Jump to content

Aragorn2002

Members
  • Posts

    4,453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Everything posted by Aragorn2002

  1. More and more it seems wise to buy expensive books like this in an early stage. When such books become scarce the prices are going through the roof. By buying often cheaper kindle books I save money so I can buy expensive books from time to time. Also saves a lot of room in my study. And in my suitcase during holidays.
  2. I fully agree with the results of the survey, but very much hope we will see the Dutch army too. And Soviet paratroopers.
  3. I will. But I strongly suggest reading what Peter Hitchen has to say on this subject in his book The Phoney Victory, partly based upon the standard work on the bombing war by Richard Overy. Very balanced and informative. I will say no more.
  4. That's what they said about the jews. The difference between good and bad people should be more visible.
  5. Old Winnie for sure didn't flick peanuts at 'the Hun', but incredible loads of high-explosive bombs combined with firebombs on in the end completly defenceless German civilian targets, like Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden and even smal towns like Pforzheim. Or as a reviewer of the book ' Among the Dead Cities', by A.C. Grayling puts it; "The bombing was horrific in its effects, so far beyond anything we can really imagine it that comes over as a kind of zombie apocalypse scenario. Red-hot scenery, hurricanes of fire, falling masonry, corpses burned to shrivelled black puppets, body parts like grilled kebabs in the ashes, cellars filled with asphyxiated bodies: this is the stuff of nightmares, but it was the actual fate of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people in Germany and Japan.All this was deliberately inflicted by warlords who conceived it to be their duty to civilisation. In particular, Marshall of the Royal Air Force Arthur “Bomber” Harris applied himself to the stern task with unholy relish and pushed hard for the strategy of systematically reducing to rubble all the inner cities he could reach in Germany, at night, with hundreds of bomber aircraft dropping big high-explosive bombs and huge numbers of small firebombs onto each target, dragging civilian men, women and children out of their beds and reducing their warm bodies to cinders, night after night, for years, until he had run out of targets to incinerate." That's behaviour I would have expected from a fanatical lunatic like Hitler or Stalin, not from the war lord of Britain. Also as a side-note, the reinforcements/forces for the Greek operation could have prevented the disaster of Singapore/Malaya. If the intervention in Greece was 'good publicity', then the unfortunate, miserable fate of Arthur Percival and his 130 000 men, who went into slave labour and ill-treatment in Japanese captivity nullified that.
  6. Never heard of them. I wish I could say the same about Hitler.
  7. Let Hitler and Stalin get at each other's throat and preferably slaughter each other, re-arm the British (and French) forces both in Europe and Asia and do more to prevent the mass murder of the European jews (and give them their homeland as promised during ww1).
  8. "At present we are thinking more along the lines of adding a host of “niceities” that people have been asking for since forever, but have kept getting pushed to the back of the line. Things like better rendering shadows, improving framerates for larger or more intense battles, AI Player improvements, etc. are some of the things we’ve been talking about for the next CM2 Engine Upgrade." That sure sounds good!
  9. Perhaps the little men, who had no choice but to do what the 'great' men told them to do. Roosevelt was surrounded by communist traitors and delivered hundreds of millions into the claws of Stalin's and Mao's butchers without any hesitation. He also made sure the British, who bore the brunt of the fighting in Western Europe, came out of the war completly impoverished, so the US could take over their position as world leader. Roosevelt also missed no opportunity to humiliate Churchill and take as much British gold and assets as he could lay his hands on. Does such a president deserve the title of 'great man'? Couldn't he have done a lot more to leave behind a better world after his death in 1945? I very much think so. A man like Truman would have done a lot better. Same as Chamberlain would have done a lot better than Churchill, despite the bad press the left still gives him. I like Patton though. Rude, but honest. But that probably also cost him his life. There are so many new and well documented books, written by excellent, honest and respectable (mostly British and American) historians that there's no excuse to hold on to all those old fairy tales about great men anymore. I would be happy to recommend a list of such books, which will convince any objective reader. It won't convince certain people on this forum though, because it's not the truth they are interested in.
  10. In his book 'The Phoney Victory' Peter Hitchens makes a convincing case that Churchill did send troops to Greece and North Africa, while the defence of Malaya/Singapore was neglected. Churchill also did send hundreds of fighters and tanks to the Russians, that could have saved Malaya/Singapore. Don't forget Singapore was an even greater disaster than Greece.
  11. Here's what Peter Hitchen has to say on that; "But it is still true that an important part of the war myth, that the Left wanted to fight the Nazis, and the Right wished to appease Hitler, not just because he was strong, but because they actively liked his regime, is unsound. This view, well articulated in the Left Book Club’s 1940 bestseller Guilty Men, simply is not accurate, though it is still quite widely believed. By 1938, only a few eccentrics and wild men on the Right actively sympathised with Hitler or Mussolini. Many more (and they were not confined to the British upper class) originally saw Hitler as a possible ally against Stalin. But Stalin was no direct threat to British interests, and that fantasy finally dissolved with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Left was a ‘hero in safety’, demanding a policy for which it would not provide the men or the weapons. In the end, Halifax’s Polish guarantee forced that Left into support for a war it would once have despised. It did this through a series of very clever chess moves. First, it encouraged Poland to resist what might otherwise have been a workable compromise with Germany. Next, it manoeuvred Germany into an unwanted but unavoidable confrontation with Poland, a former ally. Finally, it obliged Britain to declare war on Germany, and Germany alone, if Poland did then (predictably) resist, and if Germany (predictably) reacted by attacking Poland. The manoeuvre made an entirely voluntary war look like a response to aggression and a matter of honour. Had Halifax or Chamberlain known that a Nazi–Soviet pact would be made in August 1939 or that France would collapse in weeks once attacked, they would never have done this. But they did not know, and so an attempt to reassert our position as a Great Power in Europe ended in a world war. And at the end of that world war, we were no longer a Great Power in Europe or anywhere else, and very lucky to have escaped having to sign a humiliating peace with Hitler. But the chess game worked well on its own terms. Opinion in Britain moved from reluctance to go to war to a grudging but definite feeling that Germany must be fought. The transformation was very extensive. Some of those who had been near-pacifists in early 1939, such as George Orwell, became warlike patriots, drilling with the Home Guard in the summer of 1940. Orwell was perhaps quicker than some on the Left to do so, because his experiences in Spain had alerted him to the real, cynical nature of pro-Soviet Communism. Those whose main concern had been the survival of the USSR became patriots a little later, in the summer of 1941, when Hitler invaded the USSR and turned Stalin, whether he or we liked it or not, into our gallant ally. The Left still like to think that the 1939 war belongs to them, that it was their outrage at Hitler which finally drove the appeasers into action. This is one of the reasons why they have since sentimentalised the war and falsified its history. But it is not true. It was in fact Neville Chamberlain’s Tories who rearmed the country and manoeuvred Britain into its first People’s War."
  12. Better read 'The war that had many fathers' instead.
  13. I don't like Churchill either. I think Chamberlain had a lot more decency. But a lot less luck.
  14. Yeah, that's pretty clear. For Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc only the last option remained. As Molotov must have thought during 1970s interview.
  15. Until 1937 few people saw the necessity of rearming, since Germany wasn't a threat in any way. After 1937 Chamberlain made sure the British military at least partly recovered from years of neglect in a time that most left wing politicians were against his policy of appeasement, but also against spending more money on arms. No Spitfires without Chamberlain.
  16. Not sure what you mean by so-called occupation. Are you by any chance Russian? The Russian attack on Poland was part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Stalin was smart enough to wait until the Germans had done most of the fighting.
  17. In my experience lots of books on ww2 are for the most part opinions and to a lesser degree based on new historical research, but I know what you mean. What I do like about Hitchen is his fresh, revisionist approach. While still reading his book I'm fascinated by his conclusions and hardly can put it down, which doesn't happen often to me. One example is his analysis of the British promise in 1939 to the Poles to defend Poland (itself territorially aggressive, despotic and very anti-semitic, even during the war the Poles in exile in London tried to get rid of the jews after the war) in case of an enemy attack. That promise was strictly aimed at Germany as was described in a secret protocol. When the Poles asked the British for help against the invading Russians in 1939, they were pointed to that secret protocol. Another known, but unpopular fact is that Chamberlain did much more to save Britiain, by building up the neglected British armed forces between 1937 and 1939, than all the Britisch pacifists, communists and socialists combined. Hitchen doesn't claim to bring new facts, but he sure gives us a lot to think about. Highly recommended.
  18. My bad. Forgive me. And thank you for correcting that.
  19. Another recommendation with very refreshing insights: The Phoney War by Peter Hitchens. "Was World War II really the 'Good War'? In the years since the declaration of peace in 1945, many myths have sprung up around the conflict in the victorious nations. In this book, Peter Hitchens deconstructs the many fables which have become associated with the narrative of the 'Good War'. Whilst not criticising or doubting the need for war against Nazi Germany at some stage, Hitchens does query whether September 1939 was the right moment or the independence of Poland the right issue. He points out that in the summer of 1939 Britain and France were wholly unprepared for a major European war and that this quickly became apparent in the conflict that ensued. He also rejects the retroactive claim that Britain went to war in 1939 to save the Jewish population of Europe. On the contrary, the beginning and intensification of war made it easier for Germany to begin the policy of mass murder in secret as well as closing most escape routes. In a provocative but deeply researched book, Hitchens questions the most common assumptions surrounding World War II, turning on its head the myth of Britain's role in a 'Good War'."
  20. Logistics and industrial capacity. Which is basically the same thing.
×
×
  • Create New...