Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 132 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2012 20:08:18 GMT
Spin says:
Pen: Perhaps you should read the posts rather than their title. And perhaps a little background research may help.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Nov 2012 18:26:39 GMT
Pendragon says:
Spin: I have read them. The questions were:

Why did Jesus give his life for me?

and

Why did Jesus curse the Fig tree?

If you think those questions were political not religious in nature, you seriously need to give up your (claimed/alleged) studies of physics and study something more basic.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Nov 2012 18:24:47 GMT
Pendragon says:
Dave

I mostly agree with you here (not the diversion of resources point, but never mind).

One query - you say
"I could never understand why the USSR didn't deploy their bomber squadrons more effectively against Germany as they certainly had the aircraft to do so"

Did USSR have a long range bomber to deploy? I thought that, like the Luftwaffe, all their bombers were tactical and relatively short/medium ranged. Nothing to compare to the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster.

Clive will probably know.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Nov 2012 12:06:48 GMT
Spin says:
Pen: If you had read those posts you would see that my questions were political, not religious in nature. Do keep up.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Nov 2012 08:46:27 GMT
DRAF says:
Agree with you there! Haven't heard this in a long time, will have to dig out the ipod.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 21:03:28 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 16 Jul 2013 11:39:02 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 20:33:55 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 16 Jul 2013 11:38:57 BDT]

Posted on 23 Nov 2012 19:47:58 GMT
O. Thebault says:
in WW2 the USSR suffered the most casualties on the Allied side followed by the UK (including civilians)

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 18:25:24 GMT
Pendragon says:
Dave

Yes you are right, I think 300,000 is indeed the figure. Hitler insisted that the Norwegian garrison be maintained at such a level in large part because of successful Allied deception as to the location of the 1944 invasion, which the Germans knew was merely a matter of where (and how many wheres), not if.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 18:22:21 GMT
Pendragon says:
Dave

"All a matter of of one's own personal opinion". Of course. But in mine I do not think that in Spring 1943 Roosevelt and Churchill were capable of, but held back from, opening the second front that Stalin was urging eg because they were confident Hitler was as good as beaten and they were already trying to shape the post German defeat Europe (or for any other reason). Opinion must take account of the known facts, which are that the Germans were far from beaten in the East, Stalingrad had only just fallen and the German army possessed the resources required to launch, eg, the Kursk offensive in Summer 1943. And the Allied army in the UK in Spring 1943 was simply not strong enough to launch a cross channel assault.

The point you make regarding Patton and the tension between US/GB and Russia is valid, but that did not arise until 1945 when it was clear that Germany was beaten. You will know that Patton in particular was restrained from continuing his advance in April 1945, and the Russians were permitted by Eisenhower et al to enter Berlin first and to advance to the Elbe to effect a junction with the other Allies. Patton wanted to cross the Elbe and grab as much territory as he could - he was forbidden to do so.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 18:04:26 GMT
Pendragon says:
There speaks the individual who started two religion threads on the Politics Forum on 6 November. Pointless is as pointless does.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 17:04:57 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 16 Jul 2013 11:38:53 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 16:51:23 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 16 Jul 2013 11:38:52 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 16:49:34 GMT
All debate is about the past.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 16:49:23 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 16 Jul 2013 11:38:51 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 16:34:34 GMT
Spin says:
Simon: No. Some, not all, debate concerns the past. But to set up a historical thread concerning the last war on a political forum is as pointless as the introduction of a thread reporting the Martian progress of "Curiosity" on a Religion forum.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 16:18:56 GMT
Please try to understand...ALL debate is about the past.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 16:13:02 GMT
Spin says:
Simon: Again I ask: If the debate is about the "past" should it not be on the HISTORY forum? Or have you guys redefined "history" as well?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 16:09:48 GMT
Okay I will explain. All debate is about the past. ALL. Whatever topic you pick must have happened at some point...get it?

Posted on 23 Nov 2012 16:00:17 GMT
Spin says:
Someone explain to me how interpretations of WW2 have anything to do with current politics... Are we so lacking political opinions that we have to resort to topics best served on a History forum?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 15:55:43 GMT
Pendragon says:
"I withdraw that sentence." Good man William. Respect.

As for the rest, in substance I completely agree. The Soviet Union's role from June 1941 to May 1945 in defeating the Nazi forces was indeed decisive. It is difficult to see how Nazi Germany could have been defeated at all had it not been for the contribution and sacrifice of the Soviet people.

I don't want to take time to check/quibble with your numbers, in as much as division counting is in any event a somewhat rough and ready measure, but I should point out that off the top of my head there were at least 19 (rather than only 8) German divisions actively engaged on the Italian front at the beginning of May 1944.

Plus those stationed in Greece, France and Norway/Denmark facing, albeit at that time not engaged by, the US/British forces, German divisions which would otherwise have been thrown against the Soviets had Britain been defeated earlier.

But that quibble does not detract from the substance of the Soviet effort that you describe.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 15:01:25 GMT
Sorry, Pendragon you're right. I withdraw that sentence.
The Soviet Union's role in defeating the Nazi forces was decisive. In late 1942, Germany and its satellites had 240 divisions on the Eastern front, and only 15 on the Egyptian-Libyan front. From 1941 to 1944, British Empire forces faced from two to eight German divisions; the Soviet Union never faced fewer than 180 German divisions, three quarters of the German army. Even at the height of the US and British forces' efforts, they were engaging just a third of the total Axis forces. In the whole war, the Red Army destroyed 607 Axis divisions; US and British forces destroyed 176 in Western Europe and North Africa. The Soviet Union was the most important victor, because 90 per cent of Nazi Germany's military deaths were inflicted on the Eastern Front.

Roosevelt cabled Stalin on 22 February 1943, "On behalf of the people of the United States, I want to express to the Red Army, on its twenty-fifth anniversary, our profound admiration for its magnificent achievements unsurpassed in all history." On 4 February 1945, Soviet Army Day, Churchill sent this message, "The Red Army celebrates its twenty-seventh anniversary amid a triumph which has won the unstinted applause of their allies and has sealed the doom of German militarism. Future generations will acknowledge their debt to the Red Army as unreservedly as do we who have lived to witness their proud achievements." As Field Marshal Montgomery pointed out, "Russian had to bear, almost unaided, the full onslaught of Germany on land; we British would never forget what Russia went through."

Posted on 23 Nov 2012 14:51:26 GMT
Spin says:
Should all this not be on the History Forum?

Posted on 23 Nov 2012 14:25:26 GMT
easytiger says:
"Germany was treated too harshly after WW1 as it had come to the aid of Austria Hungary in a pack of cards that collapsed and ended up fighting in a war against Britain that could very well have ended up with the UK and Germany fighting on the same side as Britain had more conflicts of interest with France and Russia overseas" is just about right though and it's criminal that not a lot of people realise this. The German faction in the Austro-Hungarian empire was on its way to splitting from this empire due to its pro-slavic and anti-german approaches when war broke out, and Germany, due its treaty obligations with the Austro-Hungarians had to join in.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Nov 2012 14:14:37 GMT
Pendragon says:
Indeed. Are you familiar with the very powerful song by Pink Floyd's Roger Waters "When the Tigers Broke Free"? If not (or even if you are), listen to it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WbMVIcekX0

I find it incredibly moving.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  132
Initial post:  6 Nov 2012
Latest post:  25 Nov 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions