History HubΒ permalink
BOUGHT SOME WW2 DVDS
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by ritajoh (U10855204) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
And i noticed that whenever they mentioned the allies it was nearly always the USA, CANADA. AUSTRALIA. NZ. but there were other allies, dutch, belgium, czechs, polish, but they hardly ever got a mention, why? at lease we never had german troops on our soil, they did.
-
Message 2
Posted by dmatt47 (U13073434) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
And i noticed that whenever they mentioned the allies it was nearly always the USA, CANADA. AUSTRALIA. NZ. but there were other allies, dutch, belgium, czechs, polish, but they hardly ever got a mention, why? at lease we never had german troops on our soil, they did.Β I think it was for the simple reason that countries like The Netherlands, Belgium, Czechoslovakia and Poland had been invaded and not everyone was able or in some cases wanted to help us defeat the Nazis, mind you France was split in two as well. The above countries had governments in exile in London but there were limits to what they could do.
-
Message 3
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
I agree with dmatt
When they are talking about allies they are not being personal.. The Second World War was a war dominated by machines- and behind the actual military machines it meant governmental machines capable of autononous action..
I remember as a child seeing all these glorious successes in destroying enemy machines unable to forget that most of those machines had people in them, and in order to destroy the machine it was necessary to kill lots of people.
But then war on an industrial scale had reduced men to mere cannon fodder.
Cass -
Message 4
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
Unfortunately, India is rarely mentioned either Rita. Yet they sent over 2,000,000 troops to support the allies and a few Indian states also made large donations to the allied war effort.
-
Message 5
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
ID
Well that would depend perhaps on which zones of the war he has been looking at.. I think that the Indian Army was very important in German East Africa and eventually in the Burmese Campaigns..
It is also the case-in the light of my previous post- that the Indian Government did not support the war.. The Government of India Act of 1935 had built on the system of Dyarchy set up by the India Act of 1919, and after general elections in c1937 the government of the sub-continent was largely in the hands of Indian elected policians, notably the Indian National Congress Party.. But foreign policy had not been devolved and when Britain declared war in September 1939 the Congress Party governments- central and provincial objected to being dragged into a European War when there were so many more pressing problems to be tackled in India. All of the Congress politicans resigned leaving the Governmental system in India in potential disarray that was then aggravated by the greatest ever yet "Quit India Campaign" that set out to make India ungovernable.
But of course British Indian troops, like UK military personel, took their oath of loyalty to the British Crown for historical reasons and fought valiantly.... Though in the later stages of the war the Japanese were able to recruit Subhas Chandra Bose who set himself up as a kind of Indian Duce/Fuerher and embraced the Japanese idea that their imperialism was anti-western aimed at creating the Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. This resulted in Indian POW's being turned against Britain and forming the Indian National Army that fought alongside the Japanese as they tried to advance on India up through Burma.
A few years ago the Indian Government decided that no military pensions should be paid to those who had fought FOR the British cause, but those who had fought for the Japanese would get pensions.
Cass -
Message 6
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
What, Ritajoh, no mention of the Russians?
I seem to remember they were on our side. Er, given the relative sizes of the USSR and GB, maybe it would be more accurate to say that we were on their side.
Didn't it feel good, in 1941, that the Red Army was going to sort Hitler out? Of course it did. And as for their leader, cuddly, twinkly eyed, pipe-smoking Uncle Joe - well, just check out the back numbers of any - yes any - of our daily papers between 1942 and the end of the War. -
Message 7
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
Jak
But if he has only recently started watching he may not yet have got to Operation Babarossa etc..
And then if the DVD focus on the story of the military action surely one of Stalin's regular beefs was that the Western Allies then refused to open up the Second Front and attack Germany from both sides in a coordinated way as befits allies. They eventually launched the North Africa campaign which really meant them working together in a coordinated way and the USSR getting on with its own military tasks- with of course the invaluable assistance of resources from the West
Cass -
Message 8
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
Dunno about any of that, Cass, but I do remember how the amazing Red Army was going to sort things out. Led by good old Uncle Joe.
Very popular he was. Check the "Daily Express" or the "Mail" of those days.
Oh? It was all lies? What a surprise! -
Message 9
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Jak
I think you are being less than frank.. I am sure that you know that the Soviet Union was not an ally until Germany attacked it, which was the point that I was making since the OP seemed to be referring to a recent purchase and the comment to the early parts of the war.
But you are right in saying that Uncle Joe Stalin was given a great write up during the period when we were allies. And bits that I saw of the recent "Road to Berlin" series featured some very complementary passages about the hardware of the Red Army..
.As to British ideas about it before the war, the Nazi-Soviet Pact came about because in the talks aimed at establishing some kind of military partnership with the USSR early in 1939 the USSR wanted to have really large-scale manoeuvres and were just not convinced that Britain was prepared to commit anything more than another "contemptible little army" to the defense of Eastern Europe.
By definition, however, the British negotiators gained the impression of an USSR that was more heavily militarised than the UK still trying to re-arm.
Cass -
Message 10
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
at lease we never had german troops on our soil, they did.Β
Small point, maybe, but speaking as a Channel Islander, I have to disagree with you... -
Message 11
Posted by dmatt47 (U13073434) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
at lease we never had german troops on our soil, they did.Β
Small point, maybe, but speaking as a Channel Islander, I have to disagree with you... Β Quite right about the Channel Islands which was the only place in Britain that was under Nazi control. There was the unexplained evacuation of people on the east coast of England which has always been considered unexplained to everyone and the word 'invasion' has been used. -
Message 12
Posted by ritajoh (U10855204) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
in reply to message 10, i beg your pardon, unforgivable of me to forget about you.
After the war it was said by a lot of the older people my dad included that if great brittain and france had gone to the aid of czechoslovakia when they were invaded there might not have been a ww2. does anyone agree? -
Message 13
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
ritajoh
I think that the key after the event analysis pin-pointed Hitler's very first step- the occupation of the Rhineland in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles.. It was known later that the German units had orders just to turn around and leave if the troops policing the zone had opened fire..
Whether that would have made all the difference or not, I believe that the historical precedent made Mrs T feel that moves by the Argentine Generals and Saddam Husein should both be countered by military action sooner rather than later.. It brought out the "Churchillian" in her.
Perhaps the Saddam Hussein situation, however, in which the world continued to live under a fear of WOMD, suggests that stopping Hitler in the Rhineland would not have been the end of the story.
As for Czechoslovakia- the fact is that having embraced disarmament after the Treaty of Versailles Britain was in no condition to fight a war even in 1939 and 1940, let alone 1938.
Cass -
Message 14
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Jak
I think you are being less than frank..Β
Like Jak, you remember what it was like in Britain during WWII do you Cass? -
Message 15
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Id
Only just and all incoherently.. but the terrifying black nights full of an unformed consciousness of millions of dead and dying stayed with me for a long time.
Paramahansa Yogadananda wrote in his Autobiography in 1946 that the world had created a huge snowball of negative karma..
One way of putting it.
Sorry you found the bar empty..If I was a drinking man I would get you a guinness myself.. The Dark One!
Cass -
Message 16
Posted by ritajoh (U10855204) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
CASS
If GB was in no condition to go to war in 1939/1940 why go to the defence of poland if they had refused to help the czechs. -
Message 17
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
ritajoh
Well in short we did not go to war in defence of Poland.. Poland fell within a matter of weeks with GB and F more or less not firing a shot in its defence.
We issued an ultimatum to Germany that if Germany did not withdraw immediately from Poland "a state of war would exist between us".. What followed was the period of "Phoney War" during which British bombers flew over Germany dropping leaflets spelling out that Britain had no desire to fight the German people, but that the actions of the German government left them no option.
The "Phoney War" only ended when Hitler launched his two offences up through Denmark and into Norway and then the attack on Belgium and France. As I have written before the family of one of my pupils loaned me a family archive with a copy of the official report by one of the ancestors who had been in command of a unit in France- over there to shoot a film- they were hurried up from the Vendee to the Belgian frontier.
As for why we issued the ultimatum- After Czechoslovakia had been sacrificed to the cause of peace- along with Britain's honour- Hitler having said that he had no further claims - and then going much further than the Munich agreement- Britain and France had issued a guarantee to act in the case of Nazi aggression against Poland.. In the light of this there were talks with the USSR regarding coordinated defence against German aggression but Britain was hampered by the fact that all those states that had only just emerged from the Russian Empire were more worried about "Russia" than Germany.
I remember about 50 years ago reading a Penguin Special published just after the fall of Czechoslavakia that made it pretty obvious to anyone reading it that Britain would not stand by and let another country be humiliated in that way..
The Czech tragedy was that, in an Eastern Europe in which democracy had struggled to establishe itself - so that strong men of the Franco, Mussolini and Hitler variety were quite common- Czechoslovakia was a very successful democratic and "modern" state..
This also contributed to the Czech agony under Communism in the post-war period when the Czech government in exile was not given a chance and the Soviets made sure that a puppet Communist regime was installed.
Cass -
Message 18
Posted by dmatt47 (U13073434) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
Not forgetting that the Nazis attacked The Netherlands to end the' Phoney War' ending with the destruction of Rotterdam. The fact is that Britain was in no way ready to fight the war, partly by defence cuts following the First World War and economic crisis following the Wall Street Crash and the potential loss of life, but the events in the Spanish Civil War did to an extent open the British Government's eyes.
-
Message 19
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
In 1937 Seebohm Rowntree produced a new edition of "The Human Needs of Labour". He began the introduction:
"The Nation is becoming increasingly concerned at the low standard of health attained by a large section of the population. Something is being done to remedy this: the government has just announced a 3 years plan to promote finess by such means as physical training and the provision of playing fields. It is estimated that this scheme will cost Β£2,000,000 in the first three years, and afterwards Β£150,000 a year."
But in 1940 when Montgomery got his first command after Dunkirk he made total fitness of all ranks his first priority.
Cass -
Message 20
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
the Channel Islands which was the only place in BritainΒ
Guernsey and Jersey aren't in Britain. -
Message 21
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Thursday, 6th October 2011
I think you are being less than frank.. I am sure that you know that the Soviet Union was not an ally until Germany attacked it...Β
Sure Cass, I know a lot more now than I did as a little lad in 1941.
But I saw the cover of a magazine then, with a picture of (clearly invincible) Russian paratroops. And soaked up a lot of stuff from the papers thereafter, and bought a little hammer & sickle flag, on Mrs Churchill's Soviet Flag Day, and hummed along to pop music like 'Russian Patrol' etc etc.
In a way it was a good learning experience. Don't believe a word they say. It's all propaganda. -
Message 22
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 7th October 2011
Guernsey and Jersey aren't in Britain.Β
Depends on what you define as Britain. We're part of the British Islands (which are in turn not to be confused with the British Isles!), but certainly not part of the UK. -
Message 23
Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Saturday, 8th October 2011
Depends on what you define as Britain. We're part of the British Islands (which are in turn not to be confused with the British Isles!), but certainly not part of the UK.Β
Britain is used as a synonym for the United Kingdom: . -
Message 24
Posted by dmatt47 (U13073434) on Saturday, 8th October 2011
I bellieve the Channel Islands are a British Crown Dependency, if not I am sure that they would be part of France.
-
Message 25
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 8th October 2011
Crown Dependencies *plural*. But we are British soil, and we carry British passports and we - well, I do, I can't speak for my fellow Islanders - considered ourselves part of Britain. And yes, we would have been part of France if we hadn't kicked them out (several times!)
Anyway, the point is British territory was invaded and occupied by the Germans in the Second World War.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.