wikipedia sez so so it muzt be trues
Are you denying that the IRA collaborated with the Nazis?
James McClean
- Thread starter Patience
- Start date
Are you denying that the IRA collaborated with the Nazis?
best comeback of the year!
Who gives a ****
there were Jewish collaborators
there were British collaborators
there were American collaborators
ohh, but look its the IRA (old IRA and not related to war of independence IRA or The Troubles IRA), it must be representative of everyone huh
While I actually think you are a decent ****, to say that the nazis didn't overextend themselves is utter nonsense. They took on the russians(in winter no less) when they could have taken them on in the summer after they won in Western Europe. Not over extended? They were fighting half the world ffs!
Who the **** is this new guy?Your saying what I was saying, except making out I wasn't saying it
my question was rhetorical.Of course they overextended themselves, the instant they declared war on Ivan that was it. Im pointing out that everyone seems to gloss over just how significant the Russian effort was. They didn't voluntarily jump into the conflict but when attacked they were the deciding force. Hear very little spoken of the real pivotal battle of the war (Stalingrad) and the Russian sacrifice there (1.1m soldiers). After Stalingrad in 1943 the German's never scored another strategic victory and were in full retreat from then on. Question is, why did the allies not land earlier and take the pressure of the E. Front sooner (as the Russian's pleaded for). You would almost think it was a conscious decision from them to allow the two countries to smash themselves to pieces
He won't listen. His head is so far up the Russians' arses he can't hear you.
Russia beat Germany by default. They had geography and climate on their side, and an overwhelming numerical advantage. If they hadn't been so backwards, poorly-organised and badly-led, they'd have won a lot quicker.
In total 20.7m people served in the Whermacht at one time or another (1m killed in Stalingrad alone). That is not a small number.
Russia was fighting on two fronts. Hermann one end, Japs the other. Japan another country with a population of circa 100m (at its height the Imperial Army had 6.1m serving,, thats just a snapshot not an illustration of the entire number who served), Russian population = circa 150m
Combined western allies (Britain + colonies & commonwealth allies), France, Holland, Belgium im guessing a combined population of around 200m. At what point were they looking to exert their obvious numerical dominance
Well i'm asking about the Allies you tit. Im demonstrating where the real numerical dominance lay. At what point were Russia suppose to exert a numerical dominance with a 150m population, fighting an axis consisting of Third Reich population (c.85m), Italy (c.45m) and Japan (c.90m) almost single handed. It seems he is belittling the fact 25m Russians died while a superior numerical force waited on the sidelines while Russia asked for help, real help - not this arctic convoy s**te
Blame the Zionists Jacky
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-worldconspiracies-germany-how-jews-planned-ww2-facts.html
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-worldconspiracies-germany-how-jews-planned-ww2-facts.html
Anyway, the Germans were destined to lose WWII. German generals knew as early as 1940 that they couldn't win a war on two fronts because they didn't have sufficient fuel supplies, ammunition and men. They only started full-scale military industrialisation as late as 1944. They thought they could invade and conquer Russia like a piece of piss after they dominated Europe. Operation Barbarossa was a massive failure for them, but there's no way it could have turned out any differently.
Stalin was responsible for the death of around 17 million civilians during WWII. The Soviets lost a lot of people (soldiers and civvies), but the Soviet Union was wholly responsible for the majority of them.
Well, hindsight being wonderful and all that, there is a popular train of thought in that it cold have been a success if Hitler hadn't been such a strategic *****.
1 - he made Stalingrad a personal matter between him and Stalin. The original curve south was to capture the oil fields in the Caucuses which would have greatly helped his war effort, he could have bypassed Stalingrad and allowed a full strength Army Group North to finish the job in Moscow.
2 - he diverted around a third of his forces assaulting Moscow (with the city's steeples in sight) south to meet Army Group South heading for Stalingrad - this caused a week long traffic jam (yes, a week) when the two armies met, allowing the Russian's valuable time to prepare.
Quick lesson in life, death, and the politic of forced life and death...
It's historically certain that the Reich, had they not shafted the Ruskies in their agreement with Stalin, would have won the war.
Britain would be occupied and after that it's certain there would have been another major war between the Reich and the Ruskies in which we would be fighting on behalf of the Reich.
That didn't happen because we got lucky. Several times. And at a huge cost of conscripted men's lives.
An example is The Battle of Britain, an air battle between our RAF and the Luftwaffe, and it was the fulcrum upon which everything trembled.
Had we lost that, we would have been invaded, and lost the war. (The Americans were not yet involved)
But, just when we were stretched to nothing, the Luftwaffe changed tactic and withdrew. The Battle of Britain was won. The Luftwaffe would no longer try to fight the RAF over British skies. Countless airmen lost their lives.
Next stroke of luck was the nips havin a go at the yanks by decimating their fleet at Pearl Harbour. Had that not occurred the yanks had no interest in helping us fight our war.
Now the politic of global war was happening and with the yanks our side only then could we eventually mount the Normandy landings of July 1944 paid by an horrific loss of life.
Honour these men.
They fought, almost all conscripted, from several nations, and died.
Imagine that, for a moment.
All the young men of that age had the dreams of their own lives forcibly removed and were sent to die. Thousands per day died.
Imagine that, for a moment. What if you had been born in that age? Conscripted, no choice, sent to war. Would you have lived or died? Would you have dreamed of having a wife? Children?
And you ****in ****s refuse them a ****in poppy? 20p out of yer pocket?
Honour these men. Real men that had no option but to fight and did. And won.
Honour these men.
I have to wonder, today, how many big talkers in the digital age would cope with conscription? Never mind what you want, your life and dreams mean nothing, here's a gun, yer going to war and you most likely won't be coming back. Tweet that, ya ****er.
Honour these men.
Honour more those that fell.
It's historically certain that the Reich, had they not shafted the Ruskies in their agreement with Stalin, would have won the war.
Britain would be occupied and after that it's certain there would have been another major war between the Reich and the Ruskies in which we would be fighting on behalf of the Reich.
That didn't happen because we got lucky. Several times. And at a huge cost of conscripted men's lives.
An example is The Battle of Britain, an air battle between our RAF and the Luftwaffe, and it was the fulcrum upon which everything trembled.
Had we lost that, we would have been invaded, and lost the war. (The Americans were not yet involved)
But, just when we were stretched to nothing, the Luftwaffe changed tactic and withdrew. The Battle of Britain was won. The Luftwaffe would no longer try to fight the RAF over British skies. Countless airmen lost their lives.
Next stroke of luck was the nips havin a go at the yanks by decimating their fleet at Pearl Harbour. Had that not occurred the yanks had no interest in helping us fight our war.
Now the politic of global war was happening and with the yanks our side only then could we eventually mount the Normandy landings of July 1944 paid by an horrific loss of life.
Honour these men.
They fought, almost all conscripted, from several nations, and died.
Imagine that, for a moment.
All the young men of that age had the dreams of their own lives forcibly removed and were sent to die. Thousands per day died.
Imagine that, for a moment. What if you had been born in that age? Conscripted, no choice, sent to war. Would you have lived or died? Would you have dreamed of having a wife? Children?
And you ****in ****s refuse them a ****in poppy? 20p out of yer pocket?
Honour these men. Real men that had no option but to fight and did. And won.
Honour these men.
I have to wonder, today, how many big talkers in the digital age would cope with conscription? Never mind what you want, your life and dreams mean nothing, here's a gun, yer going to war and you most likely won't be coming back. Tweet that, ya ****er.
Honour these men.
Honour more those that fell.
No objection to this, my objection is just how little regard is given to the Russian sacrifice e.g. endless time focused on D-Day with around 20k deaths (a number not to be sniffed at) vs Stalingrad (1.1m Russians killed) - yet they only get a ****e movie with that ****ebag Jude Law as the star