May 8: Let’s be clear about the name of the war it ended

May 8, V.E. Day, the anniversary of the final defeat of Nazi Germany, is a national holiday across much of Europe from France in the West to Russia in the East.
Strangely though, it is not a national holiday in the UK, perhaps because Britain continued fighting in the East right up to the defeat of Japan later the same year.
I say “strangely” because, but for Britain, there would never have been a V.E. day. In September 1939, Nazi Germany invaded western Poland and Britain and France declared war. Within nine months, there was no longer an independent France or indeed, an independent continental Europe, and Britain stood alone.
This war has a name: it is called World War II because ultimately, it was fought all over the world and because, in general, it was fought not just for territory but against evil. Britain could have chosen not to be involved. It was not invaded. Indeed, many on the far-right and the far-left actively campaigned for it not to be involved. They forgot their vast political differences and signed up to the Peace Pledge Union, their very own 1930’s version of the Stop the War Coalition. Their political descendants have historically opposed British membership of the European Union. That certainly doesn’t mean that all today’s supporters of Brexit are fascists or communists, but it’s an interesting observation anyway.

Back to WWII. While Britain chooses classic British modesty in its celebration of the defeat of Nazism, the further east you go in Europe the more bombastic and in-your-face the public displays of victory.At some point eastwards though, this World War II we all recognise in Britain gets a different name. In Russia it is still called the Great Patriotic War as it has been for more than 70 years. This Great Patriotic War did not start in September 1939 but rather in 1941. For the then manifestation of Russia, the Soviet Union, this was a war of necessity, not of choice – not a fight against Nazism but a defence of invaded territory. Many millions of Russians died in the defence of this territory, although admittedly some of it wasn’t really their own. But as a result of the invasion by Nazi Germany of the territory of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union did not join World War II as the popular narrative goes. Rather, it simply changed sides.The Soviet Union didn’t join World War II in 1941, because it had already joined World War II in September 1939 when it invaded eastern Poland, the Baltic States and Bessarabia.

You may say that the Soviet Union didn’t have a choice. That it wasn’t ready. Perhaps it was better to prepare for two years and then fight the Nazis. But then again, neither was Britain. The disarmament of the 1930s meant Britain wasn’t ready in 1939. Logically, it shouldn’t have joined in. Logically, it shouldn’t have started the war against the Nazis. Perhaps, like the Soviet Union, it should have joined in with Nazi Germany. Logically, it should have pulled out after the defeat of France in 1940. Thank God it didn’t.It is because Britain went in unprepared in 1939 and continued alone through 1940 and most of 1941, that the rest of Europe – and Vladimir Putin’s Russia – can celebrate May 8.By the way, the Great Patriotic War didn’t fully end on May 8, 1945 either. It ended in 1989 and 1990 when the Berlin Wall came down and those European countries invaded by the Soviet Union in 1939, while it was fighting on the same side as the Nazis, finally received their freedom. And when those other countries suppressed by the Soviet Union as from May 8, 1945 finally also received theirs.

But one’s perspective on this narrative should not just be a history lesson. It remains critical today because it is the same fault line that divides democratic left and undemocratic left – why the former always believes in fighting totalitarianism while the latter so often excuses it when it comes from what it believes to be the left. And why the former still believes that racism and antisemitism and fascism somehow cannot really come from the left.Recently, I was given a guided tour of the Museum of Ukraine’s History of the Second World War in Kyiv. Until very recently, it was called the Museum of the History of the Great Patriotic War.
There is a similar museum in Moscow. Maybe it too will one day change its name.


http://hurryupharry.org/2016/05/07/may-8-let%E2%80%99s-be-clear-about-the-name-of-the-war-it-ended/

I agree with that!

Since I've no clue who your guest poster is - "This is a guest post by Phil Carmel"; I've no point of reference for his ability to have factual data and would I be able to trust his opinion & knowledge

But let me get this off my chest first thing: Nazi Germany wasn't defeated --- Hitler was and his ilk were but the mind-set of NAZI-ism lives on today in this the 21st century. That shouldn't come as a shock to anyone member/non-member/guest...can't eradicate a willful choice for people to join such heinous terrorist type of groups!

GUEST, Phil Carmel  stated > Britain could have chosen not to be involved. It was not invaded. Indeed, many on the far-right and the far-left actively campaigned for it not to be involved 

Except for that tiny finite detail of the Munich Pact - ya, know...that agreement between the powers of Poland + France + England --- Ya, that Munich Agreement that was all signed and sealed full deal.  Not something jolly ole' England was going to back peddle on and act like it was NO BIG DEAL!  Good Grief

While Britain chooses classic British modesty in its celebration of the defeat of Nazism, the further east you go in Europe the more bombastic and in-your-face the public displays of victory

Again with this misnomer about "defeating Nazism"...never happened; defeated Hitler - Yes, that did happen, made Germany surrender - INDEED that happened, changed the boundaries of communism - absolutely.

For the then manifestation of Russia, the Soviet Union, this was a war of necessity, not of choice – not a fight against Nazism but a defence of invaded territory. Many millions of Russians died in the defence of this territory, although admittedly some of it wasn’t really their own. But as a result of the invasion by Nazi Germany of the territory of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union did not join World War II as the popular narrative goes. Rather, it simply changed sides.

BRILLIANT - BRILLIANT...did it take a lightening strike to obtain that éclairissement opinion?  {heavy sarcasm implied & intended} every country that was being INVADED became a WAR PARTICIPANT OUT OF NECESSITY --- DUHHHH Good Grief

Stalin - ever the opportunist, not quite the stupid man that Hitler treated him like; so the writing on the crumbling wall and knew he'd better switch sides if he hoped to have any of his own countries land to rule as his own! 

You may say that the Soviet Union didn’t have a choice. That it wasn’t ready. Perhaps it was better to prepare for two years and then fight the Nazis. But then again, neither was Britain. The disarmament of the 1930s meant Britain wasn’t ready in 1939. Logically, it shouldn’t have joined in. Logically, it shouldn’t have started the war against the Nazis. Perhaps, like the Soviet Union, it should have joined in with Nazi Germany. Logically, it should have pulled out after the defeat of France in 1940. Thank God it didn’t.It is because Britain went in unprepared in 1939 and continued alone through 1940 and most of 1941, that the rest of Europe – and Vladimir Putin’s Russia – can celebrate May 8

Well, that was quite a read...but all that left this member wondering what this Guest Member was smoking {hallucinogenic product} to obtain such  a "logical" thought process, ascertain: "Britain shouldn't have started the war against the Nazis." 
 


 

But in doing some digging around for extra links I came across this >>>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/

And it is well worth reading and it is FILLED human interest stories about British families that lived through the war --- Logically or not!  LMAO

V.E. Day is not a war remembrance day in Australia, NZ, Canada, USA, India, China, Singapore, Malaysia, (and Britain, of course..), Indonesia, and the rest..
Returned Services groups recognise the day, and the media will mention the commemorations in Europe and Russia.

SOME 80%+ of the world recognises V.P. Day, August 15th,  as the proper and official end to WWII..
The USA, NZ and Britain apparently preferred the name "V.J Day" -- for 'Victory over Japan'...

(V.P. stands for "Victory in the Pacific").

Never read such a poor take history inall my life from 4ever2

We did defeat "Nazi Germany", which the vast majority of his men and officers remained loyal to. Even the famous July Plot was taken by many Germans to be seen as an act of treason. So it was defeating Nazism, as Germany did not surrender on the day Hitler died.
The point you are missing is that Britain did go to war off the invasion of Poland, by Germany, which the USSR was complicit too. If Britain had oc conceeded after the fall of France, nothing would then have been able to have prevented them defeating the USSR, who were reliant on resources from the west in convoys, very much up until 1943. Whole Russian divisions were made up of Churchill and Sherman Tans, that fought in the famous Battle of Kursk. So what he highlights is very true and there is nothing worse than a lefty amateur trying to find fault anf ailing badly at doing so in their counter.
He is right though in how we do not celebrate the end of defeating Nazism, because it was nazism, that was defeated.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

V.E. Day is not a war remembrance day in Australia, NZ, Canada, USA, India, China, Singapore, Malaysia, (and Britain, of course..), Indonesia, and the rest..
Returned Services groups recognise the day, and the media will mention the commemorations in Europe and Russia.

SOME 80%+ of the world recognises V.P. Day, August 15th,  as the proper and official end to WWII..
The USA, NZ and Britain apparently preferred the name "V.J Day" -- for 'Victory over Japan'...

(V.P. stands for "Victory in the Pacific").

That is because they were two different conflicts.
One in Europe against the Nazi's and their European allies, and the other against Japan in the East.
Like he says though the conflict never really ended with the start of the cold war

Paul Ettinger wrote:

This is a guest post by Phil Carmel

May 8, V.E. Day, the anniversary of the final defeat of Nazi Germany, is a national holiday across much of Europe from France in the West to Russia in the East.
Strangely though, it is not a national holiday in the UK, perhaps because Britain continued fighting in the East right up to the defeat of Japan later the same year.
I say “strangely” because, but for Britain, there would never have been a V.E. day. In September 1939, Nazi Germany invaded western Poland and Britain and France declared war. Within nine months, there was no longer an independent France or indeed, an independent continental Europe, and Britain stood alone.
This war has a name: it is called World War II because ultimately, it was fought all over the world and because, in general, it was fought not just for territory but against evil. Britain could have chosen not to be involved. It was not invaded. Indeed, many on the far-right and the far-left actively campaigned for it not to be involved. They forgot their vast political differences and signed up to the Peace Pledge Union, their very own 1930’s version of the Stop the War Coalition. Their political descendants have historically opposed British membership of the European Union. That certainly doesn’t mean that all today’s supporters of Brexit are fascists or communists, but it’s an interesting observation anyway.

Back to WWII. While Britain chooses classic British modesty in its celebration of the defeat of Nazism, the further east you go in Europe the more bombastic and in-your-face the public displays of victory.At some point eastwards though, this World War II we all recognise in Britain gets a different name. In Russia it is still called the Great Patriotic War as it has been for more than 70 years. This Great Patriotic War did not start in September 1939 but rather in 1941. For the then manifestation of Russia, the Soviet Union, this was a war of necessity, not of choice – not a fight against Nazism but a defence of invaded territory. Many millions of Russians died in the defence of this territory, although admittedly some of it wasn’t really their own. But as a result of the invasion by Nazi Germany of the territory of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union did not join World War II as the popular narrative goes. Rather, it simply changed sides.The Soviet Union didn’t join World War II in 1941, because it had already joined World War II in September 1939 when it invaded eastern Poland, the Baltic States and Bessarabia.

You may say that the Soviet Union didn’t have a choice. That it wasn’t ready. Perhaps it was better to prepare for two years and then fight the Nazis. But then again, neither was Britain. The disarmament of the 1930s meant Britain wasn’t ready in 1939. Logically, it shouldn’t have joined in. Logically, it shouldn’t have started the war against the Nazis. Perhaps, like the Soviet Union, it should have joined in with Nazi Germany. Logically, it should have pulled out after the defeat of France in 1940. Thank God it didn’t.It is because Britain went in unprepared in 1939 and continued alone through 1940 and most of 1941, that the rest of Europe – and Vladimir Putin’s Russia – can celebrate May 8.By the way, the Great Patriotic War didn’t fully end on May 8, 1945 either. It ended in 1989 and 1990 when the Berlin Wall came down and those European countries invaded by the Soviet Union in 1939, while it was fighting on the same side as the Nazis, finally received their freedom. And when those other countries suppressed by the Soviet Union as from May 8, 1945 finally also received theirs.

But one’s perspective on this narrative should not just be a history lesson. It remains critical today because it is the same fault line that divides democratic left and undemocratic left – why the former always believes in fighting totalitarianism while the latter so often excuses it when it comes from what it believes to be the left. And why the former still believes that racism and antisemitism and fascism somehow cannot really come from the left.Recently, I was given a guided tour of the Museum of Ukraine’s History of the Second World War in Kyiv. Until very recently, it was called the Museum of the History of the Great Patriotic War.
There is a similar museum in Moscow. Maybe it too will one day change its name.


http://hurryupharry.org/2016/05/07/may-8-let%E2%80%99s-be-clear-about-the-name-of-the-war-it-ended/

He is wrong . Britain was invaded.

Miffs2 wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

This is a guest post by Phil Carmel

May 8, V.E. Day, the anniversary of the final defeat of Nazi Germany, is a national holiday across much of Europe from France in the West to Russia in the East.
Strangely though, it is not a national holiday in the UK, perhaps because Britain continued fighting in the East right up to the defeat of Japan later the same year.
I say “strangely” because, but for Britain, there would never have been a V.E. day. In September 1939, Nazi Germany invaded western Poland and Britain and France declared war. Within nine months, there was no longer an independent France or indeed, an independent continental Europe, and Britain stood alone.
This war has a name: it is called World War II because ultimately, it was fought all over the world and because, in general, it was fought not just for territory but against evil. Britain could have chosen not to be involved. It was not invaded. Indeed, many on the far-right and the far-left actively campaigned for it not to be involved. They forgot their vast political differences and signed up to the Peace Pledge Union, their very own 1930’s version of the Stop the War Coalition. Their political descendants have historically opposed British membership of the European Union. That certainly doesn’t mean that all today’s supporters of Brexit are fascists or communists, but it’s an interesting observation anyway.

Back to WWII. While Britain chooses classic British modesty in its celebration of the defeat of Nazism, the further east you go in Europe the more bombastic and in-your-face the public displays of victory.At some point eastwards though, this World War II we all recognise in Britain gets a different name. In Russia it is still called the Great Patriotic War as it has been for more than 70 years. This Great Patriotic War did not start in September 1939 but rather in 1941. For the then manifestation of Russia, the Soviet Union, this was a war of necessity, not of choice – not a fight against Nazism but a defence of invaded territory. Many millions of Russians died in the defence of this territory, although admittedly some of it wasn’t really their own. But as a result of the invasion by Nazi Germany of the territory of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union did not join World War II as the popular narrative goes. Rather, it simply changed sides.The Soviet Union didn’t join World War II in 1941, because it had already joined World War II in September 1939 when it invaded eastern Poland, the Baltic States and Bessarabia.

You may say that the Soviet Union didn’t have a choice. That it wasn’t ready. Perhaps it was better to prepare for two years and then fight the Nazis. But then again, neither was Britain. The disarmament of the 1930s meant Britain wasn’t ready in 1939. Logically, it shouldn’t have joined in. Logically, it shouldn’t have started the war against the Nazis. Perhaps, like the Soviet Union, it should have joined in with Nazi Germany. Logically, it should have pulled out after the defeat of France in 1940. Thank God it didn’t.It is because Britain went in unprepared in 1939 and continued alone through 1940 and most of 1941, that the rest of Europe – and Vladimir Putin’s Russia – can celebrate May 8.By the way, the Great Patriotic War didn’t fully end on May 8, 1945 either. It ended in 1989 and 1990 when the Berlin Wall came down and those European countries invaded by the Soviet Union in 1939, while it was fighting on the same side as the Nazis, finally received their freedom. And when those other countries suppressed by the Soviet Union as from May 8, 1945 finally also received theirs.

But one’s perspective on this narrative should not just be a history lesson. It remains critical today because it is the same fault line that divides democratic left and undemocratic left – why the former always believes in fighting totalitarianism while the latter so often excuses it when it comes from what it believes to be the left. And why the former still believes that racism and antisemitism and fascism somehow cannot really come from the left.Recently, I was given a guided tour of the Museum of Ukraine’s History of the Second World War in Kyiv. Until very recently, it was called the Museum of the History of the Great Patriotic War.
There is a similar museum in Moscow. Maybe it too will one day change its name.


http://hurryupharry.org/2016/05/07/may-8-let%E2%80%99s-be-clear-about-the-name-of-the-war-it-ended/

He is wrong . Britain was invaded.

Is he?
The mainland UK was never invaded in WW2
Jersey and Gurnsey were Islands closer to France than the UK.
They were the only British territory to be invaded

Didge/Paul/whomever you are > He is right though in how we do not celebrate the end of defeating Nazism, because it was nazism, that was defeated.

And you boasted that 'have a degree in history' and yet you manage to write that utter nonsense!  Were you sharing the community 'toke/joint' that your GUEST was when you thought his written word was so profound?  

Well, you've been amusing; but yet again --- you can't manage an adult discussion...so I'm done with ya!

4EVER2 wrote:

Didge/Paul/whomever you are > He is right though in how we do not celebrate the end of defeating Nazism, because it was nazism, that was defeated.

And you boasted that 'have a degree in history' and yet you manage to write that utter nonsense!  Were you sharing the community 'toke/joint' that your GUEST was when you thought his written word was so profound?  

Well, you've been amusing; but yet again --- you can't manage an adult discussion...so I'm done with ya!

So zero to counter my points

Proving you are nothing more than an idiot

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:




He is wrong . Britain was invaded.

Is he?
The mainland UK was never invaded in WW2
Jersey and Gurnsey were Islands closer to France than the UK.
They were the only British territory to be invaded

He didn't say mainland. I know where "our own dear Channel Islands " as Churchill called them are. I was born and brought up there. My father lived through the occupation.

Miffs2 wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Is he?
The mainland UK was never invaded in WW2
Jersey and Gurnsey were Islands closer to France than the UK.
They were the only British territory to be invaded

He didn't say mainland. I know where "our own dear Channel Islands " as Churchill called them are. I was born and brought up there. My father lived through the occupation.

Which shows you fail to understand the point being made, that they would have not been invaded either, if Britain had not gotten involve in the conflct the point made in the article. So on both counts, you still missed the point.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

He didn't say mainland. I know where "our own dear Channel Islands " as Churchill called them are. I was born and brought up there. My father lived through the occupation.

Which shows you fail to understand the point being made, that they would have not been invaded either, if Britain had not gotten involve in the conflct the point made in the article. So on both counts, you still missed the point.

The point is he said Britain wasn't invaded and it was.

Miffs2 wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:



Which shows you fail to understand the point being made, that they would have not been invaded either, if Britain had not gotten involve in the conflct the point made in the article. So on both counts, you still missed the point.

The point is he said Britain wasn't invaded and it was.

Please understand conext?

Britain could have chosen not to be involved. It was not invaded. Indeed, many on the far-right and the far-left actively campaigned for it not to be involved. They forgot their vast political differences and signed up to the Peace Pledge Union, their very own 1930’s version of the Stop the War Coalition. Their political descendants have historically opposed British membership of the European Union. That certainly doesn’t mean that all today’s supporters of Brexit are fascists or communists, but it’s an interesting observation anyway.

Britain was not invaded the Channel Islands were, which is or little importance to the point. As there was plans to invade the UK with Operation Sealion, but the point is on "if" we had not gotten involved. Which would have not seen the Channel Islands invaded either. The point you keep missing
So if you want to bang your head over such a minor point, failing to understand the point in context, then be my guest

TPaul Ettinger wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:


The point is he said Britain wasn't invaded and it was.

Please understand conext?

Britain could have chosen not to be involved. It was not invaded. Indeed, many on the far-right and the far-left actively campaigned for it not to be involved. They forgot their vast political differences and signed up to the Peace Pledge Union, their very own 1930’s version of the Stop the War Coalition. Their political descendants have historically opposed British membership of the European Union. That certainly doesn’t mean that all today’s supporters of Brexit are fascists or communists, but it’s an interesting observation anyway.

Britain was not invaded the Channel Islands were, which is or little importance to the point. As there was plans to invade the UK with Operation Sealion, but the point is on "if" we had not gotten involved. Which would have not seen the Channel Islands invaded either. The point you keep missing
So if you want to bang your head over such a minor point, failing to understand the point in context, then be my guest

Hitler ordered the invasion of the Channel Islands because he wanted to use them as a base from which to invade England.

Miffs2 wrote:

TPaul Ettinger wrote:


Please understand conext?

Britain could have chosen not to be involved. It was not invaded. Indeed, many on the far-right and the far-left actively campaigned for it not to be involved. They forgot their vast political differences and signed up to the Peace Pledge Union, their very own 1930’s version of the Stop the War Coalition. Their political descendants have historically opposed British membership of the European Union. That certainly doesn’t mean that all today’s supporters of Brexit are fascists or communists, but it’s an interesting observation anyway.

Britain was not invaded the Channel Islands were, which is or little importance to the point. As there was plans to invade the UK with Operation Sealion, but the point is on "if" we had not gotten involved. Which would have not seen the Channel Islands invaded either. The point you keep missing
So if you want to bang your head over such a minor point, failing to understand the point in context, then be my guest

Hitler ordered the invasion of the Channel Islands because he wanted to use them as a base from which to invade England.

Point so beyond you it has hurdled the moon it seems.
Again, its based on a "what if" that if Britain had not gotten involved, which means the Channel Islands would not have been invaded.

Malta, would not have been the longest bombing sustained in WW2 where my dad grew up.

Have this point sunk in yet?

I do not need to learn how to suck eggs on WW2 history thanks

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
Hitler ordered the invasion of the Channel Islands because he wanted to use them as a base from which to invade England.

Point so beyond you it has hurdled the moon it seems.
Again, its based on a "what if" that if Britain had not gotten involved, which means the Channel Islands would not have been invaded.

Malta, would not have been the longest bombing sustained in WW2 where my dad grew up.

Have this point sunk in yet?

I do not need to learn how to suck eggs on WW2 history thanks

You do on what constitutes Britain though!

Miffs2 wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Point so beyond you it has hurdled the moon it seems.
Again, its based on a "what if" that if Britain had not gotten involved, which means the Channel Islands would not have been invaded.

Malta, would not have been the longest bombing sustained in WW2 where my dad grew up.

Have this point sunk in yet?

I do not need to learn how to suck eggs on WW2 history thanks

You do on what constitutes Britain though!

That is because I have a brain Nems

The islands are not part of the United Kingdom or European Union, but rather are possessions of the British Crown with independent administrations. Their inhabitants are British citizens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18175986


Hence, Britain was never invaded

didge wrote:Recently, I was given a guided tour of the Museum of Ukraine’s History of the Second World War in Kyiv. Until very recently, it was called the Museum of the History of the Great Patriotic War.
There is a similar museum in Moscow. Maybe it too will one day change its name.

It really was the Soviet/Russia's victory. They deserve all the credit, and took all the blows, for the defeat of Hitler.

Russia was in sustained bombardment while Churchill and Roosevelt dilly-dallied over North Africa, Italy...and finally, grudgingly, agreed to enter in the end, in France. A two-front was was all that Stalin ever wanted; and he was right, too. Look how fast it worked.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
You do on what constitutes Britain though!

That is because I have a brain Nems

The islands are not part of the United Kingdom or European Union, but rather are possessions of the British Crown with independent administrations. Their inhabitants are British citizens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18175986


Hence, Britain was never invaded

Oh but it was.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:Recently, I was given a guided tour of the Museum of Ukraine’s History of the Second World War in Kyiv. Until very recently, it was called the Museum of the History of the Great Patriotic War.
There is a similar museum in Moscow. Maybe it too will one day change its name.

It really was the Soviet/Russia's victory.  They deserve all the credit, and took all the blows, for the defeat of Hitler.  

Russia was in sustained bombardment while Churchill and Roosevelt dilly-dallied over North Africa, Italy...and finally, grudgingly, agreed to enter in the end, in France.  A two-front was was all that Stalin ever wanted; and he was right, too.  Look how fast it worked.

Gibberish, and we have had this conversation before.
All contributed, which without allied supplies, the Russians would have succombed in 1941 and 1942.
Britain was the only nation that held on whilst Russia was in cahoots with Nazi Germany.
You use what can only be described as failing to understand history, where without each other, all would have succumbed.
Even the US would have been isolated, unable to intervene in Europe

Miffs2 wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


That is because I have a brain Nems

The islands are not part of the United Kingdom or European Union, but rather are possessions of the British Crown with independent administrations. Their inhabitants are British citizens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18175986


Hence, Britain was never invaded

Oh but it was.

Look this is not a panto,. either put evidence and stop wasting my time, with what very little you know or accept you have no idea what you area talking about

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:Recently, I was given a guided tour of the Museum of Ukraine’s History of the Second World War in Kyiv. Until very recently, it was called the Museum of the History of the Great Patriotic War.
There is a similar museum in Moscow. Maybe it too will one day change its name.

It really was the Soviet/Russia's victory.  They deserve all the credit, and took all the blows, for the defeat of Hitler.  

Russia was in sustained bombardment while Churchill and Roosevelt dilly-dallied over North Africa, Italy...and finally, grudgingly, agreed to enter in the end, in France.  A two-front was was all that Stalin ever wanted; and he was right, too.  Look how fast it worked.

Can't quite put my finger on the 'moving goal post'; but the moral of the story will float to the top of the toilet bowel soon enough!
But consider this; Didgy re-affirms that 'HE' knows what was in Hitler's mind and plans specifically --- and invading/bombing the islands {not part of Britain} but the fringes of jolly ole' England's borders was what Hitler was after. 

The gamble

At 4.45 am on 1 September 1939 the German battleship Schleswig-Holstein opened fire on the Polish garrison of the Westerplatte Fort, Danzig (modern-day Gdansk), in what was to become the first military engagement of World War Two. Simultaneously, 62 German divisions supported by 1,300 aircraft commenced the invasion of Poland.
The decision of Adolf Hitler to invade Poland was a gamble. The Wehrmacht (the German Army) was not yet at full strength and the German economy was still locked into peacetime production. As such, the invasion alarmed Hitler's generals and raised opposition to his command - and leaks of his war plans to Britain and France.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/invasion_poland_01.shtml

Perhaps our Didgy/Paul should stop depending on Bloggers for his 'Factual History' and do some serious reading of his very own; not that anyone would have to "show him how to SUCK EGGS" --- LMAO

But for such a ifintile to call other members "idiots" when he can't provide his own thoughts about a topic and shove this pure garbage out here as validation for his 'talking points'...well here I was giving him KUDO's for having grown up and making a change! 
Now he's challenged Miff's on 'My daddy was bombed more than your daddy was so that makes me more of an authoritarian about this war then you are, nana-boo-boo'  
Retraction...he's just changed his under-roo's and not his thought process! 

Wow yet another verabl load of horsehit from the4 forum idiot I see.

Nobody was trying to claim anyone was more bombed than the other, just to show places would not have been effected, but in comes the fuckwit 4ever2 with her brainless knowledge of WW2 making a complete tit of herself again
Then adds why WW2 started failing to understand Quill's absurd point to only give credit to Russia, ignoring the artic convoy;s who helped sustain the USSR in her hour of need. The idiot has used C7P throughout with hardly any views of her own, where I have given context and detail, showing her up to be a right muppet
Again the lefty jumps in making a tit of herself.
I mean she is so gutless she sucks up to other posters for approval lol

I shall look in later to see if there has been anything of worth stated, which so far that has only been Nicko.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It really was the Soviet/Russia's victory.  They deserve all the credit, and took all the blows, for the defeat of Hitler.  

Russia was in sustained bombardment while Churchill and Roosevelt dilly-dallied over North Africa, Italy...and finally, grudgingly, agreed to enter in the end, in France.  A two-front was was all that Stalin ever wanted; and he was right, too.  Look how fast it worked.

Gibberish, and we have had this conversation before.
All contributed, which without allied supplies, the Russians would have succombed in 1941 and 1942.
Britain was the only nation that held on whilst Russia was in cahoots with Nazi Germany.
You use what can only be described as failing to understand history, where without each other, all would have succumbed.
Even the US would have been isolated, unable to intervene in Europe

The British and the Americans did bomb the crap out of the Ruhr Valley, I'll give you that. That reduced German manufacturing into the stone age. And the British and Americans were responsible for the parabolic-winged P-51 D, which permitted fighter escorts to accompany the bombers to East Germany. But that was potent only because America stood out of reach, and flexed its formidable manufacturing muscle.

But bullet-for-bullet, man-for-man, the Russians were the heroes.

Original Quill wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Gibberish, and we have had this conversation before.
All contributed, which without allied supplies, the Russians would have succombed in 1941 and 1942.
Britain was the only nation that held on whilst Russia was in cahoots with Nazi Germany.
You use what can only be described as failing to understand history, where without each other, all would have succumbed.
Even the US would have been isolated, unable to intervene in Europe

The British and the Americans did bomb the crap out of the Ruhr Valley, I'll give you that.  That reduced German manufacturing into the stone age.  And the British and Americans were responsible for the parabolic-winged P-51 D, which permitted fighter escorts to accompany the bombers to East Germany.  But that was potent only because America stood out of reach, and flexed its formidable manufacturing muscle.

But bullet-for-bullet, man-for-man, the Russians were the heroes.

Who said anything about bombing but again, it achieved a strategic objective, that of drawing away German fighters from the front line to defend the Reich, thus aiding the Soviet Union. You see even when you jump in with your immature points, you still look an amateur at history Quill.
Again the Sovits were only able to contain the Axis in 1941 and 1942 with allied resources.
All were heroes, and the fact you relegate the rest shows why people like you are generally not listened to, and our seen as of significance on the related matters in history. The Soviets were mainly used in many mass advances that saw an appalling loss of life, mainly as it was maintained by a strict regime that shot many that even retreated. That is not even bravey, but left with little choice, of death facing either way.
The misuse of human life by the Soviets was appalling, but then they were fighting an Absolute War with Nazi Germany

Anyway, when you speak on WW2, it has to be the most invented nonsense I have ever had the mispleasure of reading

Laters

didge wrote:Who said anything about bombing but again, it achieved a strategic objective, that of drawing away German fighters from the front line to defend the Reich, thus aiding the Soviet Union.

Um...small point, but bombing and air combat are the major roles of aircraft over land. Strafing is of nuisance value only.

Point being that nothing was being pulled away from the defense of the Third Reich. It was defense of the Ruhr Valley, which was being bombed into oblivion, which is what I just got through saying (lol...is there an echo in here?)

Of course American manufacturing played the most important part. Considering all the chess pieces available, Churchill and Roosevelt did a lot of dallying before they got down to it, didn't they? Here, all along, the Russians were slogging in the mud and getting shot, and shooting back...the real fighting.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:Who said anything about bombing but again, it achieved a strategic objective, that of drawing away German fighters from the front line to defend the Reich, thus aiding the Soviet Union.

Um...small point, but bombing and air combat are the major roles of aircraft over land.  Strafing is of nuisance value only.

Point being that nothing was being pulled away from the defense of the Third Reich.  It was defense of the Ruhr Valley, which was being bombed into oblivion, which is what I just got through saying (lol...is there an echo in here?)

Of course American manufacturing played the most important part.  Considering all the chess pieces available, Churchill and Roosevelt did a lot of dallying before they got down to it, didn't they?  Here, all along, the Russians were slogging in the mud and getting shot, and shooting back...the real fighting.

Small point?




Battles were won on air superiority, of which the Germans never had due to the bombing campaigns, as they again withdrew vital fighters for the defense of the Reich. So was the British Empire manufacturing important, again it was supplies the Soviets badly needed, which helped stem the German advance.
Why am I even bothering to explain this to you? As again you know next to nothing on the subject matter
Move along chump, this is for people whop know history and you do not qualify

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Um...small point, but bombing and air combat are the major roles of aircraft over land.  Strafing is of nuisance value only.

Point being that nothing was being pulled away from the defense of the Third Reich.  It was defense of the Ruhr Valley, which was being bombed into oblivion, which is what I just got through saying (lol...is there an echo in here?)

Of course American manufacturing played the most important part.  Considering all the chess pieces available, Churchill and Roosevelt did a lot of dallying before they got down to it, didn't they?  Here, all along, the Russians were slogging in the mud and getting shot, and shooting back...the real fighting.

Small point?




Battles were won on air superiority, of which the Germans never had due to the bombing campaigns, as they again withdrew vital fighters for the defense of the Reich. So was the British Empire manufacturing important, again it was supplies the Soviets badly needed, which helped stem the German advance.
Why am I even bothering to explain this to you? As again you know next to nothing on the subject matter
Move along chump, this is for people whop know history and you do not qualify

Attack aircraft are not the same as escort aircraft. Dealing with ignorance, over here. Get back to your place in the assembly line, doofus.

Original Quill wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Small point?




Battles were won on air superiority, of which the Germans never had due to the bombing campaigns, as they again withdrew vital fighters for the defense of the Reich. So was the British Empire manufacturing important, again it was supplies the Soviets badly needed, which helped stem the German advance.
Why am I even bothering to explain this to you? As again you know next to nothing on the subject matter
Move along chump, this is for people whop know history and you do not qualify

Attack aircraft are not the same as escort aircraft.  Dealing with ignorance, over here.  Get back to your place in the assembly line, doofus.

Anogther epic opinion of zero relevance

We are talking about German fighers, being withdrawn from front like operations over the battlefierld to defend the skies over the Reich

Not fighter escorts the llies used in bomber formations

Seriously move on chump

Isn't it nice to debate in a polite and civil manner?

eddie wrote:Isn't it nice to debate in a polite and civil manner?

Civility is just a concept born from people wanting others to respect them.
Some here deserve zero respect

Escort Aircraft were there to ATTACK enemy planes when they came to intrcept our Bombers.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

eddie wrote:Isn't it nice to debate in a polite and civil manner?

Civility is just a concept born from people wanting others to respect them.
Some here deserve zero respect

You are a very arrogant man aren't you Didge?

Miffs2 wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Civility is just a concept born from people wanting others to respect them.
Some here deserve zero respect

You are a very arrogant man aren't you Didge?

Only to people I have little time for.
I had no issue with you on your return until you made it so by doing your usual mouthy routine on the Maddie thread, so you reap what you sow Nems

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
You are a very arrogant man aren't you Didge?

Only to people I have little time for.
I had no issue with you on your return until you made it so by doing your usual mouthy routine on the Maddie thread, so you reap what you sow Nems

You are very angry aren't you? You just insult when you are out of your depth. Mind you as I have told you before, you would be out of your depth in a saucer. You may have read a lot of books perhaps you should start on some concerning self awareness? Win friends and influence people clearly went over your head    Just saying.

Miffs2 wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Only to people I have little time for.
I had no issue with you on your return until you made it so by doing your usual mouthy routine on the Maddie thread, so you reap what you sow Nems

You are very angry aren't you? You just insult when you are out of your depth. Mind you as I have told you before, you would be out of your depth in a saucer. You may have read a lot of books perhaps you should start on some concerning self awareness? Win friends and influence people clearly went over your head    Just saying.

Angy?
lol if that is what you perceive me to be, then that says more about you Nems, than it does about me.
Is that why you insulted me then before when being out of your death on the Maddie thread lol.
To be honest, I just think you are two faced and nasty, simple as that and again here and elsewhere I will continue to show up your shortcomings, when you make silly mistakes.
Get used to that, as you reap what you sow

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
You are very angry aren't you? You just insult when you are out of your depth. Mind you as I have told you before, you would be out of your depth in a saucer. You may have read a lot of books perhaps you should start on some concerning self awareness? Win friends and influence people clearly went over your head    Just saying.

Angy?
lol if that is what you perceive me to be, then that says more about you Nems, than it does about me.
Is that why you insulted me then before when being out of your death on the Maddie thread lol.
To be honest, I just think you are two faced and nasty, simple as that and again here and elsewhere I will continue to show up your shortcomings, when you make silly mistakes.
Get used to that, as you reap what you sow

What ever you say Didge. See you later, unlike you making my mouth go on a pissant forum is not my world, it's yours. Enjoy yourself. Please feel free to claim victory or what ever you have to do to maintain your self esteem.

Miffs2 wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Angy?
lol if that is what you perceive me to be, then that says more about you Nems, than it does about me.
Is that why you insulted me then before when being out of your death on the Maddie thread lol.
To be honest, I just think you are two faced and nasty, simple as that and again here and elsewhere I will continue to show up your shortcomings, when you make silly mistakes.
Get used to that, as you reap what you sow

What ever you say Didge. See you later, unlike you making my mouth go on a pissant forum is not my world, it's yours. Enjoy yourself. Please feel free to claim victory or what ever you have to do to maintain your self esteem.

And yet you are here, making it a part of your world, thus contradicting yourself, again.
What has victory to do with anything unless it only matters to you?
You see there is nothing you can say I can easily place the emphasis back onto you.
When you stop sucking up to people and treat others with respect, then you will have mine.
Until then

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Civility is just a concept born from people wanting others to respect them.
Some here deserve zero respect

You are a very arrogant man aren't you Didge?

Only to people I have little time for.
I had no issue with you on your return until you made it so by doing your usual mouthy routine on the Maddie thread, so you reap what you sow Nems

What??? So you decided to punish someone for an opnion!???
Oh do fuck off.

eddie wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Only to people I have little time for.
I had no issue with you on your return until you made it so by doing your usual mouthy routine on the Maddie thread, so you reap what you sow Nems

What??? So you decided to punish someone for an opnion!???
Oh do fuck off.

Incorrect again, showing you simply cannot read anything in conext, its her being abusive on that thread, but never mind dumb dumb
In comes the hoof feet cavalry brigade to the rescue lol

You simply don't know how to debate without being a total arse Didge:

"I'm really easy to get along with once people see things my way"

eddie wrote:You simply don't know how to debate without being a total arse Didge:

"I'm really easy to get along with once people see things my way"

If you think I am an arse, then do as I day I just say and i will start a Didge thread for you to bitch and moan all you like.
You do it enough behind peoples backs anyway, why not have it out in the open daily eh Eddie?
I can debate very well, I just do not have time for two faced idiots like you and Nems.
Just saying

I don't need to speak about anyone behind their backs you fucking idiotic teenager!
Grow up.

eddie wrote:I don't need to speak about anyone behind their backs you fucking idiotic teenager!
Grow up.

Which just proves you are a liar as you have done so with me in the past
So at least I am honest Eddie, you though are part of some sad little girl club that likes to slag off people and then be nice to their faces.
People like you are rotten to the core
So if anyone needs to grow up its you.

eddie wrote:I don't need to speak about anyone behind their backs you fucking idiotic teenager!
Grow up.

Take no notice Edds it's another boring tantrum. I suspect Paul Ettinger is not long for this forum!

Miffs2 wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't need to speak about anyone behind their backs you fucking idiotic teenager!
Grow up.

Take no notice Edds it's another boring tantrum. I suspect Paul Ettinger is not long for this forum!

lol, when shown up, use the old talk around routine.

People are wise to the pair of you and have been for years.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't need to speak about anyone behind their backs you fucking idiotic teenager!
Grow up.

Which just proves you are a liar as you have done so with me in the past
So at least I am honest Eddie, you though are part of some sad little girl club that likes to slag off people and then be nice to their faces.
People like you are rotten to the core
So if anyone needs to grow up its you.

You are like a broken, boring record.

Enjoy your loneliness Didge.

Miffs2 wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't need to speak about anyone behind their backs you fucking idiotic teenager!
Grow up.

Take no notice Edds it's another boring tantrum. I suspect Paul Ettinger is not long for this forum!

hes as boring and predictable as he ever was.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
Take no notice Edds it's another boring tantrum. I suspect Paul Ettinger is not long for this forum!

lol, when shown up, use the old talk around routine.

People are wise to the pair of you and have been for years.

Yeah yeah doesn't alter the fact you flounce more than a flamenco dancer