Republic had already been killed off by an internal military coup by Weygand,
Petain and Darlan.

miffedmax
Jul 5th, 2012, 01:15 AM
Certainly France's darkest hour. IIRC, the French also forgot that the original plan for the Maginot Line called for a mobile reaction force to back it up, but over time they came to again believe solely in static defense and were thus locked into the wheel into Belgium.

fantic
Jul 5th, 2012, 02:40 AM
they were also unlucky too; according to Beevor's book Germany originally planned to attack through Netherland and Belgium,
but their plan got out due to a German pilot's unlucky landing. So GBR and FRA naturally concentrated their troops in
that area (and both NED and BEL stubbornly refused to work with them in case they might 'provoke' GER :facepalm: )

So, Germany needed an alternative route; hence, Ardenne. FRA never, ever thought that it was possible for GER to go
through that area.

Remix13
Jul 5th, 2012, 07:15 AM
Certainly France's darkest hour. IIRC, the French also forgot that the original plan for the Maginot Line called for a mobile reaction force to back it up, but over time they came to again believe solely in static defense and were thus locked into the wheel into Belgium.

Indeed probably one of the most shameful hour in France history (and it's quite recent so everybody knows about that), thanks to our brilliant general staff of the time :facepalm:

fantic
Jul 5th, 2012, 08:09 AM
Indeed probably one of the most shameful hour in France history (and it's quite recent so everybody knows about that), thanks to our brilliant general staff of the time :facepalm:

In retrospect France was done already when they didn't do anything against Germany's breaking into
Rhineland in 1936, in blatant breach of the Versailles Treaty. Clemanceau would've acted immediately. But those
political and military leaders then were SO timid..I believe it was Gamelin who scared the politicians by
exaggerating Germany's military strength then? Or was it somebody else? Anyway, you gotta hand it to them,
they practically acted as Germany's spy, bravo :lol:

miffedmax
Jul 5th, 2012, 08:09 PM
What was it, something like 90% of the German tanks and transport actually broke down when they moved into the Rhineland?

That wasn't entirely France's fault. Even though they would have had the Treaty of Versailles as justification, they probably would have received very little support from the rest of Europe. The British and the Poles were still more worried about the Soviets, the Italians were a little nervous about their future allies but were in no condition to stop them with a very weak military and the US was at best going to stay neutral, at worst it might actually have been slightly pro-German as Germany was a major trading partner and there was a general consensus the treaty was too rough on the Germans anyway.

France probably would have to go it alone, and if a shooting war had started even with their massive superiority in troops and equipment, they couldn't have afforded it with their wounded economy.

fantic
Jul 6th, 2012, 03:12 AM
yeah, nobody wanted the war, even the ordinary Germans. But the Germans followed Hitler to the bitter end..anyway before WWII Hitler was extremely lucky, everything was working for him :lol: (EVEN the French generals), his gambles always paid off..in the end, 'the luck simply ran out' :lol:

By the by it was the same as the problem of Soviet Union. Churchill was the most vociferous for aiding the Whites, but actually invading it? Domestic economies came first. Hell, biz from US and GBR actually preferred 'normalising' the relation to pursue profit there. Hoover also didn't want to do anything with the Soviet, let alone invading it, during the Civil War.

fantic
Jul 6th, 2012, 03:43 AM
and what of England? Churchill's position was QUITE precarious, actually. Narvik disaster (repeat of Gallipoli?), a lot still regarded him as quixotic and dangerous, the King & Chamberlain preferred Halifax to be PM, Halifax at first strenuously argued for an 'understanding' with Germany..one would shudder to think if Halifax succeeded Chamberlain as PM :scared:

and THAT Churchill was surprisingly generous to Chamberlain and Halifax after becoming PM. Considering the countless snubs he suffered from them before..really, Churchill was the perfect man to head GBR at that time..

US? Isolationist force comprised all ideological spectrum, from the ultra conservatives to socialists..FDR had to be extremely careful to steer the country into intervention..really, it's extremely lucky that GBR and US supreme leaders were not capitulards like FRA..

fantic
Jul 13th, 2012, 07:15 PM
at last finished Beevor's WWII book, am now sick of WWII for the time being :lol:

Japanese cannibalism is said to have been 'a systematic and organized military strategy'

:facepalm:

Really, Japanese are something else. Their porno and horror films are notorious too for that matter. They will never be looked upon as a 'leader' of Asians.

wild.river
Jul 13th, 2012, 10:20 PM
rape of nanking...
the japanese definitely got carried away during wwii.
war is usually an evil event, but they took it up an notch.

fantic
Jul 13th, 2012, 11:08 PM
they never surrendered either :o

No wonder U.S. decided to drop an atomic bomb.

The loss of men at Okinawa was horrendous. How many U.S. soldiers would have died if they
invaded the mainland? :scared: Japan was even teaching the girls to use bamboo spears by then.

Think about it. In a democratic country, the leaders would be extremely reluctant to risk
so many lives. One of the reason why the U.S. and British favored bombing. (The irony is
the casualty-rate of the bombers was staggering)

wild.river
Jul 13th, 2012, 11:36 PM
yeah, from a purely country level perspective, japan deserved the a-bombs 100%.
but the 6 yr old boy in hiroshima who didn't give a @#$% about imperialism or politics or china never got a chance to grow up.
war = pure evil
it strips away our humanity in every sense.

thank god wwii is the worst war mankind will ever see :o (until someone butterfingers hits the first nuke button and kills us all...)

fantic
Jul 14th, 2012, 02:40 AM
yeah, from a purely country level perspective, japan deserved the a-bombs 100%.
but the 6 yr old boy in hiroshima who didn't give a @#$% about imperialism or politics or china never got a chance to grow up.
war = pure evil
it strips away our humanity in every sense.

thank god wwii is the worst war mankind will ever see :o (until someone butterfingers hits the first nuke button and kills us all...)

damn right, war is evil. And soldiers...probably the most pitiful job ever, to sacrifice your life and kill humans to satisfy the ruling elite's ambition or 'glory' :o

And yes, we're extremely lucky to live in this relatively peaceful time..

miffedmax
Jul 14th, 2012, 02:45 AM
they never surrendered either :o

No wonder U.S. decided to drop an atomic bomb.

The loss of men at Okinawa was horrendous. How many U.S. soldiers would have died if they
invaded the mainland? :scared: Japan was even teaching the girls to use bamboo spears by then.

Think about it. In a democratic country, the leaders would be extremely reluctant to risk
so many lives. One of the reason why the U.S. and British favored bombing. (The irony is
the casualty-rate of the bombers was staggering)

My old man was scheduled to hit the beaches with the 5th Marines. They were expecting up to 90% casualties in the first wave to hit the beach.

(His odds were a little better since he was a tanker, but not much).

fantic
Jul 14th, 2012, 02:53 AM
My old man was scheduled to hit the beaches with the 5th Marines. They were expecting up to 90% casualties in the first wave to hit the beach.

(His odds were a little better since he was a tanker, but not much).

Do you owe your birth to Truman then? :oh: :lol:

Nah, maybe to the Japanese Emperor then :lol:

miffedmax
Jul 19th, 2012, 07:09 PM
-Z2d73x8SPU&feature

That such beauty can exist in this world makes me weep with joy.

Remix13
Jul 20th, 2012, 06:24 AM
-Z2d73x8SPU&feature

That such beauty can exist in this world makes me weep with joy.

At least the crew in this Crusader is in safety in a museum field, more than on a battlefield ;)

miffedmax
Jul 20th, 2012, 03:12 PM
The Crusader is invincible. My younger son are big-time wargamers and played out a scenario that found a squadron of Crusader IIIs taking on a platoon of Tigers. All of my Crusaders scored hits and my two surviving troops of tanks squadron then retired in good order, and only half of his Tigers were able to score hits on the superior Crusaders.

fantic
Jul 22nd, 2012, 11:40 PM
borrowed from the library

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NsfglAyYL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

fantic
Jul 24th, 2012, 11:00 PM
started to read

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41kbsw20DxL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

some chilling quotes;

p32 Duke of Westminster, Wellington, Buccleuch, Lord Phillimore..much more hostile to
Soviet than Fascism.

Lord Hankey observed acidly before making speech to the House of Lords
early in May, he 'would be addressing most of the members of the Fifth Column' - from Colville's diary.

Lord Tavistock, future Duke of Bedford, pacifist and plausible Nazi collaborator.

Harold Nicolson ;

"It is not the descendants of the old governing classes who display the
greatest enthusiasm for their leader"

"Mr. Chamberlain is the idol of the business men"

--------------

Churchill's power base was at first tenuous at best.
British aristocratic ruling class was ready to negotiate with Hitler. Halifax actually sought it during late May, 1940.
And, king George VI had preferred this Halifax over Churchill for the next PM after Chamberlain's resignation...

fantic
Jul 25th, 2012, 01:27 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZJSzyFgyL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Churchill 'The reason I write so much is that I don't waste my essence in bed'

:lol:

*JR*
Jul 25th, 2012, 02:22 AM
Churchill's power base was at first tenuous at best.

British aristocratic ruling class was ready to negotiate with Hitler. Halifax actually sought it during late May, 1940.

And, king George V had preferred this Halifax over Churchill for the next PM after Chamberlain's resignation...

As such, the American who did the most to cause Hitler's defeat may have been... Wallis Simpson. King Edward was a big pal of the Fuhrer, and might have refused to appoint Churchill PM; perhaps saying "no war for Poland, the Jerries have to cross it to get in position to eventually invade the USSR". But after his 1936 abdication, stuttering George (VI) was King, and "the rest is history". :shrug:

fantic
Jul 25th, 2012, 02:28 AM
As such, the American who did the most to cause Hitler's defeat may have been... Wallis Simpson. King Edward was a big pal of the Fuhrer, and might have refused to appoint Churchill PM; perhaps saying "no war for Poland, the Jerries have to cross it to get in position to eventually invade the USSR". But after his 1936 abdication, stuttering George (VI) was King, and "the rest is history". :shrug:

plausible theory :lol:

fantic
Jul 25th, 2012, 02:43 AM
Churchill was an absolute tyrant against his employees. Once had a row against a manservant.

C; 'You were very rude to me, you know'
Servant; 'Yes, but you were rude, too'
C; 'Yes, but I am a great man'

:haha:

wild.river
Jul 25th, 2012, 02:46 AM
Churchill was an absolute tyrant against his employees. Once had a row against a manservant.

C; 'You were very rude to me, you know'
Servant; 'Yes, but you were rude, too'
C; 'Yes, but I am a great man'

:haha:

:spit:
is there a book of churchill zingers?

fantic
Jul 25th, 2012, 02:49 AM
:spit:
is there a book of churchill zingers?

I'm not sure, just quoted from Manchester's bio of Winston.
But there must be? maybe searching for it at Amazon.

fantic
Jul 25th, 2012, 02:57 AM
BBC in 1993, pandering to Nazi Germany banned David Lloyd George, Winston, and Sir Austen Chamberlain (had much tougher stance against Hitler compared to Neville) from taking part in a series of political broadcasts, says Manchester.

fantic
Jul 25th, 2012, 04:44 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51bh9jZgzBL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

p424;

Sir Philip Chetwode, the head of prisoners exchange commission, to Halifax during 1938;

"I can hardly describe the horror that I have conceived of Spain since my interview with Franco 3 days ago. He is worse than the Reds and I could not stop him executing his unfortunate prisoners"

accordingly, Paul Preston considers Franco even worse than Fascists.

*JR*
Jul 25th, 2012, 05:34 PM
:spit:
is there a book of churchill zingers?

@ a party; I think this is a true story, BTW. ;)

High class lady sneers in disgust: "Winston, you are drunk!"

Churchill replies: "Yes Madam, I am drunk... and you are ugly. But I will be sober in the morning, while you shall still be ugly then".

:tape:

miffedmax
Jul 25th, 2012, 07:42 PM
One of the few people ever reputed to have gotten the best of Winston was GB Shaw.

He supposedly sent a ticket to Churchill to opening night for one of his plays, assuming Winston would sit with the other MPs. Churchill sent the ticket back with a note "Can't make it. Will come to the second show--if there is one."

The next day, and envelope from Shaw arrived with a note : "Two tickets for tonight's show. Bring a friend--if you have one."

fantic
Jul 26th, 2012, 12:25 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51bh9jZgzBL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

p424;

Sir Philip Chetwode, the head of prisoners exchange commission, to Halifax during 1938;

"I can hardly describe the horror that I have conceived of Spain since my interview with Franco 3 days ago. He is worse than the Reds and I could not stop him executing his unfortunate prisoners"

accordingly, Paul Preston considers Franco even worse than Fascists.

p434-5

Father Alberto Onaindia, after witnessing the destruction of Guernica pleaded to Cardinal Goma passionately to appeal to the rebels to stop bombing. 'such a horrendous, unprecedented, apocalyptic, Dantesque crime cannot be committed.'

Goma dismissed it, quote 'a spine-chilling affirmation of the Church's official support for Franco's war of annihilation'

This terror bombing by German Condor Legion (leader Richthofen), which commenced on the city of Durango, started it all. It may be the inspiration of

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61360N7YMDL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

And the British were favorable to the Rebels(for commercial reasons too, like their stance on the Tai-ping Rebellion in the 1860s).
Later THEY got a taste of bombing. Cruel irony.

fantic
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:11 AM
German jurists really helped Nazism. Not only those notorious 2 trials against Hitler(SO lenient to be almost comic), fascist violence cases were generally handled VERY lightly.

fantic
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:20 AM
p448 In many cases, the arrests and assassinations were carried out on the recommendation of the parish priest. In one case of a pregnant women of 19, despite the village doctor, Civil Guard, local Falange, a priest exclaimed,

'with the animal dead, there is no more rabies'

so she was shot.

Also, quite a lot of priests were murdered by the Rebels.

*JR*
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:51 AM
German jurists really helped Nazism. Not only those notorious 2 trials against Hitler (SO lenient to be almost comic), fascist violence cases were generally handled VERY lightly.

I'm only familiar with the one after the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch. Not only was the sentence lenient (under a year in jail for an armed insurrection) but the trial gave Hitler a national stage for the first time; and he had the solitude to write Mein Kampf in jail afterwards.

Had WW I General Ludendorff (who no German soldier or policeman would shoot) not been @ the putsch and stepped forward, Hitler might have died there in a hail of gunfire. But had the French (especially Clemenceau) not insisted on punitive reparations in 1919 @ Versailles, a Ludendorff would never have been there; and the attempted coup would have likely not happened anyhow.

Though of course there was another dynamic @ play in Versailles: the first whiff of The Cold War. Did the allies really perhaps want Germany to rearm, as a bulwark against the then new Soviet Union? :scratch: Maybe, just like the West played Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeini off against each other in a brutal 8 year war of attrition in the 1980s; which was like WW I redux.

shap_half
Jul 26th, 2012, 04:11 AM
"The Gods Were Neutral" is a classic about the Greek Campaign. And Corelli's Mandolin is of course required fiction reading.

An Apartment in Athens is also a fantastic piece of fiction about the German's occupation of Greece during WWII.

fantic
Jul 26th, 2012, 04:35 AM
I'm only familiar with the one after the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch. Not only was the sentence lenient (under a year in jail for an armed insurrection) but the trial gave Hitler a national stage for the first time; and he had the solitude to write Mein Kampf in jail afterwards.

Had WW I General Ludendorff (who no German soldier or policeman would shoot) not been @ the putsch and stepped forward, Hitler might have died there in a hail of gunfire. But had the French (especially Clemenceau) not insisted on punitive reparations in 1919 @ Versailles, a Ludendorff would never have been there; and the attempted coup would have likely not happened anyhow.

Though of course there was another dynamic @ play in Versailles: the first whiff of The Cold War. Did the allies really perhaps want Germany to rearm, as a bulwark against the then new Soviet Union? :scratch: Maybe, just like the West played Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeini off against each other in a brutal 8 year war of attrition in the 1980s; which was like WW I redux.

Well, I don't think Versaille was the problem. It WAS punitive, but the seed was already born before that, since the gov capitulated without the fight to the finish. People didn't know about the real situation on the front and the officers were able to manipulate those facts. And the 'legend' of 'Struck in the back'(which the Rightists and Hitler SO loved to quote), THAT was also before Versaille.

And yes, Ludendorff endorsed Hitler. Really, Hitler by himself couldn't have been borne to power without all those Ultra Conservatives.

About German rearmament, France of course never wanted it(that's the reason of the punitive conditions). But Britain wanted it (Churchill), LOTS of Conservatives in the Continent favored Germany(Nazi) as a bulwark against the Soviet Russia. There's a famous saying, 'Hitler than Blum' All British newspaper magnates, The Times too(it was originally conservative anyway), favored Hitler in that regard.

And everybody wanted peace, especially the Left, so Hitler was the perfect guy at the right time to rearm Germany..but of course, even BEFORE Hitler, Germany had a secret pact with Russia to rearm in their territory. So even WITHOUT Hitler, effective German rearmament and the subsequent conflict was quite possible.

fantic
Jul 26th, 2012, 05:23 AM
some more WSC quips;

on hearing Italy declaring War on Jun 10

'People who go to Italy to look at ruins won't have to go as far s Naples and Pompeii again'

on the Comtesse de Portes, notorious defeatist and advocate of surrender, who was the mistress of the then French Premier Reynaud;

'That woman...will undo everything during the night that I do during the day. But of course she can furnish him with facilities that I cannot afford him. I can reason with him, but I cannot sleep with him'

:haha:

*JR*
Jul 26th, 2012, 11:37 AM
on hearing Italy declaring War on Jun 10

'People who go to Italy to look at ruins won't have to go as far s Naples and Pompeii again'

Pick on Italia, and I'll get La Bella Alessandra after you. :devil:

Alessandra Mussolini signs photos of Benito

Alessandra Mussolini :hearts: an MP and the grand daughter of Benito Mussolini, has been caught autographing photographs of the fascist leader during a parliamentary debate in Rome.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9331243/Alessandra-Mussolini-signs-photos-of-Benito.html

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02248/Alessandra-Mussoli_2248056b.jpg

fantic
Jul 26th, 2012, 09:55 PM
A Fortune opinion survey showed that even before France collapsed; Only 30.3 % saw any hope for the Allies.

fantic
Jul 26th, 2012, 10:19 PM
WSC on July 14, 1940;

'Hitler must invade of fail. If he fails he is bound to go east, and fail he will.'

prescient.

fantic
Jul 27th, 2012, 12:00 AM
On Hitler;

'The greatest living German..Germany would never invade any other land' David Lloyd George

'unconcerned with affairs in Western Europe' Sir John Simon, foreign secretary 1931-5

'convinced of his sincerity in desiring peace in Europe and close friendship with England' Arnold Toynbee

'..genuinely statesmanlike address...evidence of good faith..we have heard the authentic
voice of a genuinely civilized people..prosecuting Jews served a purpose by satisfying
German's yearning to conquer somebody..it was a kind of lightning rod which protects
Europe' Walter Lippmann, a Jew.

------------

contrast these fatuous comments with Churchill's, in 1924

'the soul of Germany smoulders with dreams of a War of Liberation or Revenge'

He already warned of Anschluss and Czechoslovakia crisis in 1931.

On Germany in 1935 'Germans constituted the most industrious, tractable, fierce and martial race in the world'

fantic
Jul 27th, 2012, 11:13 PM
from Hastings' Churchill book;

p102 Clementine, WSC's wife read Henderson's bio of Stonewall Jackson in 1932. She wrote to WSC; 'The book is full of abuse of politicians who try to interfere with Generals in the field-(Ahem!)'

:haha:

p103 'Churchill and his military chiefs renounced any prospect of engaging Hitler's main army... Pantelleria, the tiny Italian island exercised a baleful fascination upon the War Cabinet' :lol:

p104 'Duce's pigeon-chested posturing as an Axis warload offered Britain to show their mettle.' :lol:

p106

Jock Colville
' to watch him compose some telegram or minute for dictation is to make one feel that one is
present at the birth of a child, so tense is his expression, so restless his turnings
from side to side, so curious the noises he emits under his breath' :lol:

p107 to British ambassador in Egypt " 'you should not telegraph at Gov. expense such an expression as 'completely crazy' " :haha:

Bearice
Jul 28th, 2012, 03:15 AM
It is said that Hitler had more support than President Roosevelt in those times.

Hitler was in jail for 1 year and after that he started world war 2.


:angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:

fantic
Jul 28th, 2012, 03:19 AM
WSC's gaffe;

'Even a single well-armed vessel will hold its own against aircraft' on Colliers, Jan 14, 1939

Bearice
Jul 28th, 2012, 03:26 AM
Picture of Hitler in a Restaurent

http://www.mileanhour.com/files/2010/3/hitles-alive.jpg


:mad: :fiery:

Bearice
Jul 28th, 2012, 03:42 AM
Hitler's Message to Obama

If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it.-- Adolph Hitler

This is truth and facts. Millions of people say this.

Hitler's ideas still rules. Hitler still lives.

HOW MANY POSTS DO I NEED TO START NEW THREADS IN THIS FORUM?


:help: :help: :help: :help:

fantic
Jul 28th, 2012, 04:27 AM
Hitler's Message to Obama

If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it.-- Adolph Hitler

This is truth and facts. Millions of people say this.

Hitler's ideas still rules. Hitler still lives.

HOW MANY POSTS DO I NEED TO START NEW THREADS IN THIS FORUM?


:help: :help: :help: :help:

Today glanced over John Flynn's 'Why we slept' and his message was that the American elite from FDR conducted one of the most effective brainwashing in history, namely 'pinky' attitude towards Communism. Now I see why he was such a good friend of McCarthy :lol:

fantic
Jul 28th, 2012, 04:29 AM
Zhukov bio by Geoffrey Roberts

p9 John Erikson, the foremost British authority on the Red Army, said 'the greatest soldier so far produced by the 20th century is Marshal Georgi Zhukov of the Soviet Union'

:worship:

fantic
Jul 28th, 2012, 05:02 AM
what does Zhukov and Adolph Zukor (January 7, 1873 – June 10, 1976),born Adolph Cukor, a film mogul and founder of Paramount Pictures, have in common? :devil:

*JR*
Jul 28th, 2012, 03:02 PM
Today glanced over John Flynn's 'Why we slept' and his message was that the American elite from FDR conducted one of the most effective brainwashing in history, namely 'pinky' attitude towards Communism. Now I see why he was such a good friend of McCarthy :lol:

Its nonsense. Pre-WW2, the liberals like FDR (along with TR in the 1890's and Woodrow Wilson re. WW I, for example) were the advocates of an aggressive foreign policy, while the conservatives (under ppl like FDR's 1930's foil, Senator Robert Taft of OH, aka "Mr. Republican") were the isolationists. And the GOP basically blocked the post WW I League of Nations Treaty being ratified in the US Senate.

In fact a young JFK turned his Harvard thesis into a bestseller called Why England Slept, blasting the Munich agreement between Chamberlain and Hitler. (I know, his father Joe Kennedy, the first Catholic US Ambassador to Britain, was disgraced around the same time with the quote about how "democracy was finished" there, meaning the Brits would have to cut a deal with Germany).

Which Hitler (an admirer of most things British) clearly wanted, as per his friendship with the King Edward who abdicated to marry American "commoner" Wallis Simpson in 1936; "interesting" as to whether she'd been working on Washington's behalf then. :scratch: And of course Rudolf Hess might indeed have been on a "peace mission" for Hitler when he parachuted into GB in 1941, denials from Berlin regardless. :shrug:



p9 John Erikson, the foremost British authority on the Red Army, said 'the greatest soldier so far produced by the 20th century is Marshal Georgi Zhukov of the Soviet Union'

From industrial countries, perhaps (with I presume Rommel having been close behind in the rankings) but my vote would go to Vietnam's General Giap, who took a ragtag peasant force and made things so unbearable for first the French and then the Americans, that both eventually gave up and left.

fantic
Jul 28th, 2012, 07:17 PM
Its nonsense. Pre-WW2, the liberals like FDR (along with TR in the 1890's and Woodrow Wilson re. WW I, for example) were the advocates of an aggressive foreign policy, while the conservatives (under ppl like FDR's 1930's foil, Senator Robert Taft of OH, aka "Mr. Republican") were the isolationists. And the GOP basically blocked the post WW I League of Nations Treaty being ratified in the US Senate.

In fact a young JFK turned his Harvard thesis into a bestseller called Why England Slept, blasting the Munich agreement between Chamberlain and Hitler. (I know, his father Joe Kennedy, the first Catholic US Ambassador to Britain, was disgraced around the same time with the quote about how "democracy was finished" there, meaning the Brits would have to cut a deal with Germany).

Which Hitler (an admirer of most things British) clearly wanted, as per his friendship with the King Edward who abdicated to marry American "commoner" Wallis Simpson in 1936; "interesting" as to whether she'd been working on Washington's behalf then. :scratch: And of course Rudolf Hess might indeed have been on a "peace mission" for Hitler when he parachuted into GB in 1941, denials from Berlin regardless. :shrug:

Yeah I thought to mention it because a right-wing TF member at US political thread quoted his writings :lol: So I decided to check it out
for myself. A perfect manual for McCarthy (for witch hunting of course)
it seemed :lol:



From industrial countries, perhaps (with I presume Rommel having been close behind in the rankings) but my vote would go to Vietnam's General Giap, who took a ragtag peasant force and made things so unbearable for first the French and then the Americans, that both eventually gave up and left.

You know, I always thought that the Western commanders were overrated :lol: GER and USSR were the best.

fantic
Jul 28th, 2012, 07:18 PM
what does Zhukov and Adolph Zukor (January 7, 1873 – June 10, 1976),born Adolph Cukor, a film mogul and founder of Paramount Pictures, have in common? :devil:

nobody's answering :sobbing:

*JR*
Jul 28th, 2012, 08:42 PM
nobody's answering :sobbing:

Yeah I thought to mention it because a right-wing TF member at US political thread quoted his writings. So I decided to check it out for myself. A perfect manual for McCarthy (for witch hunting of course) it seemed

You know, I always thought that the Western commanders were overrated GER and USSR were the best.

Max should know everything about Zhukov, because without him, there might never have been Lena D. :oh:

Regarding McCarthy, JFK and RFK had a sort of "arm's length alliance" with him after Jack won a Senate seat in 1952. Most ppl today have no idea what a hawk he was, from the House to the Senate to the Presidency.

And Bobby (as his Attorney General, and defacto Prime Minister) would sometimes demand from the CIA to know why they hadn't "removed" Fidel Castro yet. :eek: RFK only really became the liberal he's remembered as today after JFK was killed.

fantic
Jul 28th, 2012, 09:10 PM
yeah, some Democrats were pretty Hawkish..I think Ike was a moderate :lol:

and yeah, wondering why Max is silent on Zhukov :lol:

miffedmax
Jul 30th, 2012, 03:14 PM
Because I think Konev is underrated.

Actually (while I think Rommel is somewhat overrated) I think it's a shame he never faced O'Conner (captured right off the bat) or really squared off against Jock Campbell who was killed in a car accident shortly after being appointed to command the 7th Armored Division.

While it's easy to fault Percival's inept defense, Yamashita's conduct of the campaign for Singapore was pretty damn good, speaking of non-Westerners.

*JR*
Aug 7th, 2012, 09:40 PM
Hitler is in the Fuhrerbunker as the Soviets enter Berlin.
He calls in a psychic for a consultation. Q and A below.

Adolf: Will we lose the war now? Psychic: Yes.
Adolf: And will I die as we do? Psychic: Yes.
Adolf: When will I die? Psychic: On a Jewish holiday.

Adolf: Which one???
Psychic: Any day you die will become a Jewish holiday.

Hmmm :tape:

miffedmax
Aug 8th, 2012, 01:13 PM
My old man spent the war in one of these.

http://www.missing-lynx.com/library/usa/priest/130-1.jpg

Incredibly, he says that many times in his personal experience they were able to achieve speeds of up to 100 mph per hour in the M7.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20 mph forward.
40 mph hour up and down
40 mph side-to-side
=
100 mph.

fantic
Aug 8th, 2012, 01:16 PM
what does Zhukov and Adolph Zukor (January 7, 1873 – June 10, 1976),born Adolph Cukor, a film mogul and founder of Paramount Pictures, have in common? :devil:

No one answered yet, so here goes;

both were former ferriers (fur biz)

*JR*
Aug 8th, 2012, 10:31 PM
Hitler arguably created via WW2 exactly the world he did not want:

Western Europe weakened so badly that they'd lose their colonies in Asia and Africa (and the land spanning both, the Middle East) from the late 40s thru the early 60s.

The Soviets so much stronger that they wound up as the hegemonic power in Eastern Europe, that kept the West on edge for years; even being the 2nd nation to get nuclear weapons.

And of course the Jews getting their own state for the first time since the fall of the ancient Israelites. Probably a lot of German officers circa 1948 regretted that Der Fuhrer wasn't "accidentally" :tape: killed around 1938. :shrug:

fantic
Aug 9th, 2012, 02:53 AM
yeah, I always thought that without Hitler Israel might not have been possible :lol:

miffedmax
Aug 9th, 2012, 02:11 PM
In the long run, though, it's been argued that World War II really weakened the USSR because the actual Russian population never really recovered from the slaughter of the war. The ethnic cracks in Soviet society were a major impediment to competing with the West economically over the long haul, created all kinds of internal political headaches, and played a major role in the breakup of the USSR when ethnic tensions turned into full-fledged independence movements. The cost of maintaining its Eastern European bloc was a major drain of resources, both military and economic.

In a lot of ways, the USSR never really recovered from the war the way the West and even the Axis powers did. And they're expansion in Eastern Europe, while a short-term gain, was actually a misplay of their hand. In retrospect, they were, as is so often the case, preparing for the last war (fearful of an invasion that never came) instead of the next one--a long-term economic struggle, with minor ***** wars on the edges of the two main player's empires.

fantic
Nov 20th, 2012, 02:12 AM
am reading William Manchester's bio of Churchill 'Alone' ;1930s

p312 Every daily in Paris except the chauvinist Epoque and the Communist L'Humanite opposed defending democratic Czechoslovakia.

And in England of course, The Times was pro Nazi to the core, under the leadership of its editor Geoffrey Dawson.

No wonder the Munchen crisis was solved 'peacefully'

wild.river
Nov 20th, 2012, 02:28 AM
"chauvinist" epoque?

miffedmax
Nov 20th, 2012, 02:52 AM
Well, that's another topic for endless armchair general debate. Would the much weaker British have been better off fighting the slightly weaker Germans with Czechoslavakian support then, or were they better off waiting until Sept. of '39? The RAF in particular benefited from the extra time, but the Czech Army had excellent equipment, fortifications and training.

fantic
Nov 20th, 2012, 03:36 AM
"chauvinist" epoque?

yes, the book says 'Epoque' was chauvinist.

Well, that's another topic for endless armchair general debate. Would the much weaker British have been better off fighting the slightly weaker Germans with Czechoslavakian support then, or were they better off waiting until Sept. of '39? The RAF in particular benefited from the extra time, but the Czech Army had excellent equipment, fortifications and training.

You're right, and the German generals themselves said that they were not that ready at that time, 1938.

Remix13
Nov 20th, 2012, 06:43 AM
Well, that's another topic for endless armchair general debate. Would the much weaker British have been better off fighting the slightly weaker Germans with Czechoslavakian support then, or were they better off waiting until Sept. of '39? The RAF in particular benefited from the extra time, but the Czech Army had excellent equipment, fortifications and training.

Indeed they had some good equipment, for example Skoda tanks LT vz. 35 and LT vz. 38 which could match german early tanks of the war like Panzer II.

Here is a LT vz. 38 used by german army:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Panzer_38%28t%29_Ausf._S.jpg/320px-Panzer_38%28t%29_Ausf._S.jpg

There were also quite a lot of fortification in Czechoslovakia at this time:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/thumb/d/d7/Teschen_Wall.jpg/640px-Teschen_Wall.jpg

Red and green lines are fortifications (red are heavy ones and green light ones). Notice that Pilsen holly breweries were only protected by light ones :facepalm:

miffedmax
Nov 20th, 2012, 01:09 PM
Yes, but they had Grandfather Hlavackova to defend them!

Remix13
Nov 20th, 2012, 01:27 PM
Yes, but they had Grandfather Hlavackova to defend them!

Indeed !

*JR*
Nov 20th, 2012, 01:39 PM
Yes, but they had Grandfather Hlavackova to defend them!

Also the parents, etc. of 4M (Marti's Mother Melanie Molitor).

And you know why the Suissies never get invaded in European wars?

Because nobody drops a bomb on his own money. :devil:

Remix13
Nov 20th, 2012, 01:48 PM
Also the parents, etc. of 4M (Marti's Mother Melanie Molitor).

And you know why the Suissies never get invaded in European wars?

Because nobody drops a bomb on his own money. :devil:

After the invasion of France, Germany had a plan to invade Switzerland (they had plans to invade everybody...), it was called Operation Tannenbaum.

fantic
Nov 20th, 2012, 03:56 PM
BBC and The Times suppressed anti Nazi views and reports for fear of 'offending' Germany.

The Time's editor Dawson and Chamberlain were very close.

wild.river
Nov 20th, 2012, 04:43 PM
After the invasion of France, Germany had a plan to invade Switzerland (they had plans to invade everybody...), it was called Operation Tannenbaum.

from operation tannenbaum's wikipedia page:

Hitler despised the democratically-minded German Swiss as the "wayward branch of the German people" :hysteric:

fantic
Nov 20th, 2012, 05:04 PM
Samuel Hoare, then Home Secretary(yes, THAT Hoare whose plan with Laval regarding Ethiopia was exposed when he was Sec. of Foregin Affairs; he was REINSTATED :help: ),
after Munich predicted at the House of Commons

'that if Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Chamberlain, and Daladier were to work in tandem they could banish nightmares of war and burdens of armament and thus in an incredibly short space of time transform the whole history of the world'

thus he envisioned 'a new Golden Age'

from Manchester, p. 391


'

miffedmax
Nov 20th, 2012, 05:07 PM
"No more coals to Newcastle, no more Hoares to Paris."
--Winston Churchill

fantic
Nov 20th, 2012, 05:23 PM
Manchester, p. 395

After Germany's annexation of CZE and Memel in Mar. 1939.

'Later in the year a scrap-iron drive was launched, but an exception had to be made for Lord Baldwin; the wrought-iron gates leading to his estates were needed to control angry men who, only two years before, had cheered his every appearance'

:tape:

fantic
Nov 20th, 2012, 05:31 PM
Manchester p. 396

'at the meeting in Dusseldorf between British and German industrialists, they signed a preliminary agreement, one clause of which permitted GER to spend the foreign exchange resources of the country it had just seized(CZE)-6 mil. pounds, which was held by the Bank of England'

there was of course a hot debate about it at the Parliament, and Chamberlain was evasive; he just thought it as a legitimate biz transaction.

fantic
Nov 20th, 2012, 06:07 PM
according to Liddell Hart, military historian and at that time military correspondent of The Times(he resigned after GBR's Polish guarantee),

Halifax believed that Poland was of more military value than Russia.

:eek:

fantic
Nov 20th, 2012, 06:48 PM
Churchill was not a likely successor to Chamberlain, according to the Establishment;

Tories, Chamberlain, The Times, the King, ALL preferred Halifax.

fantic
Nov 20th, 2012, 08:50 PM
Chamberlain in June 1939

'I never accept the view that war is inevitable.'

'Some day the Czechs will see that what we did was to save them for a happier future. :spit: Sacrificing them had at last opened the way to that general appeasement which alone can save the world from chaos'

He had a supreme conviction of his judgement and was also QUITE vindictive. He stubbornly ignored all those pleas from EVERY sector that Churchill be included in the cabinet during 1939.

Halardfan
Nov 20th, 2012, 10:16 PM
Chamberlain in June 1939

'I never accept the view that war is inevitable.'

'Some day the Czehcs will see that what we did was to save them for a happier future. :spit: Sacrificing them had at last opened the way to that general appeasement which alone can save the world from chaos'

He had a supreme conviction of his judgement and was also QUITE vindictive. He stubbornly ignored all those pleas from EVERY sector that Churchill be included in the cabinet during 1939.

I broadly agree with your assessment of the appeasers. However it's important to consider their motives, it was only a generation after the horror and waste of the First World War, and their was an overwhelming urge not to revisit those horrors. This was tragically misguided of course, with consequences exactly what they most wanted to avoid.

What of America's role between 1939 and its entry into the war Post-Pearl Harbor? If the appeasers in Britain warrant condemnation then so do the Isolationists in America, and even more so those who were Anti-British in America at that time.

fantic
Nov 20th, 2012, 10:26 PM
I broadly agree with your assessment of the appeasers. However it's important to consider their motives, it was only a generation after the horror and waste of the First World War, and their was an overwhelming urge not to revisit those horrors. This was tragically misguided of course, with consequences exactly what they most wanted to avoid.

What of America's role between 1939 and its entry into the war Post-Pearl Harbor? If the appeasers in Britain warrant condemnation then so do the Isolationists in America, and even more so those who were Anti-British in America at that time.

I just trotted out the facts (their remarks) :lol:
But yes, of course they're discredited now. And yes, pacifism was very popular, irrespective of ideology. Tories, the Left, all embraced it. Exactly same as in US. Conservatives to Progressives, all abhorred another involvement. Thus Churchill and FDR were faced with a monumental task. Public Opinion is not always right :lol: (Hitler as you all know was incredibly popular in Germany)

Of the bolded part, you mean Joeseph Kennedy, then ambassador to England :lol: He was an anti-Semite and predicted England's demise :hysteric: Dunno why FDR appointed him there :lol: (FDR before that appointed him as the 1st Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission when he amassed his great wealth due to speculating :lol:)

So LBJ made fun of Joe Kennedy frequently.
And Joe's devoted son, Bobby Kennedy never forgave LBJ for that.

fantic
Nov 20th, 2012, 10:58 PM
When Soviet head of Foreign Affairs Litvinov proposed an alliance between them, GBR and FRA, even the English military chiefs advocated it lest USSR join hands with GER.

Chamberlain suppressed this information.

-----------

Colin Coote (The Times reporter) on Chamberlain

'he fundamentally wants Nazi ideas to dominate Europe, because of his fantastic dislike of Soviet Russia'

fantic
Nov 20th, 2012, 11:19 PM
before this Chamberlain offered Hitler African colonies.

Not only Britain's. French, Portuguese...without the consultation of respective countries :facepalm:

He really was prepared to give ANYTHING to preserve peace.

fantic
Nov 20th, 2012, 11:39 PM
GBR was not helpful at all when Poland asked for a loan to buy arms.

At the same time, Treasury officials were offering the Germans widespread economic advantages in return for an Anglo-German non-aggression pact.

I thought Chamberlain knew about Polish-German non aggression pact in 1934 or something :lol:

Of course Poland got their comeuppance for helping in dismantling CZE earlier with Hungary..

miffedmax
Nov 21st, 2012, 02:35 AM
according to Liddell Hart, military historian and at that time military correspondent of The Times(he resigned after GBR's Polish guarantee),

Halifax believed that Poland was of more military value than Russia.

:eek:

A lot of people underestimated the Red Army. Remember, in the 1920s they'd been fought to a standstill by the Poles, they're surrogate side had just lost in the Spanish Civil War and Stalin's purge had decimated their USSR's military.

Poland had done a masterful job of inflating it's military capabilities and, also remember nobody really thought all those masses of tanks the Germans and Soviets had were really going to make a difference.

In retrospect, it seems obvious Poland was doomed. But it's also true that Poland's defensive plan played right into the German's hands, and nobody expected the USSR to stab them in the back.

fantic
Nov 21st, 2012, 05:46 AM
A lot of people underestimated the Red Army. Remember, in the 1920s they'd been fought to a standstill by the Poles, they're surrogate side had just lost in the Spanish Civil War and Stalin's purge had decimated their USSR's military.

Poland had done a masterful job of inflating it's military capabilities and, also remember nobody really thought all those masses of tanks the Germans and Soviets had were really going to make a difference.

In retrospect, it seems obvious Poland was doomed. But it's also true that Poland's defensive plan played right into the German's hands, and nobody expected the USSR to stab them in the back.

You're right about Poland, but that was a long time ago. (Pilduski was then POL's leader?) And Spanish Republic was rather lonely, can't really compare USSR's aid to ITA and GER's massive ones. And we all know GBR blatantly favored Franco, such as Churchill, sea lords..
Did Europe know about the massive military purge then? 1937 or something, right?

Well, CZE was definitely better than POL in terms of military strength, and moreover POL didn't have natural fortress to fall back to. And cavalry charge against machine guns was already proven futile in the American Civil War. :lol:

And Chamberlain was not even enthusiastic about providing military funds for POL..make up your mind, Neville :lol: (well, I guess he believed Hitler to the end :lol: He liked Germany best, at least more than USSR or USA :lol:)

And about stabbing in the back, why not? History proves it, POL was stubbornly refusing the triple alliance, Chamberlain was not really going for it either, what alternative did Stalin have? Stalin was a tough, tough negotiator too, he bought time (against GER's invasion) :lol: But in the end he also was naive about Hitler, he didn't think GER will invade so soon, so was supplying them with natural resources right into the date of Barbarossa :sobbing:

fantic
Nov 21st, 2012, 07:03 AM
I broadly agree with your assessment of the appeasers. However it's important to consider their motives, it was only a generation after the horror and waste of the First World War, and their was an overwhelming urge not to revisit those horrors. This was tragically misguided of course, with consequences exactly what they most wanted to avoid.

What of America's role between 1939 and its entry into the war Post-Pearl Harbor? If the appeasers in Britain warrant condemnation then so do the Isolationists in America, and even more so those who were Anti-British in America at that time.

Of course, there is a crucial difference between GBR and USA. Both people wanted peace. But the leaders were different. FDR was for intervention but had to weigh against the formidable wall of isolationism.

MacDonald, Baldwin, Chamberlain, they didn't care at all. Especially Neville, he ACTIVELY pursued appeasement(whereas Baldwin pursued passively;he wasn't even interested in Foreign Relations), EVEN after Hitler violated the Munich treaty and annexed CZE.

You can't really compare Chamberlain and FDR :lol: The role of the former was devastating, to say the least :sad: He did EVERYTHING wrong; abandoned CZE, spurred FDR's offer, also spurred the golden chance of the Triple Alliance..

If he was solely for peace, he should've just kept quiet when Hitler attacked Poland. But he foolishly bound GBR to POL and declared war upon Germany. Remember, Hitler didn't really want to attack GBR.

Either way, Chamberlain was probably the #2 leader after Hitler that helped WWII happen.

fantic
Nov 21st, 2012, 08:25 AM
I've mentioned POL's obduracy.

How about BEL? Since they declared strict neutrality FRA couldn't even coordinate defense. But how the hell will neutrality work when GER are certain to invade again? GER wouldn't be stupid to march to the Maginot line head-on, would they? :lol: Even Churchill knew in a flash that Ardennes was a weak spot.

To think of it, FRA in WWII are the most pitiful of all, all that money pouring on constructing defensive position, for what :hysteric: And their generals, spearheaded by Gamelin, also must be the worst of all time, Gamelin was even scared of GER in 1936 :tape: I seriously wonder if he was a spy for Germany :lol:

miffedmax
Nov 21st, 2012, 02:18 PM
Stalin's purges were well-known in the West, and the Soviets were concerned enough about the performance of their equipment in Spain to begin working on new planes and tanks that were to prove their worth (unlike the Italians, who largely concluded that their biplanes and light tanks were adequate to the task at hand, with disastrous results for their troops).

Poland lacked the mountains, but had a network of rivers and swampy ground that could have turned the campaign into a much more prolonged one--indeed, the Allied joint command in the West suggested that they pull back and concentrate on defending a central core of Poland. But the Polish high command decided to try and defend all of Poland, implementing a complex two-stage plan that called for an initial defense at the frontier followed by a retreat to a more centralized position. As I said earlier, this played right into the German's hands, because their motorized units and air superiority enabled them to cut the planned lines of retreat (especially early in the war, when the mere sight of a formation of bombers was enough to sow panic in the ranks).

Where the Poles had rivers and/or prepared positions like the Battle of Warsaw, they put up a strong resistance and were able to inflict heavy losses on the Germans. Of course, even if they had pulled back and fought a smarter campaign, they would have needed the Western Powers to get off their asses and do something. Still, IF the Poles had fought and smarter campaign, and IF the French had been psychologically capable of launching an offensive against the thin screen the Germans had in the West, the British faith in the Polish might not seem so misplaced today.

fantic
Nov 21st, 2012, 02:44 PM
Stalin's purges were well-known in the West, and the Soviets were concerned enough about the performance of their equipment in Spain to begin working on new planes and tanks that were to prove their worth (unlike the Italians, who largely concluded that their biplanes and light tanks were adequate to the task at hand, with disastrous results for their troops).

Poland lacked the mountains, but had a network of rivers and swampy ground that could have turned the campaign into a much more prolonged one--indeed, the Allied joint command in the West suggested that they pull back and concentrate on defending a central core of Poland. But the Polish high command decided to try and defend all of Poland, implementing a complex two-stage plan that called for an initial defense at the frontier followed by a retreat to a more centralized position. As I said earlier, this played right into the German's hands, because their motorized units and air superiority enabled them to cut the planned lines of retreat (especially early in the war, when the mere sight of a formation of bombers was enough to sow panic in the ranks).

Where the Poles had rivers and/or prepared positions like the Battle of Warsaw, they put up a strong resistance and were able to inflict heavy losses on the Germans. Of course, even if they had pulled back and fought a smarter campaign, they would have needed the Western Powers to get off their asses and do something. Still, IF the Poles had fought and smarter campaign, and IF the French had been psychologically capable of launching an offensive against the thin screen the Germans had in the West, the British faith in the Polish might not seem so misplaced today.

Westwall was't that formidable when the war started?
You're generous. Psychologically capable :lol: I'd say downright cowardice. I mean, boasting one of the best armies in the world and doing NOTHING, quite unheard of :spit: Gamelin should've been court-martialed. It was just a blatant dereliction of his duty. I mean, politicians were ready to fight even in 1936. ONLY Gamelin's pessimism prevented them to give the order to march.

Maybe he read novels too much, like H.G.Wells' :oh: ('Bombers will eventually pull through')

I thought CZE had better army than POL. Was POL THAT formidable? Well if Germany started later than October the mud might've hampered their advance..

fantic
Nov 21st, 2012, 02:49 PM
Another issue; bombers. Was it effective?

Pin point bombing was impossible(thus blatant targetting at the civilians like GBR)
the rate of being shot down was appallingly high (practically a suicide mission)
GER's arms production didn't slow down :tape: (how did GER manage that? Did they locate all those plants underground)
Like in Italy, so much waste in bombing but didn't inflict damage that much, in fact HELPED GER defend better due to tons of debris to hide behind :tape:

Bombing JPN wasn't enough either so USA planned to invade the mainland.
So had to use the atomic bomb(NAVY thought blockading would've accomplished the mission soon, so they were against using it)

*JR*
Nov 21st, 2012, 04:40 PM
Stalin's purges were well-known in the West, and the Soviets were concerned enough about the performance of their equipment in Spain to begin working on new planes and tanks that were to prove their worth (unlike the Italians, who largely concluded that their biplanes and light tanks were adequate to the task at hand, with disastrous results for their troops).

Il Duce was a lousy leader of a country @ war. His only success was one of his sons marrying Sophia Loren's sister, and in turn fathering La Bella Alessandra. :hearts:

I've mentioned POL's obduracy.

How about BEL? Since they declared strict neutrality FRA couldn't even coordinate defense. But how the hell will neutrality work when GER are certain to invade again? GER wouldn't be stupid to march to the Maginot line head-on, would they? :lol: Even Churchill knew in a flash that Ardennes was a weak spot.

When BEL wouldn't accept the Maginot Line being extended thru their territory (also with LUX, if that was a gap) the Froggies should have instead extended it on their own side of the FRA-LUX-BEL border. :shrug:

fantic
Nov 21st, 2012, 05:21 PM
Hitler mentioned making an alliance with GBR to Neville Henderson; Henderson, incredibly, said

'speaking personally I did not exclude such a possibility' :eek:

alliance, surely a military one, against whom? :weirdo:

FO were of course flabbergasted and turned down the offer, but;

Hitler mentioned of the annihilating Poland.

Halifax deleted that reference when they sent the detail of the meeting to Poland.
:help:

And GBR was pledged to defend Poland(But of course, Chamberlain was duplicitous; they made the clause of defending Danzig a secret clause :facepalm: PERFECT device for GBR to backpedal AGAIN just like in Munich)

What the HELL were those guys thinking? :hysteric:
I guess another Munich.
They thought selling lives of peoples of OTHER nations were acceptable sacrifice to 'maintain' peace :rolleyes:

Well, even the Pope was urging POL to surrender Danzig.

"Josiah Wedgwood, MP who despised appeasement and had visited GER, recalled how Henderson had 'smiled and fraternized with evil' "

miffedmax
Nov 21st, 2012, 06:02 PM
Another issue; bombers. Was it effective?

Pin point bombing was impossible(thus blatant targetting at the civilians like GBR)
the rate of being shot down was appallingly high (practically a suicide mission)
GER's arms production didn't slow down :tape: (how did GER manage that? Did they locate all those plants underground)
Like in Italy, so much waste in bombing but didn't inflict damage that much, in fact HELPED GER defend better due to tons of debris to hide behind :tape:

Bombing JPN wasn't enough either so USA planned to invade the mainland.
So had to use the atomic bomb(NAVY thought blockading would've accomplished the mission soon, so they were against using it)

Early in the war, soldiers of any and all nationalities tended to panic upon sighting either planes or tanks. Also, even if the men didn't, the horses did--and every army except the UK's relied on horse-drawn transport in 1939. Tactical strikes were very effective early in the war and grew less so over time. However, even in Normandy in 1944 American and British Jabos were most useful against...horsedrawn transport.

As far as German production, it's true strategic bombing didn't make the huge dent that was anticipated. On the other hand, German productivity was dwarfed even by Britain's, which was never bombed to the same extent yet managed to produce more planes, more ships and as many tanks despite having a smaller population. Admittedly, the Brits did a better job of using their resources (e.g., letting women work), but they also had a lot less of their industrial capacity bombed out. The bombing campaign also tied up thousands of planes and 88s. Those 88s could have made a huge difference in Russia.

miffedmax
Nov 22nd, 2012, 03:44 AM
Enough of these sweeping, intelligent discussions of grand strategy and geopolitics.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-header.jpg

Hurricane Mk 1--early model with two-blade prop! Slower than the Spit or 109, but able to take immense amounts of damage. Also, the mixed metal and fabric construction made for easier repairs.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/resources/images/1535919/?type=articleLandscape

This Hurri, believe it or not, lived to fight another day. That is robustness.

Of course, not every British weapon could claim such legendary toughness.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/cruiser/cruiser-mk-i-a9/cruiser-mk-i-a9-03.png

The A9. As tanker Bob Crisp wrote, "They looked like pre-fab housing and were even flimsier...no other nation on earth would have contemplated using them."

fantic
Nov 22nd, 2012, 05:24 AM
Enough of these sweeping, intelligent discussions of grand strategy and geopolitics.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-header.jpg

Hurricane Mk 1--early model with two-blade prop! Slower than the Spit or 109, but able to take immense amounts of damage. Also, the mixed metal and fabric construction made for easier repairs.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/resources/images/1535919/?type=articleLandscape

This Hurri, believe it or not, lived to fight another day. That is robustness.

Of course, not every British weapon could claim such legendary toughness.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/cruiser/cruiser-mk-i-a9/cruiser-mk-i-a9-03.png

The A9. As tanker Bob Crisp wrote, "They looked like pre-fab housing and were even flimsier...no other nation on earth would have contemplated using them."

actually I'm rather fond of amateur armchair musings and pretty ignorant of specifics of tanks and planes :mad:

but to each his own :lol:

Remix13
Nov 22nd, 2012, 06:43 AM
Enough of these sweeping, intelligent discussions of grand strategy and geopolitics.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-header.jpg

Hurricane Mk 1--early model with two-blade prop! Slower than the Spit or 109, but able to take immense amounts of damage. Also, the mixed metal and fabric construction made for easier repairs.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/resources/images/1535919/?type=articleLandscape

This Hurri, believe it or not, lived to fight another day. That is robustness.

Of course, not every British weapon could claim such legendary toughness.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/cruiser/cruiser-mk-i-a9/cruiser-mk-i-a9-03.png

The A9. As tanker Bob Crisp wrote, "They looked like pre-fab housing and were even flimsier...no other nation on earth would have contemplated using them."

It's funny how England was good to make planes (Hurricane, Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest, Mosquito and some bombers) and how England sucked to make tanks like this A9 thing or the Crusader :lol:

miffedmax
Nov 22nd, 2012, 03:27 PM
:fiery:The Crusader is AWESOME and INVINCIBLE!!!!!!!!!:fiery:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/IWM-E-17616-Crusader-19421002.jpg/300px-IWM-E-17616-Crusader-19421002.jpg

fantic
Nov 22nd, 2012, 04:43 PM
didn't GBR make the 1st tank during WWI? I heard Churchill pushed the program then :rolls:

Well, they did invent Radar? :lol: Also invented sonar but it wasn't so good during the early phase of
WWII, it was discredited.

miffedmax
Nov 22nd, 2012, 05:19 PM
Well, they did a lot of groundbreaking work on radar. The Germans had their own version, they were just a little behind the British and emphasized range finding over detection. (This had both positive and negative consequences for the Bismarck, for example).

The British actually started developing ASDIC or SONAR during World War I, but the first working sets weren't available until after the war was over. It was unreliable at first, and even worse wouldn't work if the destroyer's engines were running because of the noise. This led to "sprint and drift" tactics, where a destroyer would accelerate to top speed and kill its engines, then search for subs until it coasted to a near stop, then accelerate again. The problem was that, of course, a good U-boat skipper could hide in the wake of the "sprint" and the coasting destroyer was losing momentum and vulnerable to attack. But a good destroyer skipper (and ASDIC man) could make it work. Later sets were more accurate and worked with the engines on.

The Brits and the French were working on tank designs concurrently in WWI, but the British designs were finished first. The French FT, however, is the design that set the template for almost every tank since--

http://pattonarmy.free.fr/update-juin-2005/RenaultFT17.jpg

It introduced a rotating turret, engine in the rear, main gun in the turret, and hatches for the crew. Only a few designs like the French B1, the U.S. Lee, Swedish "S" and the Israeli Merkava have deviated from this template in the last 100 years.

fantic
Nov 22nd, 2012, 06:58 PM
the biggest enemy of the Londoners during the 'Bore War' was the dark; blackout :lol:

But to make the best of it, 'young couple would enjoy intercourse in a shop doorway on the fringe
of passing crowds, screened by another couple waiting to perform the same adventure'

:lol:

fantic
Nov 22nd, 2012, 08:44 PM
Mancheser page 620

"Of the last 500 R-35 tanks(said to be superior to the German ones at that time) produced before May 10,235 were sold to Turkey, Yugoslavia, Rumania. Thus, only 90 were left when GER invaded France.

They also auctioned off 500 artillery pieces, complete with ammunition, and 830 antitank guns-when
they were desperately short of both weapons, abroad."

Mon dieu! :tape:

Gamelin really should've shot himself, or commit harakiri :oh: No sense of honor, I'm afraid :lol: I mean, it's like they were being bribed by GER :lol:

Well, Weygand and Petain, who replaced Gamelin(G was at least a staunch Republican) were WORSE, they sold their country to GER; such a tragedy.

The character of leader is SO important, I guess. GBR was saved by Churchill. FRA had no Foch, Clemenceau, Poincare..hence the inevitable doom. They were just not cut out for leading the nation during wartime..

miffedmax
Nov 23rd, 2012, 02:40 AM
http://www.renaultoloog.nl/stamboom%20renault%20r35%20tank%20panzer.jpg

r-35

http://historywarsweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/image/SOMUAS35a(1).jpg
Somua 35

The R-35 (above) was arguably better than its German equivalents, the Panzer Mk 1 and Mk II, being better armored. It's main gun was a low-velocity 37 mm, better than the Mk I's machine guns, but not really any better than the 20mm of the Mk II. The German tanks were more reliable.

The Somua 35 was a different story. It had better armor and a better main gun than the German Mk III, better performance. Its main drawbacks: a one-man turret (typical of French designs) that forced the commander to do too many things; a hatch design that forced the tank to fight "buttoned up" (most tank commanders preferred to close their hatches at the last possible moment to maximize their visibility, but the hatch design was so cumbersome it had to be closed and kept closed) and a terrible suspension.

Still, the biggest problem with French tanks wasn't their design, it was the way they were deployed, in small tactical units. One Somua was more than a match for a Mk III; but the Mk IIIs always had the Somua's outnumbered.

fantic
Nov 23rd, 2012, 02:44 AM
Holland learned the invasion on Mar 3, a week before, by Abewehr officer and Vatican.

They immediately informed Belgium.

They didn't inform FRA or GBR :speakles:

--------

By this time, Churchill was trying to meet the deadline for his book 'History of the English People'

:speakles:

He was in the war cabinet and he was writing a history book :tape: Wonder if the book is good, could he
truly concentrate on the book? :lol:

Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz! ; The common interest before self interest!

Terrific slogan for the elite..but this was in fact a popular slogan in Nazi Germany :lol:

(Well they WERE national SOCIALISTS :lol: )

miffedmax
Nov 23rd, 2012, 04:59 AM
"History of the English People" is something of a classic of nonprofessional history. Churchill was an excellent writer, having cut his teeth as a journalist. He was also a man of boundless energy. As his Chief of Staff Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke (one of the less appreciated architects of the Allied victory) said "The problem with Winston is that he has ten grand ideas every day, and nine of them are bad."

Remix13
Nov 23rd, 2012, 07:10 AM
I see you're talking about French tanks of the WW2 :)

Some of them were not that bad, like the S-35, but as miffedmax said, the use of these tanks (a small number alongside with infantry like in WW1) was foolish against the German tactics using lots of tanks together... At this time, only a few French officers like De Gaulle understood the benefits of using tanks as a main force.

Here is the best French plane at the beginning of the war, the Dewoitine D.520 :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/D.520_in_museum.jpg/640px-D.520_in_museum.jpg

It had a Hispano-Suiza V12 water-cooled engine developing 935 HP enabling a 540 km/h top speed and a 11.000 m ceiling.

The armament was 4 x 7.5 mm machine guns in the wings and a 20 mm gun in the propeller axis.

This plane could match the German Bf109-E of this time but too few of them were delivered to the French Air Force (only 351)...

miffedmax
Nov 23rd, 2012, 03:10 PM
Yes, but what the French truly specialized in was building truly hideous bombers...

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/f222/f222-3.jpg

The F222.

http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/Avions3/MB210-505f.jpg

The MB 210.

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/france/latecoere_l-570.jpg

The L570.

Remix13
Nov 23rd, 2012, 04:06 PM
Indeed these planes are ugly :lol:

They remind me the Russian TB-3, notice the paras on the wing :rolleyes:

http://avionswwii.free.fr/images/avions/Tupolev_TB3/TupolevTB3_5.jpg

The German FW-200 Condor was a good-looking bomber :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1978-043-02%2C_Focke-Wulf_Fw_200_C_Condor.jpg/467px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1978-043-02%2C_Focke-Wulf_Fw_200_C_Condor.jpg

It was a commercial liner converted to a bomber during the war, mainly to bomb convoys on the Atlantic Ocean. Winston Churchill called the Fw-200 the "Scourge of the Atlantic" during the Battle of the Atlantic due to its contribution to the heavy Allied shipping losses.

miffedmax
Nov 23rd, 2012, 06:06 PM
http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Fw-200C/Fw-200C-KG40.12-(F8+FW)/images/1-Fw-200C-Condor-12.KG40-(F8+FW)-broken-back-1942-01.jpg

The downside of using a passenger plane as a bomber. The Condor just wasn't strong enough to handle carrying bombs.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Chronology/1940/06/pictures/WW2-Chronology-138-px800.jpg

The French tried it too, with the F223, which was also converted from a civilian model. The F223 did make history as the first Allied plane to bomb Berlin, so there is that. It used it's long range to fly out and around to attack Berlin from the North, taking the Germans by surprise. A good thing, since the F223 essentially carried no defensive armament. (It has one machine gun fitted as an afterthought).

miffedmax
Nov 26th, 2012, 09:02 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Fairey_Swordfish.jpg

Looks are so overrated. Victor at Taranto, destroyer of the Bismarck, U-boat scourge (a great less successful in the Pacific).

fantic
Nov 26th, 2012, 09:12 PM
"History of the English People" is something of a classic of nonprofessional history. Churchill was an excellent writer, having cut his teeth as a journalist. He was also a man of boundless energy. As his Chief of Staff Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke (one of the less appreciated architects of the Allied victory) said "The problem with Winston is that he has ten grand ideas every day, and nine of them are bad."

I heard that it is difficult to top his earlier 'World Crisis', hence my 'worry' about 'History of English speaking peoples'

Of course, it's by default much better than Andrew Roberts' 'imitation' :lol:

Remix13
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:12 AM
Looks are so overrated. Victor at Taranto, destroyer of the Bismarck, U-boat scourge (a great less successful in the Pacific).

Looks are not overrated :o :lol:

Concerning the Bismarck I just read that James Cameron made a documentary about it in 2002. I think I'm gonna watch it !

Another famous battleship of the war, the Japanese Yamato and her 9 460mm guns :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Yamatotrials.jpg/640px-Yamatotrials.jpg

The Yamato was sunk on 7 April 1945. The WWII was the end of the battleship era, the aircraft carriers replaced them as the capital ships of a fleet.

miffedmax
Nov 27th, 2012, 02:49 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/HMS_Rodney_after_refitting_at_Liverpool.jpg/300px-HMS_Rodney_after_refitting_at_Liverpool.jpg

HMS Rodney. Built to the limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty, the Rodney, with all three 16-inch gun turrets forward and her horribly truncated stern, is considered one of the ugliest ships ever to serve in the Royal Navy. (Her sister ship, Duke of York, being the other). Despite being underpowered and the awkward arrangement of her weapons, Rodney helped sink Bismarck and otherwise served with distinction, surviving the war.

Gagsquet
Nov 27th, 2012, 02:53 PM
I would love to read:)

so many illiterate in China... sad world...

Remix13
Nov 27th, 2012, 03:06 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/HMS_Rodney_after_refitting_at_Liverpool.jpg/300px-HMS_Rodney_after_refitting_at_Liverpool.jpg

HMS Rodney. Built to the limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty, the Rodney, with all three 16-inch gun turrets forward and her horribly truncated stern, is considered one of the ugliest ships ever to serve in the Royal Navy. (Her sister ship, Duke of York, being the other). Despite being underpowered and the awkward arrangement of her weapons, Rodney helped sink Bismarck and otherwise served with distinction, surviving the war.

Nice paintings on this boat ^^

miffedmax
Nov 28th, 2012, 03:59 PM
http://www.airpowerworld.info/ww2-fighter-planes/republic-p-47-thunderbolt.jpg

Another fave of mine, the P-47 Thunderbolt, proof positive that the brute application of force will solve any problem. With 2,000 horsepower engine and eight .50 caliber guns, the "Jug" was perfect for "boom and zoom" tactics in the air and capable of absorbing as much punishment as it dished out. At 7 tons, it weighed nearly as much as many of the AFVs it was tasked with destroying as the American's primary ground attack plane. Legend has it that one "Jug" landed at a forward field after a ground attack mission, the pilot signaling that all he needed was new rockets and a top of his fuel tanks and he was ready to go back into action. The ground crew had to pull him out of the plane and drag him round to the front to convince him the bottom half of his cowling and five of his cylinders were missing. The P-47 just didn't give a fuck what you threw at it.

Remix13
Nov 29th, 2012, 06:44 AM
http://www.airpowerworld.info/ww2-fighter-planes/republic-p-47-thunderbolt.jpg

Another fave of mine, the P-47 Thunderbolt, proof positive that the brute application of force will solve any problem. With 2,000 horsepower engine and eight .50 caliber guns, the "Jug" was perfect for "boom and zoom" tactics in the air and capable of absorbing as much punishment as it dished out. At 7 tons, it weighed nearly as much as many of the AFVs it was tasked with destroying as the American's primary ground attack plane. Legend has it that one "Jug" landed at a forward field after a ground attack mission, the pilot signaling that all he needed was new rockets and a top of his fuel tanks and he was ready to go back into action. The ground crew had to pull him out of the plane and drag him round to the front to convince him the bottom half of his cowling and five of his cylinders were missing. The P-47 just didn't give a fuck what you threw at it.

The P-47 was indeed an efficient plane, despite its ugly look (looks matters). As you said, it was very powerful engine-wise and armament-wise, furthermore the P-47 was incredibly robust. I've seen an episode of Dogfights (Les Ailes de la Guerre in France) on Discovery Channel where a P-47 was already damaged, then another German plane attacked (FW190 or Bf109 I don't remember) and fired all the remaining ammunition on the P-47 and this one was still flying, then the German pilot moved next to the P-47, look at the American pilot (who was the guy interviewed in Dogfights), flapped his wings to salute, and then gave up the fight. It's surely exaggerated but I like the story.

Remix13
Nov 29th, 2012, 07:10 AM
Oh I found the video on Youtube:

XmpZgSLD3PA

I've read there were more than 200 bullet holes in the P-47 :eek:

The P-47 was piloted by the American ace Robert S. Johnson, 27 victories:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Rsjhnson.jpg

He survived the war and died in 1998.

and the German plane was a FW190 piloted by Egon Mayer, 102 victories:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Egon_Mayer.jpg

He was shot down by... a P-47 on 2 March 1944 over Montmédy (France) and didn't survived...

miffedmax
Nov 29th, 2012, 01:05 PM
Johnson's book "God Is My Co-Pilot" is a pretty good read.

The Germans flew so many great pilots to the point of exhaustion. Even though they were on the wrong side, it's hard not to admire the skills of guys like Molders, Hartman, Galland, etc.

And then there's this guy...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Sakai_as_young_pilot.jpg

Saburo Sakai. One of Japan's leading aces, after the war he became a Bhuddist acolyte and swore never to kill again. He played a leading role in arranging meetings between US and Japanese veterans to build bridges between our nations. In fact, his grandchildren are all Americans!

Remix13
Nov 29th, 2012, 01:40 PM
Johnson's book "God Is My Co-Pilot" is a pretty good read.


After the P-47 story, "God is my Co-Pilot" seems to be a good choice for the book title ^^

The top scoring French ace of the war was Pierre Clostermann :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Pierre_Clostermann.jpg

He fought with the RAF during the Battle of Britain and the Overlord Operation on Spitfire and Tempest. He scored 33 victories and received tons of medals and decorations from France, GB and USA as you can see on the photo. After the war he wrote Le Grand Cirque (The Big Show in English), a very interesting and successful book about his life during the war. He was also an aeronautic engineer and a deputy at French Parliament.

Here is his book (which I read) with a picture of him on his Tempest wing :

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51r%2BEnE7L%2BL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Remix13
Nov 29th, 2012, 01:59 PM
The Germans flew so many great pilots to the point of exhaustion. Even though they were on the wrong side, it's hard not to admire the skills of guys like Molders, Hartman, Galland, etc.

And then there's this guy...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Sakai_as_young_pilot.jpg

Saburo Sakai. One of Japan's leading aces, after the war he became a Bhuddist acolyte and swore never to kill again. He played a leading role in arranging meetings between US and Japanese veterans to build bridges between our nations. In fact, his grandchildren are all Americans!

Indeed Germany "forced" the pilots to fly until they were definitely shot down, there was no turn-over like in USAF for example. That's one of the reason (with of course their skills) why all top aces of the war were Germans with more than 100 victories. I remember reading their profile on Wikipedia, I was happy to see some survived the war (like Hartmann, Galland, Rall...). Did you know Galland installed a cigar lighter in his Bf109 :lol:

I didn't know him, but it looks like Saburo Sakai was a great man :worship:

miffedmax
Nov 29th, 2012, 03:43 PM
His autobiography "Samurai!" is still available, I think. It mostly focuses on his wartime exploits, including his near fatal wounding. It's an interesting read.

He was an inspiring man.

The allies also used their aces to train new pilots. So while the top German aces were teaching the men under their command, the best Allied pilots were training dozens if not hundreds of replacements. By the middle of the war the Japanese and German pilots were just no match, even though their planes were typically quite good and they often had the advantage of fighting over their home turf.

fantic
Dec 1st, 2012, 10:52 PM
Resumed reading William Shirer's 'The Collapse of the 3rd Republic'

currently on Munich.

Keitel and von Manstein said it would've been very difficult to defeat CZE, and even Hitler conceded this.

Jodl 'It was out of the question, with 5 fighting division and 7 reserve div in the western fortification, which were nothing but a large construction site, to hold out against 100 French divisions. That was militarily impossible'

CZE's 35 divisions were also crucial to the tipping of balance.

And of course, USSR began to think of a detente with GER.

Shirer says that 'the breathing space, as subsequent events would prove, left the Western allies much weaker in relation to GER'

American hero Charles Lindbergh, French Air minister and Gamelin all exaggerated GER's strength 4 to 5 times their actual strength.

fantic
Dec 1st, 2012, 10:57 PM
on hearing Munich

'Peace is won . It is won over the crooks, sellouts, and madmen'

Stephane Lauzanne in Le Matin. He was convicted as a collaborator after the war and sentenced to a long term in prison

'A few farsighted and courageous leaders had triumphed over the war party' Le Temps

the agreement was approved by the Chamber by 535 to 75.
Besides the 73 Communists only 2 deputies, Kerillis on the Right, and Jean Bouhey, a Socialist, voted against.

fantic
Dec 1st, 2012, 10:59 PM
Vladimir Potemkin, deputy to Litvinov, to Ambassador Coulondre after hearing the Munich explanation;

'My poor friend, what have you done? You have opened the way to a fourth partition of Poland'

Poland was too busy trying to grab lands from CZE then :tape:

miffedmax
Dec 2nd, 2012, 02:57 AM
I read that one many years ago.

The other good thing about the Czechs: they didn't have one-man tank turrets like the French. ;)

fantic
Dec 2nd, 2012, 09:02 PM
I read that one many years ago.

The other good thing about the Czechs: they didn't have one-man tank turrets like the French. ;)

How old are you :lol:

p. 462

Sumner Welles told Ambassador on Aug 17, Sir Ronald Lindsay about the impending negotiation between Molotov and Ribbentrop; how did he know? Molotov TOLD US Ambassador Lawrence Steinhardt about it! :eek:

And what did Lindsay do?

Sent the info to London by air mail, which arrived in Aug. 22 :facepalm:

fantic
Dec 2nd, 2012, 09:10 PM
Polish foolishness knew no bounds :hysteric:

Polish Ambassador was vacationing on a beach in Brittany on Aug. 15 :help: When he heard Bonnet saying that Hitler had recently boasted he would overrun Poland in 3 weeks, he retorted

'On the contrary, it is the Polish Army which will invade Germany-at the very outset'

Beck after receiving the news of non agression pact

'Beck is quite unperturbed, and does not seem in the slightest worried by the coup de theatre. He believes that, in substance, very little has changed' by French Ambassador in Warshaw

King of delusions :lol:

NoppaNoppa
Dec 2nd, 2012, 09:43 PM
Winter War - 105 days of glory

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Simo_hayha_honorary_rifle.jpg/220px-Simo_hayha_honorary_rifle.jpg

Simo Häyhä (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4)

Halardfan
Dec 3rd, 2012, 12:53 AM
Polish foolishness knew no bounds :hysteric:

Polish Ambassador was vacationing on a beach in Brittany on Aug. 15 :help: When he heard Bonnet saying that Hitler had recently boasted he would overrun Poland in 3 weeks, he retorted

'On the contrary, it is the Polish Army which will invade Germany-at the very outset'

Beck after receiving the news of non agression pact

'Beck is quite unperturbed, and does not seem in the slightest worried by the coup de theatre. He believes that, in substance, very little has changed' by French Ambassador in Warshaw

King of delusions :lol:

Yet the lower ranks of Polish forces ultimately conducted themselves with great distinction later in the war, proving to be immensely valuable in the RAF for example. Appallingly post war they were shabbily treated by British authorities eager at that time to appease the murderous tyrant Stalin

miffedmax
Dec 3rd, 2012, 01:15 AM
Winter War - 105 days of glory

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Simo_hayha_honorary_rifle.jpg/220px-Simo_hayha_honorary_rifle.jpg

Simo Häyhä (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4)

My cat is named after him. He snipes cockroaches.

wta_zuperfann
Dec 3rd, 2012, 01:22 AM
I'd like to see more discussion about the experience minorities had in the services during the war and after it.

While Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Amerindians fought for the USA, often with great distinction, they were largely in Jim Crow units. After the war they got treated like second and third class citizens. For example, my dad (a Latino) fought in the Navy in the South Pacific but when he came home to Brooklyn he was refused a job as a dock worker and told they don't hire "spicks" (by the way, his brother was killed in the European theater). Other fared worse. Yet, for some reason, history books don't like to discuss matters like that. These are matters that should never be forgotten.

wta_zuperfann
Dec 3rd, 2012, 01:26 AM
Hitler's Message to Obama

If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it.-- Adolph Hitler

This is truth and facts. Millions of people say this.

Hitler's ideas still rules. Hitler still lives.

HOW MANY POSTS DO I NEED TO START NEW THREADS IN THIS FORUM?


:help: :help: :help: :help:


Yup - in the form of the Faux network.

wild.river
Dec 3rd, 2012, 01:35 AM
i went to a super nerdy halloween party last year (cancelled due to sandy this year :sad:) and we played the post-it game (where you have a name on your forehead and you get to ask others yes/no questions to figure it out).

i had bette davis. but my boyfriend had this dude:

http://www.everseradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/rommel.jpg

the desert fox

fantic
Dec 3rd, 2012, 01:44 AM
Yet the lower ranks of Polish forces ultimately conducted themselves with great distinction later in the war, proving to be immensely valuable in the RAF for example. Appallingly post war they were shabbily treated by British authorities eager at that time to appease the murderous tyrant Stalin

Well Churchill even thought of a war against the Soviets, but...what could they do anyway? They opened the 2nd front too late, so Soviet got there first(Thus the failure of Warshaw uprising and their massacre. Poles just can't seem to do anything right :sobbing:)

Soviet essentially won the war, without their astronomical sacrifices (the West weren't willing to pay the price, especially the British-hence the bombings) the war might've taken much longer..

Poles made a Nonagression pact with Nazi Germany even earlier than the Soviets, in 1934 :help:

fantic
Dec 3rd, 2012, 01:50 AM
I'd like to see more discussion about the experience minorities had in the services during the war and after it.

While Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Amerindians fought for the USA, often with great distinction, they were largely in Jim Crow units. After the war they got treated like second and third class citizens. For example, my dad (a Latino) fought in the Navy in the South Pacific but when he came home to Brooklyn he was refused a job as a dock worker and told they don't hire "spicks" (by the way, his brother was killed in the European theater). Other fared worse. Yet, for some reason, history books don't like to discuss matters like that. These are matters that should never be forgotten.

that's the subject of U.S. history I guess. I'm reading this one and the book doesn't neglect the dark sides too, I heartily recommend it.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51o5VL8noFL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

And Howard Zinn's book is famous, but dunno if he delves the subject matter you mention(I have it, but haven't read it yet :lol:)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51xOSEf0ZTL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

fantic
Dec 3rd, 2012, 01:56 AM
I do wonder, would the U.S. have dropped the atomic bomb in Berlin if Germany had not capitulated earlier? If not Berlin, maybe other cities? Would Hitler have surrendered?

I guess not? He preferred Berlin burning :hysteric:

miffedmax
Dec 3rd, 2012, 02:11 AM
i went to a super nerdy halloween party last year (cancelled due to sandy this year :sad:) and we played the post-it game (where you have a name on your forehead and you get to ask others yes/no questions to figure it out).

i had bette davis. but my boyfriend had this dude:

http://www.everseradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/rommel.jpg

the desert fox


vs an insane Scot

http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib//37/media-37856/mid.jpg

wild.river
Dec 3rd, 2012, 02:19 AM
vs an insane Scot

http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib//37/media-37856/mid.jpg

jock :rocker2:

miffedmax
Dec 7th, 2012, 03:51 PM
http://www.pearlharboroahu.com/images/Attack-pearl-harbor.jpg

Pearl Harbor Day.

*JR*
Dec 7th, 2012, 06:09 PM
Pearl Harbor Day.

The death toll then should have been much lower, as the US Military had broken the Japanese code. Except that it hadn't broken thru its own bureaucratic ineptitude. The intercepts described an early AM attack planned for December 8th, which is exactly when it occured (as Tokyo is on the other side of the International Date Line, and thus a day ahead). These fucking morons had everything set 2B ready for it, a day after it actually occurred. :rolleyes:

And we learn nothing. Why did Jimmy Carter's Desert One rescue mission for the Iran hostages fail, with 8 Marines dead in the desert? In part because a sailor on the ship sprayed down a helicopter on the deck that OMG, looked a little dirty, shorting out its ignition when it was started for takeoff. Then under Reagan, the Marines in Beirut were asleep in a hangar @ the airport, downhill for a truck bomb to kill 241 of them. :rolleyes:

I laugh (sadly) when the Pentagon-loving conservatives bitch about bureauracy, as the US military has long been one of the worst Federal endeavors in that regard. In fact (bringing this rant back to WW2) Harry Truman came to prominence as head of a Senate panel cracking down on war profiteers, who the same kind of dumbass bureaucrats let get away with murder. (As Reagan's Defense Dept later would with the $700 toilet seats, etc). :shrug:

miffedmax
Dec 10th, 2012, 03:31 AM
Let us now celebrate some of the truly insane technology of mankind's most destructive war.

One nomination, the Ki-105:

http://www.grumlinas.lt/lektuvai/Kokusai_Ki-105_t.jpg

Designed to transport oil and gas from the last vestiges of Japan's still far-flung empire in 1945, the Ki-105 was cleverly designed to fly off the fuel it was transporting for maximum efficiency. Less impressive, however, was the fact it consumed about 80% of its cargo during its flight. By the time you factored in the fuel for the outgoing flight, it was actually burning more than it delivered. Still, the Japanese built nine prototypes before they realized the numbers didn't work.

It was probably just as well. One shudders to think what would have happened to the crews of these flying gas tanks, lumbering through Allied dominated air space at 100 mph.

Remix13
Dec 10th, 2012, 07:06 AM
Let us now celebrate some of the truly insane technology of mankind's most destructive war.

One nomination, the Ki-105:

http://www.grumlinas.lt/lektuvai/Kokusai_Ki-105_t.jpg

Designed to transport oil and gas from the last vestiges of Japan's still far-flung empire in 1945, the Ki-105 was cleverly designed to fly off the fuel it was transporting for maximum efficiency. Less impressive, however, was the fact it consumed about 80% of its cargo during its flight. By the time you factored in the fuel for the outgoing flight, it was actually burning more than it delivered. Still, the Japanese built nine prototypes before they realized the numbers didn't work.

It was probably just as well. One shudders to think what would have happened to the crews of these flying gas tanks, lumbering through Allied dominated air space at 100 mph.

Another Japanese insane technology of WW2, the Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka (cherry flower...) :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/MXY7_Ohka_Cherry_Blossom_Baka_Ohka-7.jpg

It was basically a rocket engine man-guided missile launched from G4M1 bombers, no weapons but a 1200 kg explosive load in the nose. It was not guided by a man with a remote, but by a man in the cockpit... This thing could dive at 800km/h on US warships. It was very unstable and had poor maneuverability, which leaded to inefficiency (although it was very efficient to kill Japanese pilots...).

Remix13
Dec 10th, 2012, 07:21 AM
Here is a little anime The Cockpit (Eng subtitles) by Leiji Matsumoto about the Ohka :

bjUPRxhbGQ0

The author also made an anime with the amazing beautiful Ta-152 :hearts:

Remix13
Dec 14th, 2012, 07:52 AM
You may know about the Yamato battleship and her 460mm artillery guns, right ? Let me tell you that these cannons were peashooters next to the insane Schwerer Gustav :eek:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5xx5r2niW1qii7moo1_1280.jpg

The Schwerer Gustav was a 800mm German railway gun completed in late 1941. It weighted 1350 tons and lengthened 47m, the gun barrel was 32m long and it needed 250 men just to make it work :eek:

The range was about 40km and the shells were 3.6m long, here is a photo of a shell next to a T-34 :lol: :eek:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/80cm_Gustav_shell.jpg/391px-80cm_Gustav_shell.jpg

The Gustav was used during the siege of Sevastopol where 48 shells were shot, the gun barrel was worn out after that...

miffedmax
Dec 14th, 2012, 03:14 PM
http://www.nevilshute.org/DMWD/PANJANDRUM_html_m6717b67f.jpg

Okay, the Allies' turn. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Panjandrum, a rocket-powered, giant wheel designed to explode beach obstacles on D-day. Needless to say, the manifested all the directional stability you might have expected from strapping a bunch of oversized bottlerockets to pair of wagon wheels and then letting them go bouncing across a less than glass-smooth surface. Abandoned after nearly killing the testing team.

Remix13
Dec 14th, 2012, 07:45 PM
D-Day leaded to some particularly bad ideas, like the amphibious Sherman for example :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/DD-Tank.jpg

lots of them repose in the sea near Normandy beaches...

miffedmax
Dec 14th, 2012, 08:57 PM
The British and Canadians had much better luck with their DD Shermans. It was only at Omaha that the DD's really failed and sank in large numbers. In fact, improved DD tanks were used successfully in river crossing in Europe and in the Pacific.

fantic
Dec 14th, 2012, 09:03 PM
You may know about the Yamato battleship and her 460mm artillery guns, right ? Let me tell you that these cannons were peashooters next to the insane Schwerer Gustav :eek:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5xx5r2niW1qii7moo1_1280.jpg

The Schwerer Gustav was a 800mm German railway gun completed in late 1941. It weighted 1350 tons and lengthened 47m, the gun barrel was 32m long and it needed 250 men just to make it work :eek:

The range was about 40km and the shells were 3.6m long, here is a photo of a shell next to a T-34 :lol: :eek:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/80cm_Gustav_shell.jpg/391px-80cm_Gustav_shell.jpg

The Gustav was used during the siege of Sevastopol where 48 shells were shot, the gun barrel was worn out after that...

I at least know this :sobbing:

miffedmax
Dec 15th, 2012, 02:23 AM
Meh. The stuff about weapons is interesting and fun, especially if you're an old school, armchair wargamer like me, but really not all that important in terms of the big picture. There were a few battles that turned on the superiority of specific weapons or tactics, but mostly it was, to mashup and paraphrase both Napoleon and Baron Rothschild, the side with the biggest battalions and the larger purse that won. Understanding the hows and whys of that is more important.

Remix13
Dec 15th, 2012, 08:56 AM
Meh. The stuff about weapons is interesting and fun, especially if you're an old school, armchair wargamer like me, but really not all that important in terms of the big picture. There were a few battles that turned on the superiority of specific weapons or tactics, but mostly it was, to mashup and paraphrase both Napoleon and Baron Rothschild, the side with the biggest battalions and the larger purse that won. Understanding the hows and whys of that is more important.

Right indeed, the heavy/sophisticated weapons were finally less effective on the long term that easy to build/cheap (but not too crappy of course) weapons produced in mass.

miffedmax
Dec 15th, 2012, 03:27 PM
Even when the weapons where fairly comparable, it was simple economics. A German 105mm gun had an allotment of about 75 rounds a day. A British 25-pounder had an allotment of 200. A Canadian 25-pounder had an allotment of 300, and during the closing of the Falaise Gap the Canucks were lobbing an astonishing 450 rounds daily into the trapped Germans.

The Americans were about 150 rounds. Of course, the 105 rounds the Americans and Germans were using were slightly larger than the 85 mm rounds of the Anglo/Canadian forces, but the Canadians really were just artillery crazy and pretty much stonked anything that moved.

fantic
Dec 15th, 2012, 11:14 PM
famous error of Churchill's 'Gathering Storm' page 56

French Army was the "poop of the life of France" :haha:

miffedmax
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:39 AM
He was right, though.

Poor France has never lived down its performance in World War II.

fantic
Dec 16th, 2012, 04:48 AM
it was a typing error, it was supposedly 'prop' :sobbing:

but you're right too :oh:

miffedmax
Dec 16th, 2012, 04:52 AM
It is amazing how many times the Brits and the Soviets got back up off the canvas while the French pretty just stayed there. Of course, I'm speaking collectively, as many French people and units fought with great distinction as part of the Free French Army or FFI.

Remix13
Dec 16th, 2012, 07:17 AM
It is amazing how many times the Brits and the Soviets got back up off the canvas while the French pretty just stayed there. Of course, I'm speaking collectively, as many French people and units fought with great distinction as part of the Free French Army or FFI.

I think it has something to do with the WWI where France was one of the countries with the most casualties relative to the total poplation (behind Romania, Serbia and Ottoman Empire). People didn't want another drain...

fantic
Dec 16th, 2012, 07:32 AM
yup. Daladier was in fact welcomed when he returned from Munich, and Daladier is said to have uttered that those were fools :sobbing:

More then anything, French wanted peace. They got it.

fantic
Dec 16th, 2012, 08:16 PM
during the conference when Churchill was a guest in White House.

When FDR found Churchill emerging from the back, stark naked and pink, he began to withdraw.

But Churchill said 'The PM of GB has nothing to conceal from the President of U.S.'

:lol:

miffedmax
Dec 19th, 2012, 07:10 PM
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-CruiserMark3-A13E3.jpg

Let us now resume our celebration of superior Commonwealth technology (although this weapon is sadly lacking in Canadianness). The British Cruiser MkIII, one of the fastest medium cruisers of the war, capable of hitting or even exceeding 35 mph. Of course, this turn of speed was possible in large part by it's thin (1" or roughly 25mm armor).

It's 2-pounder was actually quite effective against most Axis tanks of the early war period, though it couldn't stand up to 37mm or 50 mm PAK guns.

Let us slay the myth the Brits did not make an HE two-pounder shell for once and for all. They did. It's just it was bloody useless. A small HE shell fired at high-velocity is going to have a tiny burst (the U.S. 37mm was just as bad). The US 37 did have a canister round that was pretty effective, but only at extremely close range. There are records of British tanks knocking out German AT guns with solid shot, which was probably a better be than using the HE round. Remember, every troop also couple of 3-inch tanks that were supposed to provide supporting fire against the AT guns. It just didn't work in the real world.

Fun trivia: the MkIII and Mk IV were the first tanks to feature spaced armor.

Halardfan
Dec 20th, 2012, 12:48 AM
Partly inspired by this thread I've recently invested Antony Beevor's book on Workd War 2. Interesting stuff so far, reminiscent in flavour of the much loved British TV series The World at War.

miffedmax
Dec 20th, 2012, 02:15 AM
That is a great series. Like I said, I'm always fascinated by the Commonwealth as far as the war in Europe. My mum's cousins were in the Canadian Army, and even my uncle (my dad's brother-in-law) fought in a US AA unit attached to the 8th Army in Italy. My Dad was in the Pacific.

fantic
Dec 20th, 2012, 05:21 AM
read that Beevor's book. Just finished the 1st WW1 book for me, G.J. Meyer's 'A World Undone'.

French then as in WW2 hopelessly clung to outdated tactics :sobbing:

Joffre, Foch..their attack and hold your ground philosophy led to wholesale slaughter..Haig too
for that matter. The book says the best Allied generals were in fact from Australia and Canada :lol:
No wonder France and GB feared another war. They just bled SO MUCH in WW1 :sobbing:

Looking forward to Hew Strachan's 1248 p tome

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51fkGVDdKDL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

:drool:

By the way almost finished this, too.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5143GH4kF7L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Remix13
Dec 20th, 2012, 06:49 AM
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-CruiserMark3-A13E3.jpg

Let us now resume our celebration of superior Commonwealth technology (although this weapon is sadly lacking in Canadianness). The British Cruiser MkIII, one of the fastest medium cruisers of the war, capable of hitting or even exceeding 35 mph. Of course, this turn of speed was possible in large part by it's thin (1" or roughly 25mm armor).

It's 2-pounder was actually quite effective against most Axis tanks of the early war period, though it couldn't stand up to 37mm or 50 mm PAK guns.

Let us slay the myth the Brits did not make an HE two-pounder shell for once and for all. They did. It's just it was bloody useless. A small HE shell fired at high-velocity is going to have a tiny burst (the U.S. 37mm was just as bad). The US 37 did have a canister round that was pretty effective, but only at extremely close range. There are records of British tanks knocking out German AT guns with solid shot, which was probably a better be than using the HE round. Remember, every troop also couple of 3-inch tanks that were supposed to provide supporting fire against the AT guns. It just didn't work in the real world.

Fun trivia: the MkIII and Mk IV were the first tanks to feature spaced armor.

Another trivia, the MkIII was the first British tank to use a Christie suspension (like the T-34 for example). This kind of suspension allows higher speeds and better cross-country performance. This tank had mechanical reliability issues though.

miffedmax
Dec 20th, 2012, 06:18 PM
All tanks with the Nuffield Liberty engine are alleged to have had reliability issues, although obviously this was not the case with the Crusader, which was awesome and invincible.

fantic
Dec 20th, 2012, 08:58 PM
from In Command of History

p517

In his review of Butler's military history volume of WWII, historian Michale Howard compared its reception
to Arturo Toscanini at Victoria Station before the war, when he was reportedly knocked down by
'a horde of bobby-soxers crowding to welcome actor Robert Taylor' :haha:

p518

Alanbrooke's official biographer Arthur Bryant said of his subject on a compendium of his diaries,

'is best known today as a lecturer on bird films and ex President of London Zoo'

:haha:

miffedmax
Dec 21st, 2012, 12:51 AM
William Holden was a drill sergeant where my dad went through boot camp.

fantic
Dec 21st, 2012, 02:37 AM
^ :eek: Holden is one of my favorite actors. Any interesting episodes? :lol:

Remix13
Dec 21st, 2012, 06:43 AM
William Holden was a drill sergeant where my dad went through boot camp.

Drill sergeant is like the guy in Full Metal Jacket ?

http://izzymom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/drill_sergeant.jpg

miffedmax
Dec 21st, 2012, 02:49 PM
Yes, Bill Holden was a marine drill sergeant.

No, he was at the same camp as my dad, but he doesn't have any stories about him. There were thousands of marines going through there, and my old man was in a different platoon. He always admired the guys who did their stints, and never had a nice thing to say about guys like John Wayne, who didn't. (Although some of his hatred for John Wayne comes from the fact that he was on a troop ship where the only movie they had was "Flying Leathernecks.")

fantic
Dec 21st, 2012, 05:13 PM
I wasn't going to mention Wayne but it's true :sobbing:

Same conservative James Stewart might be a better role model :lol: Didn't he fly as a bomber crew in Europe, now THAT was taking some serious risk.

*JR*
Dec 21st, 2012, 05:27 PM
When former fighter pilot and astronaut John Glenn was was seeking the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1984, he said about then Prez Ronald Reagan:

"I was flying Hellcats of the Navy while he was filming Hellcats of the Navy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050500)".

miffedmax
Dec 21st, 2012, 07:30 PM
Yes, Stewart flew B-17s as I recall.

My dad's unit included an All-American football player, an assistant professor from Boston U., and a former bodyguard of Al Capone.

It was a very interesting group.

Halardfan
Dec 21st, 2012, 08:26 PM
James Stewart was a great American, misguided from my point of view politically. but a good man, and for my money just about the greatest movie star there has ever been. So many films that will live forever. It's a wonderful life was on here in Japan the other day...still cried at the end, wonderful, yet actually dark tale.

Sorry off topic!

fantic
Dec 22nd, 2012, 05:24 PM
Yes, Stewart flew B-17s as I recall.

My dad's unit included an All-American football player, an assistant professor from Boston U., and a former bodyguard of Al Capone.

It was a very interesting group.

any stories? :oh:

James Stewart was a great American, misguided from my point of view politically. but a good man, and for my money just about the greatest movie star there has ever been. So many films that will live forever. It's a wonderful life was on here in Japan the other day...still cried at the end, wonderful, yet actually dark tale.

Sorry off topic!

English Cary Grant was no less great :yeah: And of course, Chaplin :bowdown:

By the way, did Ike and Kay really sleep together? :lol:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/AP450515078-465.jpg

http://blockyourid.com/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/86ei798se84.jpg

http://www.crowntoysoldiers.com/siteimages/DD154(SL).jpg

*JR*
Dec 22nd, 2012, 05:48 PM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/04/28/article-2136672-0000539A00000CB2-749_634x594.jpg

The Allies' (probably unplanned) "secret weapon" may have been American Wallis Simpson, who (Hitler pal) King Edward VIII abdicated to marry in 1936. Even had he appointed a PM who went to war after the Germans invaded Poland, such a head of government might well have basically accepted the peace offer Rudolf Hess was probably sent to deliver when he parachuted into Scotland in 1941.

fantic
Dec 22nd, 2012, 06:05 PM
that scandal seriously wrecked Churchill(he supported Edward) and his effort to contain Hitler.

And his brother who succeeded didn't really like Churchill either, he actually preferred Halifax, as did many, who was an arch appeaser.