Four More Years!

[Bikerman2004]

QUOTE:
I disagree. The Soviet Union probably saved Europe from ****** and the Nazi Party and sacrificed millions of Russian lives in the process. It was Soviet Russia that liberated the Jews from concentration camps and pounded their way into Berlin. Do you suppose Churchill would have held out against Germany without the millions of Russian troops who fought in Stalingrad and Berlin?

Exactly where did you learn your history? Churchill was holding off the Germans from 1939. The Battle of Britain occurred in 1940 and into 1941. The Russians didn't enter the war until June 22, 1941. And only after ****** attacked them. The Russians took a beating until 1943. So don't give us that **** about England not holding out without Russian involvement. Also, the western allies liberated their share of the concentration camps.....Mauthausen, Buchenwald, Dachau.

 

[fixit]

QUOTE:

I disagree. The Soviet Union probably saved Europe from ****** and the Nazi Party and sacrificed millions of Russian lives in the process.

As for the Bath Party, my suspicion is that Saddam Husseins's attrocities have been exaggerated somewhat as a point of propaganda.

First, most russians did not sacrifie themselves, but more than 15 mio were murdered by Stalin.

Second, because I know a few Iraqis who live here, I can tell you that it has not been exaggerated. In my opinion, we will never know what the Baath Party really did.

 

[Carrera]

It's generally accepted by many historians that Russia played the biggest role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. Before he died, ****** himself testified that his greatest mistake had been his miscalculation of the Russian army. In fact, he made a point of stating that he considered the Russian troops superior to his own German troops, rejecting the former theory of the superiority of the German race e.t.c. That wounded German pride more than anything else.
And of course, it was the Russian Army that closed in on ****** himself, not the Americans or Brits.
Literally millions of Russians died in the war and with Jews in the camps. Initial losses were worse during the initial German invasion.

Exactly where did you learn your history? Churchill was holding off the Germans from 1939. The Battle of Britain occurred in 1940 and into 1941. The Russians didn't enter the war until June 22, 1941. And only after ****** attacked them. The Russians took a beating until 1943. So don't give us that **** about England not holding out without Russian involvement. Also, the western allies liberated their share of the concentration camps.....Mauthausen, Buchenwald, Dachau.

 

[fixit]

Before he died, ****** himself testified that his greatest mistake had been his miscalculation of the Russian army.

Sorry, but that's not true. The biggest mistake was to attack Russia in winter and not having the support ready for the troops that fought in Stalingrad.
And more russians were murdered by Stalin then died in Battle.

 

[Carrera]

I didn't set out to defend the Bathist Party in Iraq. However, what I don't quite get is how Pinochet of Chile was applauded by the C.I.A. (and many American senators) while Hussein was demonised. Yet, if you compare the human rights records of Hussein and Pinochet, my guess is Pinochet was worse.
And how come Hussein himself was considered the man of the moment in America during Iraq's war with Iran? Saddam was clearly supported by France, Russia and England for many years and nobody complained about his human rights abuses at the time - western countries supplied the regime with as many arms as was required, in exchange for oil.
The truth is Saddam flipped when he invaded Kuwait since he saw himself as invincible. His defeat in the first Gulf War finished him off as a major dictator but he retaliated by controlling his oil reserves and playing Europe off against the U.S. That is, France wanted sanctions lifted as soon as possible since the regime had promised to sell oil to France and not America. America didn't want sanctions lifted as this would cut of its supply of cheap gas in the long run.
Finally they decided to invade Iraq to gain control of the oil pipelines and put an end to the sanctions dilemna. In order to justify the invasion, the regime was publically demonised with special emphasis placed on the use of chemical weapons by Hussein and the murder of the Kurds. As a sideline, the idea of WMD was propagated and the notion that the 9/11 attack had been planned by Iraq. Even Collin Powel considered all of this so much ******** but didn't want to compromise himself publically.
The whole justification for the war was a total fabrication from beginning to end and I think this is fairly common knowledge in Europe. The views I express are fairly typical (even in England) so there is nothing in this post that's really so radical. But I think we should be spared all this baloney that the war in Iraq broke out due to the fact George Bush was supposedly having sleepless nights over his concern for human rights and that Blair was terrified London could be attacked by intercontinental ballistic missiles (at 45 minutes notice).

First, most russians did not sacrifie themselves, but more than 15 mio were murdered by Stalin.

Second, because I know a few Iraqis who live here, I can tell you that it has not been exaggerated. In my opinion, we will never know what the Baath Party really did.

 

[Bikerman2004]

It's generally accepted by many historians that Russia played the biggest role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. Before he died, ****** himself testified that his greatest mistake had been his miscalculation of the Russian army. In fact, he made a point of stating that he considered the Russian troops superior to his own German troops, rejecting the former theory of the superiority of the German race e.t.c. That wounded German pride more than anything else.
And of course, it was the Russian Army that closed in on ****** himself, not the Americans or Brits.
Literally millions of Russians died in the war and with Jews in the camps. Initial losses were worse during the initial German invasion.

Contributing the most dead is not considered playing the biggest role. And no most historians don't believe that Russia played the biggest role. ****** never considered the Russians superior. He considered them to be subhuman. That is why most Russian POW's were sent to concentration camps. The US, England, Russia contributed the most in defeating Germany.
******'s didn't really make a mistake in invading Russia had he stayed with the original timetable. It was a major gamble. However, he had to bail out the Italians in the Balkans early in 1941. That pushed back the Russian invasion by 2 months. That coupled with winter arriving early prevented the Germans from taking Moscow that year.

 

[fixit]

I didn't set out to defend the Bathist Party in Iraq. However, what I don't quite get is how Pinochet of Chile was applauded by the C.I.A. (and many American senators) while Hussein was demonised. Yet, if you compare the human rights records of Hussein and Pinochet, my guess is Pinochet was worse.
And how come Hussein himself was considered the man of the moment in America during Iraq's war with Iran? Saddam was clearly supported by France, Russia and England for many years and nobody complained about his human rights abuses at the time - western countries supplied the regime with as many arms as was required, in exchange for oil.
The truth is Saddam flipped when he invaded Kuwait since he saw himself as invincible. His defeat in the first Gulf War finished him off as a major dictator but he retaliated by controlling his oil reserves and playing Europe off against the U.S. That is, France wanted sanctions lifted as soon as possible since the regime had promised to sell oil to France and not America. America didn't want sanctions lifted as this would cut of its supply of cheap gas in the long run.
Finally they decided to invade Iraq to gain control of the oil pipelines and put an end to the sanctions dilemna. In order to justify the invasion, the regime was publically demonised with special emphasis placed on the use of chemical weapons by Hussein and the murder of the Kurds. As a sideline, the idea of WMD was propagated and the notion that the 9/11 attack had been planned by Iraq. Even Collin Powel considered all of this so much ******** but didn't want to compromise himself publically.
The whole justification for the war was a total fabrication from beginning to end and I think this is fairly common knowledge in Europe. The views I express are fairly typical (even in England) so there is nothing in this post that's really so radical. But I think we should be spared all this baloney that the war in Iraq broke out due to the fact George Bush was supposedly having sleepless nights over his concern for human rights and that Blair was terrified London could be attacked by intercontinental ballistic missiles (at 45 minutes notice).

I don't think you defend the Baath Party and I agree, Pinochet was as evil as Saddam. For the rest I totally agree too.
But Saddam did a lot of torturing, I'm only saying that the reports about this are probably more on the accurate side then not.

 

[Carrera]

O.K. let's clarify this.
****** had based his ideology on the concept of the Germans as a superior race, justifying himself on the idea of the original German as portrayed by Tacitus - the tall, blond race that didn't mix with other races and seemed invincible on the battlefield. All sorts of philosophy and supposed scientific research was resorted to to bolster this view.
Of course, it was a ludicrous view, especially in light of the fact the Egyptians who built and designed the pyramids were black.
Yes, Slavs and Jews were classed as inferior by the Nazi regime but you forget to metion Stalin refused to sign the Geneva Convention. He went even further than that. Any Russians who allowed themselves to be captured by the Germans were immediately sent to GULAGS when they returned to Russia after the war. Many of these Russian POW's had been accommodated in England till the end of hostilities and apparently the British Government was troubled by the fact that Stalin wanted them back. They knew the Russian POW's would die in the GULAG's in Siberia. That's what happened in the end. Stalin fought a merciless war with CHEKA (former KGB) brigades lined up behind the frontline Russian conscripts to shoot anyone who retreated. Of course, Stalin was a tyrant, denounced by Krushchev in later years but ****** personally believed it was Soviet Russia that finished his Nazi regime, not Britainor America. It's also believed ******'s body is somewhere in Russia today (last I heard).
Russia always lost thousands of troops in their wars. They have always sacrified thousands of ill-prepared conscripts and even lost a minor engagement with Finland before ****** invaded. But the Soviet Army seemed to get stronger as the war dragged on, after heavy initial losses. By the end of the war they had the biggest army on the globe with more tanks and arms than any other country. So, the Russian contribution to ******'s defeat was immense and shouldn't be dismissed too lightly.
Today, the Russian Army is a shadow of its former self, although the Kremlin still has 3,800 strategic nuclear warheads and 8,000 non-strategic warheads - which makes Europe still seem a lightweight.

Contributing the most dead is not considered playing the biggest role. And no most historians don't believe that Russia played the biggest role. ****** never considered the Russians superior. He considered them to be subhuman. That is why most Russian POW's were sent to concentration camps. The US, England, Russia contributed the most in defeating Germany.
******'s didn't really make a mistake in invading Russia had he stayed with the original timetable. It was a major gamble. However, he had to bail out the Italians in the Balkans early in 1941. That pushed back the Russian invasion by 2 months. That coupled with winter arriving early prevented the Germans from taking Moscow that year.

 

[Carrera]

Put it this way. Had Saddam been overthrown out of genuine concern for his human rights abuses, many people would have been a lot happier about it. The fact is, though, most people feel really cynical about it all.
It would be a positive development if evil dictators were removed from power for such crimes as Saddam commited but I think the main motivation for such interventions is usually capital and profit. Most Arabs feel the U.S. really wants a more compliant Saddam in power in Iraq - a hardliner who won't give them any more problems in future.

I don't think you defend the Baath Party and I agree, Pinochet was as evil as Saddam. For the rest I totally agree too.
But Saddam did a lot of torturing, I'm only saying that the reports about this are probably more on the accurate side then not.

 

[fixit]

Put it this way. Had Saddam been overthrown out of genuine concern for his human rights abuses, many people would have been a lot happier about it. The fact is, though, most people feel really cynical about it all.
It would be a positive development if evil dictators were removed from power for such crimes as Saddam commited but I think the main motivation for such interventions is usually capital and profit. Most Arabs feel the U.S. really wants a more compliant Saddam in power in Iraq - a hardliner who won't give them any more problems in future.

Again, I totally agree with you.
I had the impression, you meant that what Saddam did to the Iraqis wasn't that bad. But I got it now.

 

[FredC]

Again, I totally agree with you.
I had the impression, you meant that what Saddam did to the Iraqis wasn't that bad. But I got it now.

Do not forget my friend that the total attrocities committed in the name of Herr ****** did not come to light immediately, even though the main accusation of systematic slaughter was evident by view, photographic, or otherwise. I think that the same will apply eventually to Saddam Hussein. When, and if some stability is normalised people will come forward in much the same way as did happen to help put the jigsaw together when they feel confident to do so in an atmosphere of stability. I am sure that heat seeking technology will be used to find the dessicating and disintegrating corpses in due course, perhaps this is an ongoing project at this moment.

 

[FredC]

Sorry, but that's not true. The biggest mistake was to attack Russia in winter and not having the support ready for the troops that fought in Stalingrad.
And more russians were murdered by Stalin then died in Battle.

Quite right, but the Germans thought it would be a walkover. They came unstuck with the Russian winter, and were ill equipped in general. Some points have been made that the Germans(reich) had, or were running out of money, and eventually troops. The Russians were not much better off, but sent reinforcements all the time, thus defeating the Germans. The Brits have always had strong ties with the Russians. We had the Baltic Fleet of merchant sailors, delivering what we could to Murmansk. As for Joe Stalin, all I know is that he died about 1953.

 

[Carrera]

That's right. Also, Uncle Joe didn't believe ****** would ever have attacked the USSR despite the fact his military staff assured him it would happen. During the initial blitz, Stalin lost vast amounts of territory but he showed himself to be a good field commander in later years, with a fantastic memory for facts and figures.
However, before ****** died he expressed his admiration for the Russian army and went so far as to claim it was actually Stalin's army that had lived up to his original idea of a super power Germany.
Sadly, the Russians who allowed themselves to be captured in combat winded up in Siberian Gulags. The tragedy was that those Russians who were liberated from concentration camps were also shipped off to Siberia.

Quite right, but the Germans thought it would be a walkover. They came unstuck with the Russian winter, and were ill equipped in general. Some points have been made that the Germans(reich) had, or were running out of money, and eventually troops. The Russians were not much better off, but sent reinforcements all the time, thus defeating the Germans. The Brits have always had strong ties with the Russians. We had the Baltic Fleet of merchant sailors, delivering what we could to Murmansk. As for Joe Stalin, all I know is that he died about 1953.

 

[darkboong]

Exactly where did you learn your history? Churchill was holding off the Germans from 1939. The Battle of Britain occurred in 1940 and into 1941. The Russians didn't enter the war until June 22, 1941. And only after ****** attacked them. The Russians took a beating until 1943. So don't give us that **** about England not holding out without Russian involvement. Also, the western allies liberated their share of the concentration camps.....Mauthausen, Buchenwald, Dachau.

Two points to consider : England was on the backfoot and would have slowly been worn down to a nub over the long haul even with transatlantic support. The Eastern Front wasn't just a "diversion" it was a meat grinder and that weakened Germany to the point where the Allies could attack and have a chance of success.

The alternative would have been a standoff across the Channel while Germany consolidated it's grip on Europe. At some point in the distant alternative future Germany would have gained enough control over Britain's coastal waters to lay siege and subsequently invade. Maybe ****** would have been content to let Britain be, but it's a moot point given what actually happened...

 

[FredC]

Two points to consider : England was on the backfoot and would have slowly been worn down to a nub over the long haul even with transatlantic support. The Eastern Front wasn't just a "diversion" it was a meat grinder and that weakened Germany to the point where the Allies could attack and have a chance of success.

The alternative would have been a standoff across the Channel while Germany consolidated it's grip on Europe. At some point in the distant alternative future Germany would have gained enough control over Britain's coastal waters to lay siege and subsequently invade. Maybe ****** would have been content to let Britain be, but it's a moot point given what actually happened...

Most of what you state is reasonable and practical in basic theoretic terms. In my opinion ****** thought that the conquest of a country would result in his administrative establishment of the vainquished that they would have to fight for his cause. This pathetic attempt of expansion only partly works for obvious reasons. Pull the elastic and it will snap.

 

[limerickman]

What the likes of Wayneker and White **** seem to conveniently forget about
dear old Blighty (that's Britain to you, two morons) is that Britain has not been conquered or invaded in over 1,000 years !

The Germans had the brits on the backfoot between 1939-1941 and they only managed to get as far as Guernsey !
Even without the Eastern meat grinder - I think Britain would have held out
sans help from the USA.

 

[FredC]

What the likes of Wayneker and White **** seem to conveniently forget about
dear old Blighty (that's Britain to you, two morons) is that Britain has not been conquered or invaded in over 1,000 years !

The Germans had the brits on the backfoot between 1939-1941 and they only managed to get as far as Guernsey !
Even without the Eastern meat grinder - I think Britain would have held out
sans help from the USA.

I popped a few on in different threads. No reactions from the politically oppressed. Never mind then, just proves what I said before, we don't need guns, only words. the pen is mightier than the sword, they are only throwing ********. Must admit though one or two decent thoughtful writers. Do you know what? This thing pings all the time, well at least it did until this evening. I thought 'oh no another puncture'. MCM much much better, we chat all the time. You've got my real e address haven't you? not this mickey mouse one. Did you read the non secular multi faith one I wrote about North Manchester, and the social attitudes including Yids. Never got a post back on that one, because they were all pulling on the same rope building Lancaster Bombers at Avros. They haven't got a clue, that's how we've beat them up. Must have a bacon butty.

 

[limerickman]

I popped a few on in different threads. No reactions from the politically oppressed. Never mind then, just proves what I said before, we don't need guns, only words. the pen is mightier than the sword, they are only throwing ********. Must admit though one or two decent thoughtful writers. Do you know what? This thing pings all the time, well at least it did until this evening. I thought 'oh no another puncture'. MCM much much better, we chat all the time. You've got my real e address haven't you? not this mickey mouse one. Did you read the non secular multi faith one I wrote about North Manchester, and the social attitudes including Yids. Never got a post back on that one, because they were all pulling on the same rope building Lancaster Bombers at Avros. They haven't got a clue, that's how we've beat them up. Must have a bacon butty.

Half the problem is that they're now looking at their maps at Manchester, Massachusetts !

Called to see the folks back home - told you that I grew up with some Jewish neighbours.
Well at one time in Dublin - they even had their own sports club (Maccabi
Carlisle, it was called).
Very popular place it was too - competed against them in the younger days.
Dances were great there - trying to chat up a Jewish girl and all their families
giving them stick for talking to us ! (I diverge).

I see the sports grounds and club house have been sold - too few Jewish people to keep it going.
Prize real estate - greenfield location in the centre of Dublin - gone for €10m.

New owners levelled it, and it's now a Health Club.
Seems they all went back to Israel.

 

[FredC]

What the likes of Wayneker and White **** seem to conveniently forget about
dear old Blighty (that's Britain to you, two morons) is that Britain has not been conquered or invaded in over 1,000 years !

The Germans had the brits on the backfoot between 1939-1941 and they only managed to get as far as Guernsey !
Even without the Eastern meat grinder - I think Britain would have held out
sans help from the USA.

Let us not forget that the Americans were selling the Germans metals and chemicals during the time before they joined in. and as Steptoe said 'Bleeding Americans, you only turned up when we were in front, and winning' How did Switzerland stay neutral with all that bunce in the banks. Answers on a pinhead please.

 

[Ssushi]

Wasnt it Ford who used European slave labour to build tanks thaty they sold to the Germans? Thanks soo much!