Results 1 to 33 of 33
Thread: I don't understand why...
-
03-08-2008, 11:40 AM #1
I don't understand why...
...why France and England didn't declare war on the Soviet Union when they decalred war on Germany. They both invaded Poland.
-
03-08-2008, 01:52 PM #2
I think maybe because fighting one enormous war machine at a time was enough to be going on with!
-
03-08-2008, 02:27 PM #3
-
03-08-2008, 02:43 PM #4
No, it began in September 1939 with the invasion of Poland. Hitler had already annexed Austria, the Sudetenland, and Czechoslovakia, and then Poland was the last straw after that.
-
03-08-2008, 03:22 PM #5
same reason britain and usa supported the taliban under russian occupation and now both r occupying themselves and the russians r opposing
-
03-08-2008, 03:31 PM #6
the Soviet Union was an alli durring wwii.
-
03-08-2008, 04:21 PM #7
-
03-08-2008, 05:07 PM #8
Why didn't Roosevelt allow Patton to use the hardcore Nazi vets and kick the shit out of the Bolshevik's why we had the army and equipment there to do it with?
Wasn't long after Patton posed that question that he had an "accident" and later died from an embolism. He always said that he had no political ambitions and that Eisenhower would never be President while he were alive.
Some info on Patton after the war:
After the close of World War II, Patton (now a full General) became the occupation commander of Bavaria, and made arrangements for saving the world-famous Lipizzaner stallions of Vienna. Patton was relieved of duty after openly revolting against the punitive occupation directive JCS 1067.[27] His view of the war was that with Hitler gone, the German army could be rebuilt into an ally in a potential war against the Russians, whom Patton notoriously despised and considered a greater menace than the Germans. During this period, he wrote that the Allied victory would be in vain if it led to a tyrant worse than Hitler and an army of "Mongolian savages" controlling half of Europe. Eisenhower had at last had enough, relieving Patton of all duties and ordering his return to the United States. When Patton openly accused Eisenhower of caring more about a political career than his military duties, their friendship effectively came to an end. In addition, Patton was highly critical of the victorious Allies use of German forced labor. He commented in his diary "I’m also opposed to sending PW’s to work as slaves in foreign lands (in particular, to France) where many will be starved to death." He also noted "It is amusing to recall that we fought the revolution in defence of the rights of man and the civil war to abolish slavery and have now gone back on both principles".
On the Jews, which he knew were behind the war:
We entered a synagogue which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. Either these Displaced Persons never had any sense of decency or else they lost it all during their period of internment by the Germans... My personal opinion is that no people could have sunk to the level of degradation these have reached in the short space of four years.
The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.Last edited by Panzerfaust; 03-08-2008 at 05:12 PM.
***No source checks!!!***
-
03-08-2008, 05:16 PM #9
"Ol Blood & Guts"
His ribbons how they would be today:
His grave in Luxembourg, Germany
***No source checks!!!***
-
03-08-2008, 05:20 PM #10Associate Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Posts
- 211
it would have been stupid for England's foreign policy because who would have contained Nazi Germany in the eastern front? Would they risk losing the war?The Nazi-Soviet pact was broken. Anyway I think the England-Russia relationship was always based on the convenience of maintining a balance of power in Europe. You will find a full explantion if you consider WWI and WWII as a process. Easy and nice reading:"Diplomacy" by Henry Kinssinger.
-
03-08-2008, 05:30 PM #11
better question was why weren't we allies with Germany in WWI?.....and instead chose to be allies with the soviets- whom murdered the archduke of Germany which led Germany to seek retaliation?....ask me and Germany was in the right....
-
03-08-2008, 05:31 PM #12
WWI was Hitler's motivation and which spawned his views that the masses were sucked into believing... Germany wins WWI and Hitler is nobody.......the holocaust would have never happened, and the millions of lives lost in WWII could have been saved....only reason he came to power was because we decided to deliver the German's a stiff one.....sent them into debt they would have NEVER been able to pay...killed their economy, etc..u all know the story... ...
-
03-08-2008, 05:48 PM #13
murilo, do you actually believe the Jews were behind WW2??
-
03-08-2008, 06:08 PM #14
Patton was a racist, sexist, power-hungry, egomaniac of a man. He supposedly let Nazi's stay in power while he was governing Bavaria...and he opposed the denazification of Germany. Patton was not "the man."
-
03-08-2008, 06:18 PM #15
-
03-08-2008, 06:26 PM #16
Russia did not declare war on Poland.
Hitler just had an agreement, that Russia won't attack Germany, and in exchange for that security.. he offered parts of Poland.. this agreement of course came about before the invasion.
Hitler than invaded, destroyed the Polish army, airforce etc... took over the nation.. and as agreed upon for security purposes handed Russia control over some parts of Poland.
on the other hand England was guaranteeing Polish independance, and warned Germany ahead of time about that..
so when Germany declared war on Poland.. England declared war on Germany.Last edited by Pooks; 03-08-2008 at 06:35 PM.
-
03-08-2008, 06:31 PM #17
In early 1939, the Soviet Union tried to form an alliance against Nazi Germany with the United Kingdom, France, Poland, and Romania; but several difficulties arose, including the refusal of Poland and Romania to allow Soviet troops transit rights through their territories as part of collective security.[7] With the failure of the negotiations, the Soviets shifted from their anti-German stance and on 23 August 1939 signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany.
As a result, on 1 September, the Germans invaded Poland from the west; and on 17 September, the Red Army invaded Poland from the east.[8] The Soviet government announced that it was acting to protect the Ukrainians and Belarusians who lived in the eastern part of Poland, because the Polish state had collapsed in the face of the German attack and could no longer guarantee the security of its own citizens.[9][10]
Allied reaction
The reaction of France and Britain to Poland's plight was muted, since neither wanted a confrontation with the Soviet Union at that stage.[37] Under the terms of the Anglo-Polish Agreement of 25 August 1939, the British had promised Poland assistance if attacked by a European power;[k] but when Polish Ambassador Edward Raczyński reminded Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax of the pact, he was bluntly told that it was Britain's business whether to declare war on the Soviet Union.[37] British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain considered making a public commitment to restore Polish statehood, but in the end he issued only general statements of condemnation.[37]
The French had also made promises to Poland, including the provision of air support, and these were not honoured. Once the Soviets moved into Poland, the French and the British decided there was nothing they could do for Poland in the short term and began planning for a long-term victory instead. The French had advanced tentatively into the Saar in early September, but after the Polish defeat, they retreated behind the Maginot Line on 4 October.[38] Many Poles resented this lack of support from their western allies, which aroused a lasting sense of betrayal.Last edited by Pooks; 03-08-2008 at 06:36 PM.
-
03-08-2008, 07:00 PM #18
*Double post*
Last edited by Panzerfaust; 03-08-2008 at 07:05 PM.
***No source checks!!!***
-
03-08-2008, 07:01 PM #19
-
03-08-2008, 07:03 PM #20Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- England...
- Posts
- 2,832
Did you know the americans funded the russian revolution? Funded by your great hero rockefeller,the guy that made 200 million during world war two from the Germans...
-
03-08-2008, 07:04 PM #21
Please! Patton simply chose who could do the job, just because you were German did not mean you were a Nazi. Patton was correct in his actions.
He was the man! He kicked ass and if it were not for Eisenhower's ***** footing around, we should have kicked the Bolshevik's asses back into Russia where they belong.***No source checks!!!***
-
03-08-2008, 07:06 PM #22
-
03-08-2008, 07:09 PM #23
-
03-08-2008, 07:13 PM #24Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- England...
- Posts
- 2,832
For you my great friend.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoXkTg-Uoz4
-
03-08-2008, 07:16 PM #25
-
03-08-2008, 07:45 PM #26
-
03-08-2008, 07:50 PM #27
-
03-08-2008, 08:03 PM #28
Believe me; the American public does not hold the Rockefellers or any particular family in high regard for their name and status. We are all well aware of the separation between classes, and the things that those that amass wealth do to grow and protect that wealth. It is one of the reasons why we respect new money. People who come from average means and achieve great financial success; we admire those who work hard to get ahead. Not those who are born into money. Those that have no respect their fellow man; they think they are entitled to something because someone in their family tree was success.
-
03-09-2008, 12:24 AM #29
True that... I personally have no respect for those who have, "old money". Well I do and I don't.. If they use it wisely then yes, why not, but most of the time you see them piss it away and act stupid. I greatly admire a person who came from practically nothing and gains a fortune. Sort of like Arnold although he didn't come from "nothing".
-
03-09-2008, 05:31 AM #30
Soviet did have one damn imposing army in europe and the best mass produced tank of the war. I dont think anyone wanted to get into such a war when the outcome might have very well been europe totaly occupied by the soviets.
Offcourse you guys had the bomb, but not yet the capability to produce enough of them quickly.
-
03-10-2008, 09:56 AM #31
-
03-10-2008, 01:39 PM #32
Well Stalin cared even less about throwing life away than the japs did. I cant remember what the bomb production rate was during the first years after the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings, but it wasnt very impressive. The bombing of hiroshima wasnt more destructive than the conventional fire bombings of tokyo. The shock of one single bomb doing it was the frightening part. But in acctual damage done the early bombs was not all that much more than massive conventional firebombings.
-
03-11-2008, 03:25 AM #33
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Zebol 50 - deca?
12-10-2024, 07:18 PM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS