Wars and Conflicts permalink
WW2 - is there really anything new?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
Hi all,
Let's face it - it's a massive industry isn't it; books, documentaries, films etc. But when was the last time there were any major revelations about the conflict - something that really altered our understanding of the war? The last thing to spring to my mind was the uncovering of the extent of the role of code-breaking in WW2.
Presumably there are more papers to be released - is there a sense that there might be any further genuinely enlightening disclosures to be made?
Whilst there is money to be made the industry will roll on - but that's different from there being anything genuinely new to reveal isn't there...
Andrew -
Message 2
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
The 'new' is less important than the 'twist'.
If you can come up with some obscure document that 'proves' (however ambiguous the 'proof' might be) there was a conspiracy somewhere, you gottit made!
By the way, Mein Kampf was really written by a descendant of Jesus & Mary Magdalene, hidden by the Templars all these years, and I have a face-shaped stain on a tea-cloth to prove it! -
Message 3
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
Hi Andrew,
I also noticed the many books about WWII and events connected with it, even here in a bookshop in Germany. For that I have to add that I refer to books in English language by English / American Authors.
I bought some of them and started to read. The author starts with the history by Bismarck and tell some parts I´ve not read before about him and especially his policy towards the Polish minority in Eastern part of Prussia. The title is "Hitlers Empire, Europe under German occupation". I haven´t continue to read it because of other interests on Irish history. From what I´ve read in that book til then, it was interesting. Now I detected another one with autobiographies about WWII, an collection of extracts from speeches, documents, diaries and so on, from different people on different occations from different countries. After a short look and reading a few pages, also interesting because of the thoughts of that people in that time.
These books are all paperbooks and most distributed by the Penguin books publisher.
I share your thoughts and to me it is nothing new, because I think that this part of history is such like an never ending matter people want to discuss and read about it. These boards are just one example for that. Maybe it might have something to do with the past decades in the last Century when the cold war hasn´t that effects to the people in Western Europe as during WWII.
Besides WWII, there is just the ongoing thread about the troubles in NI which causes interest on these boards.
Where would you draw the line from where on you would take events as history, 10, 20 years ago or even more decades back in time?
Some years have its plenty anniversaries, like this year. It is depending on the country and its historical interests. We have 1919, the Versailles treaty, 1939 with the outbreak of WWII, 1949 with the establishment of the two German states, 1989 the fall of the Berlin Wall and with that the fall of the iron curtain. These are just a few examples which brings up many documentaries, books and commemorative events and / or exhibitions.
By the way, in 1979 the Thatcher era in Britan started. It seems not so interesting for discussions although she changed many things in Britain and it is quite argueable whether her policy was best for the British or not. The "Iron Lady", as the first and currently the only femal PM in British history, was respected but not much liked among the European politicians. But she managed to get the best for Britain from the European Community. I´ve once noticed an thread about her here on these boards, but that must be some years ago.
Nethertheless, there are times when here are more interesting topics, and times when less of them to find. With any thing related to WWII, you may will not have to wait too long, depending on how the thread is setted, to start discussions.
Regards
Thomas -
Message 4
Posted by vesturiiis (U13688567) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
Hi Andrew
When you mention major revelations, for me it is the stories of WW2 veterns that really catches my interest. All the mummblings about what country did this or that doesn't really stick but the recollections of these people I find fascinating.
When I was a teenager in the 60's nobody seemed to mention WW2, my fater was a Corvette man and he hardly discussed things.
Currently I am interviewing local WW2 vets (here in Northern Manitoba) and hopefully have their stories in our local newspaper. One fellow I have known for years turns out he was on convoys
I asked how many trips he made (from Canada to Londonderry)-gosh so many I can't remember.
Have to crank it up a notch as these people are slipping away
thanks -
Message 5
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
Not so much new revelations as an increasing recognition of what was already there, minly in recognising the role of women and volunteers from all corners of the British Empire, many of whom fought out of devotion to a King & Country that often treated them worse than in the overtly segregated US Military.
-
Message 6
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
andrew
i think you are corrrect in that there is next to nothing left that will suprise us
maybe a few sneaky beaky political things - ie maybe the allies knew about the final solution a lot earlier - and ignored it as it wasnt military important enough (that was an eg not fact lol)
i think what could come out is the individual actions that we know nothing about
when i say we - i mean the unwashed uneducated people (me )
most of the general public know nothing about the real war - they know about ww from films - dambusters - cockleshell heroes - telemark bridge too far etc
the russian front is a little battle in hogans heroes "Not the russian front"
is there a hollywood movie about this ? - is there a hollywood movie about Eben Emael - what about the Kasserine pass - no
so the only secrets to be found out are when the germans did ok
st -
Message 7
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
In one way, I agree, Andrew, that there is likely to be little genuinely new, though that doesn't mean everything is as widely known as it perhaps should be.
However, I can see that "individual story" histories are still coming out. Remember that Harry Patch didn't talk about his experiences until he was 100, so there are plenty of people who have things to tell. That's one of the things about WWII that distinguishes its literature from earlier wars. There is material available from the ordinary soldier, seaman, airman, air raid warden, "idle woman", lumberjill etc that is virtually completely absent - except for WWI where a certain amount of verbal testimony has been taken and still exists. Other wars we have either the outsider view from the historian, or a view from the officer class. -
Message 8
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
most of the general public know nothing about the real war - they know about ww from films - dambusters - cockleshell heroes - telemark bridge too far etc
the russian front is a little battle in hogans heroes "Not the russian front"
is there a hollywood movie about this ? - is there a hollywood movie about Eben Emael - what about the Kasserine pass - noÂ
"The Enemy At The Gates" set in Stalingrad featuring Jude Law, Ed Harris and Bob Hoskins as Khruschev came out in 2001 and did quite good business as far as I can remember. The defeat of the Americans at the Kasserine Pass is shown, albeit briefly, in "Patton - Lust for Glory (1972). Edward Dymtryk's 1958 film "The Young Lions" based on Irwin Shaw's novel with Marlon Brando playing a disillusioned German officer is a good effort at showing the realities of war on both sides.
The most significant films about WWII I have seen in recent years have both been German - "Downfall" about the last days of Hitler and "Sophie Scholl" about the White Rose anti-war activists in Munich University who were executed in 1943. -
Message 9
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
But when was the last time there were any major revelations about the conflict - something that really altered our understanding of the war?Â
The biggest revelation in recent times, aslthough coming as no great surprise, was when Gorbachev finally admitted Soviet responsibility for the murder of the Polish officer corps at Katyn and elsewhere in 1940, an admission of guilt that has been upheld with the opening up of the archives following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Most of the new research that has been done has been based on this material and into Soviet (usually meaning Stalin's) intentions before, during and after the launching of Operation Barbarossa which has led to spirited debate on these boards. Sadly, this window into the past now appears to be closing. -
Message 10
Posted by dmatt47 (U13073434) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
I still think there may be stories we have not heard about before, but whether they change our understanding of the war may be uncertain.
I certainly think the story of The Netherlands during the Second World War has yet to be fully revealed as there have been dribs and drabs comig out over the years and also the period of 1944-1945. I agree that the stories of the soldiers has not really been told. -
Message 11
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
I think there is plenty more to be said about WW2, but are we ready for it yet?
For example, I think there is still some interesting discussion still to be had on British policy leading up to the war. 'Appeasement' has become mythologised - a word to be thrown into a contemporary arguement about Iraq or Afghanistan - that 'appeasement' is a mistaken policy has become true by definition.
Now there is a perfectly good arguement that Britain never followed a policy that could fairly be called 'appeasement'; that on the contrary it resisted Hitler where it had the power to do so. That it calculated that if we had gone to war there would have been disasterous consequences for our economy and our survival as a great power. Calculations that proved to be right, even though we ended up on the winning side.
Are we ready to think along these lines? Are we ready to release WW2 from being our archetypal 'good war' and become just another historical conflict? And what about our image of our great hero Churchill in the 1930's - the 'voice in the wilderness'...suppose Churchill really wasn't a prophet but was just a maverick who couldn't see the big picture?
The mass of the paying public that currently supports the WW2 history industry here and abroad like to be told the same story again and again. But eventually we will be distanced enough to see our mythologies for what they are. Then we may get some real histories. -
Message 12
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
I must admit, I find WWII boring, because I can't help feeling that discussion on the subject has been done to death....
I have more interest in discussions in events that pre-date WWII. -
Message 13
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
The point about the stories of individuals being finally told is an interesting one - of course this is the point at which I mention WW2 People's War(!)
Only the internet has really enabled these stories to come out en masse...
Andrew -
Message 14
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
The UK invasion of Iraq in May 1941 and the UK/Soviet invasion of Iran 3 months later in August are seemingly little known.
It would be good to see these events examined in a documentary film. -
Message 15
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
Andrew Host
Let's face it - it's a massive industry isn't it; books, documentaries, films etc. But when was the last time there were any major revelations about the conflict - something that really altered our understanding of the war? The last thing to spring to my mind was the uncovering of the extent of the role of code-breaking in WW2.
Presumably there are more papers to be released - is there a sense that there might be any further genuinely enlightening disclosures to be made?
Whilst there is money to be made the industry will roll on - but that's different from there being anything genuinely new to reveal isn't there...Â
Nothing new there. To this day the ACW generates the most number of new titles of history books in the US. Most of it is just new twists on old material, like musicians trying new riffs on old tunes. Some of it's interesting but when you've read or heard it before it just gets old. -
Message 16
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
Now there is a perfectly good arguement that Britain never followed a policy that could fairly be called 'appeasement'; that on the contrary it resisted Hitler where it had the power to do so.Â
Where? The Rhineland? Austria? The Sudetenland? Czechoslovakia? Even after we declared war in 1939 we sent no aid to Poland - the reason we declared war. At least in 1914 we sent troops to help defend Belgium. Appeasement was a perfectly justifiable policy whilst there was a democratic government in Berlin that harboured no aggressive intentions. Once Hitler came to power he interpreted appeasement as weakness by the Western Powers and an unwillingness to fight which made war more, not less, likely.
We should have followed the same policy with Hitler that we followed after WWII with the Soviet Union - of collective security and negotiation from strength not weakness with clear demarcation lines drawn as to what was and was not acceptable. Then war might have been avoided as it was with the Soviets. -
Message 17
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
Allan
We should have followed the same policy with Hitler that we followed after WWII with the Soviet Union - of collective security and negotiation from strength not weakness with clear demarcation lines drawn as to what was and was not acceptable. Then war might have been avoided as it was with the Soviets.Â
Maybe this had worked until the Hitler-Stalin Pact in August 1939. I could be wrong, but as far as I remember well from what I´ve read, there has been no war declaration by the UK on the USSR in 1939, although the Red Army invaded Poland on their Eastern Frontiers two to three weeks later after Germany started the invasion of Poland.
I am currently reading an short biography about Neville Chamberlain in which it is stated, that there has been efforts on an deteration policy in the 1930s to have the UK prepared in case of war with asumed two enemy states. This was considered about Germany and Italy. Maybe it seems that these efforts might hasn´t been enough to play the strenght card, but the economical ground conditions for the efforts in the 1940s in Britain has been set up in the 1930s. -
Message 18
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
Allan D
We should have followed the same policy with Hitler that we followed after WWII with the Soviet Union - of collective security and negotiation from strength not weakness with clear demarcation lines drawn as to what was and was not acceptable. Then war might have been avoided as it was with the Soviets. Â
1) How would that have been at all possible?
2) How would that have been the better course? -
Message 19
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
Hitler was able to succeed because he selected his victims one by one until 1940. The problem with the Treatty of Versailles was that its disarmament provisions were never enforced from the outset and Britain even encouraged the German Navy by signing the Anglo-German Naval Treaty in 1935.
The League of Nations which had been set up to deal with aggressor states was toothless to begin with especially after the United States, whose idea it had been, refused to join. The League had no access to military resources. Aggressor states such as Japan and Italy withdrew from membership after the mildest of rebukes and the imposition of weak economic sanctions. Germany withdrew after using a disarmament conference as an excuse to press for rearmament.
Britain and France were clearly incapable of acting as Europe's policemen by themselves especially in the midst of the Depression but they made a bad situation worse by believing that Hitler had limited aims and that he would uphold agreements once having made them. They also failed to uphold the mechanisms that had been put in place to protect the newly-created states created from the wreck of the Austro-Hungarian Empire such as France's patronage of Czechoslovakia.
When these arrangements were invoked such as in 1934 when Mussolini, ironically, sent troops to the Brenner Pass (in line with Italy's commitment under the Treaty of St Germain to protect Austria) to deter a potential Nazi coup in Vienna and Hitler was forced to withdraw. This was the only occasion when the threat of force was used to deter Hitler.
Hitler embarked on a diplomatic charm offensive and by the time Austria was finally absorbed into the Reich in 1938 Mussolini was suitably quiescent. -
Message 20
Posted by NICK (U1182021) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
Hi Umungal
You speak about war stories from the ordinary men
and women of the forces,now I will give you an instance of what happened to me an ex WW2 Navy lad
I always kept a Diary even in peace time and when
war was declared I and two of my mates after a couple of months of black outs and air raid warnings got realy browned off and decided to volunteer for the Navy,and this is were my Diary
began of the things that I went through about my life as it happened in the Navy and what life was
like every day including all the places that my
ships went too' about all the actions that my ships took part in the Bismark Malta convoys Normandy landings to name just a few and the Egyptian girl that I fell in love with' every day
things that a sailor did on a ship in war time and did when they were in the Barracks at Pompy
the Bombing of Portsmouth and Liverpool, what its like to be dive bombed by Stuka dive bombers on and off for days at a time'never leaving your action station for days tired out for lack of sleep and very hungry except for a mug of "KYE"
or soup with a few ships biscuits (LIKE DOG)seing
your mates ship who you had been playing Tombola with last night Blown to pieces and no survivors,
all this was in my Diary,and when my daughters finaly got to read my diary they begged me to get it typed up'and after a lot of persasion I let them do it and unbeknowing to me they sent it some publishers and they went a bundle on it,but then came the crunch- one wanted £9,000 up front
and three others- £6,000--£4,500--£3,850 and so my
diary is still my Private diary,local people have read it and said how good it is' the local paper has printed articles from it so that the people living in my county know alittle bit about ww2.
the previous -
Message 21
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Friday, 14th August 2009
Thomas is right.
The Stalin's Empaire has not found its place within your own scheme, Allan.
.
Although the famous titch-'historian' -'internet blogger' from Kremlin states that there was no any war against Poland from the side of Stalin in 1939.
He insists ( in his letters from afar ) to the Ukrainian President that there was only the defenders of the Soviet fortress Brest in June of 1941 when the 'Great Patriotic War ' began. -
Message 22
Posted by Laura988 (U14088665) on Friday, 14th August 2009
"Although the famous titch-'historian' -'internet blogger' from Kremlin states that there was no any war against Poland from the side of Stalin in 1939.
He insists ( in his letters from afar ) to the Ukrainian President that there was only the defenders of the Soviet fortress Brest in June of 1941 when the 'Great Patriotic War ' began."
Well, in fact the USSR didn't declare war on Poland when it attacked the country on September 17th 1939. The official explanation was that as Poland lost the war with Nazi Germany (amazing since fights with Germans lasted until October 6th) the USSR had to "protect" and "liberate" Ukrainians, Bellorussians and.... Poles living in eastern provinces of pre-war Poland. Consequently, the soviets refused to treat Polish soldiers as prisoners of war (as apparently there was no war) which led to assasination of 25 000 Polish officers in Katyn in 1940.
As to the "historian from Kremlin", I guess the same person suggested recently that WWII was caused by Poland as it refused to cede Gdansk to Germany. No comment. -
Message 23
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 14th August 2009
Gdansk, or Danzig, was not part of Poland but an international city run by a High Commissioner appointed by the League of Nations.
-
Message 24
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Friday, 14th August 2009
Allan D
<>
Where? The Rhineland? Austria? The Sudetenland? Czechoslovakia? At least in 1914 we sent troops to help defend BelgiumÂ
We sent a token expeditionary force in 1914; it was all we could muster. The same would have been true if we had gone to war over any of the other areas you mention.
Britains strength was economic. That is how we won wars. That is ultimately how everyone wins wars. In 1914 we could work to strangle Germany through preventing her trade (just as German submarines attempted to strangle ours). But in 1939 things were different. Britain was much weaker and Germany had established a hegenomy in the balkans, particularly Romania. It was much more self-sufficient. Once that happened Britain was much less of a threat. Britain resisted this change as best it could through trying to make alliances - trade and military.
Appeasement was a perfectly justifiable policy whilst there was a democratic government in Berlin that harboured no aggressive intentions. Once Hitler came to power he interpreted appeasement as weakness by the Western Powers and an unwillingness to fight which made war more, not less, likely.Â
Hitler did not need to do any 'interpreting' to know we were weak. Both sides knew that in the event of war with Germany, Italy and Japan were both likely to take the opportunity to fall on our overseas interests, which is indeed what happened. Even if Britain was not invaded, the result would be that we were on the defensive and no longer strong enough to fight Germany in Europe. That happened too.
When considering 'appeasement' (or any other historical question) it is always worth remembering that the people who were around at the time were as intelligent as you and me. In which case, they may have had good reasons for doing what they did. -
Message 25
Posted by Laura988 (U14088665) on Friday, 14th August 2009
"Gdansk, or Danzig, was not part of Poland but an international city run by a High Commissioner appointed by the League of Nations."
Gdansk was so-called "Free City" not run but only protected by the League of Nations. The city had its own parliament and government. According to the Polish-German convention of November 9th 1920 Poland was responsible for the foreign policy of the Free City of Gdansk as well as protection of the citizens of Gdansk abroad. Territory of the Free City of Gdansk was included into the Polish custom area. Moreover, Poland was entitled to a direct import and export via Gdansk harbour, as well as its own postal services and keeping military troops at Westerplatte. Therefore, speaking more precisly, according to the historian I mentioned, Poland caused the WWII because it didn't want to give up its rights to Gdansk. -
Message 26
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Friday, 14th August 2009
...I guess we both are talking about the same titch...from the Kremlin, Lady. His sidekick-boss is a former KGBer ...the one who set up in R. on the 4th of November the Day of Victory over the Poles. The KGBer says that a well-armed Poland and Orange Ukraine +the military monster Georgia (which attacked defendless R. last year ) are fitted in with the General NATO plan to encircle R. with hostile powers: Warsaw, Kyiv and Washington are connected...you know.
-
Message 27
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Friday, 14th August 2009
Everyone in R. knows how 'white', armed up to their neck, Finland attacked the USSR in November 1939...that's a real blast of the fresh air into the Face of the History ! !!
-
Message 28
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 14th August 2009
Allan D,
Hitler was able to ...
The League of Nations which had been set up ...
Britain and France were clearly incapable ...
When these arrangements were invoked ...
Hitler embarked on a diplomatic charm offensive ...Â
Well, that rehashes history but it doesn't answer how 'tween-wars Europe could put together a proto-Cold-War containment alliance against Nazi Germany, as you suggest in your post #16. -
Message 29
Posted by Laura988 (U14088665) on Friday, 14th August 2009
OUNUPA,
you know, nothing is as obvious as it might be at a first glance. Perhaps very soon we are going to get a compeletly new version of our history. Polish officers in Katyn? Of course they were murdered by Germans or maybe they committed a massive suicide? The Great Famine in Ukraine? There was nothing like that, simply being on diet was in fashion at that time. And no doubt Georgia is a military monster... looking forward to more "news" from Kremlin -
Message 30
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Friday, 14th August 2009
Well, Lady. Take a
... -
Message 31
Posted by Laura988 (U14088665) on Friday, 14th August 2009
OUNUPA,
Thank you
reffering to Kremlin again - today I read in a newspaper that a Polish historical institute managed to establish the exact number of Polish victims of the soviet invasion in 1939 which is 150 000 murdered and 320 000 deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan (so far only estimated data was available). I've been wondering if such exact data concerning Ukrainian victims in the 1920's and 1930's is also available ???? -
Message 32
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 14th August 2009
I've been wondering if such exact data concerning Ukrainian victims in the 1920's and 1930's is also available ???? It probably was on hard drives of those Memorial's computers confiscated by FSB some time ago. I wonder if Memorial has any web sites.
-
Message 33
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 14th August 2009
I wonder if Memorial has any web sites. I think I've answered my own question. It does not look like a very user-friendly link, but it's a good start:
-
Message 34
Posted by Laura988 (U14088665) on Friday, 14th August 2009
Thanks, Suvorovetz. It seems that "news" section may contain some information.
-
Message 35
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Friday, 14th August 2009
We can say about millions of victims among the Ukrainians, Lady.
As for Holodomor.
Before the end of 1932 much of peasants in Ukraine had been brought to the brink of the terrible famine. They suffered from requisitionings.
The 'freedom' they were given by the 'revolution' was taken from them.
The amount of grain requisitioned during 1930-33 exceeded the total harvest so that the peasants were forced to pay it from stocks they had accumulated in previous years.
In these harsh conditions this often proved the difference between life and death.
No seed left to saw and eat.
The death came to the land with the richest soil in the world.
Commies seized whatever foodstuffs they could find in the village barns, often shooting peasants who resisted them as 'kulaks'.
And yet Moscow pressed more and more.
Villages were ransacked, children held to ransom, peasants whipped and tortured to squeeze their last few grains from them... -
Message 36
Posted by Laura988 (U14088665) on Friday, 14th August 2009
But Russia still refuses to acknowledge it as a genocide, am I right?
-
Message 37
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Saturday, 15th August 2009
Not unnaturally you are right, Lady. I am not a fool to expect that KGBers would ever be able to become human beings in the real meaning of this word. Another thought troubles me no end. History is really full of subjunctives, the KGB which gained power in R. can only tell us one thing : there are still significant numbers of people in R. who are fond of totalitarianism. I suspect that quite a few of KGBers' supporters these days still have not caught up with things, they are completely out of touch. In their heads they are still living in the 'ussr'.
-
Message 38
Posted by Laura988 (U14088665) on Saturday, 15th August 2009
You know, the problem with this country is that - regardless of those in power (whether it was a tsar, Stalin, a KGBer or anybody else) it has always tried and will always be trying to expand as much as possible (i.e. until someone else stops it). Western countries don't really understand it as they have never been direcly affected by all these crimes, lies and persecutions Russia's neighbours experienced on so many occasions.
-
Message 39
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Sunday, 16th August 2009
The point about the stories of individuals being finally told is an interesting one - of course this is the point at which I mention WW2 People's War(!)
Only the internet has really enabled these stories to come out en masse...Â
Yes Andrew and just as it was getting up to speed you closed it down.
Many more people were coming forward with their wartime stories and fair enough we were getting a lot of the same things repeated, but somewhere in those stories would be the odd snippet not known beyond local knowledge.
The old soldiers who took part are falling off their perches and people like me who's formative years were through the war will not be far behind.
These boards are making it boring because the same people beat the same drum on every subject raised.
Conspiracy theories abound so we cease to post on here even when we know what is being said is blatantly wrong.
I think if you restarted WW2 The Peoples War you may yet get untold stories before we all vanish forever, as have the last WW1 men and women.
Frank. -
Message 40
Posted by ex4thhussar (U520216) on Sunday, 16th August 2009
Hi Frank !
You tell them old friend !
And while we have Andy's attention, can we remind him that he promised to get the Â鶹ԼÅÄ WW2 People's War SEARCH facility working again ?
Do look after yourself Frank
Best Regards
Ron G -
Message 41
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Sunday, 16th August 2009
Hello Ron,
Like you old friend I tell it like it is and it is about time somebody did something about the continuous ranting on every subject.
They are all brought back to their own particular conspiracy theory.
They can read the books first second or third hand stories, it amazes me how we all got it wrong.
People are human and with the information available make decisions then carry them out in wartime with very little time to do so, yes they may get it wrong, are they all perfect nowadays then and not under the same pressure.
We need to get back to those like yourself who were there and have a story to tell without the twists put on those stories by some authors.
Oh well, I will not hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
meanwhile we better leave them to their drum beating, no point in discussing one subject knowing it will be turned to chopping block for conspiracy.
keep well Ron,
Frank. -
Message 42
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 16th August 2009
Re: Message 33.
Suvorovetz,
thank you very much for this link.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 43
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 16th August 2009
You're always welcome, Paul.
-
Message 44
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Monday, 17th August 2009
Hi Frank,
WW2 People's war was never intended as an ongoing project. Although I wasn't involved from its inception I doubt v much we could have secured funds for for a permanently open archive.
It was however timed to coincide with the 60th Anniversary of the end of the war - where we hoped to get the maximum response from the maximum number of likely contributors. In fact the the window for submissions was stretched into the following February but after that it had to close.
Cheers
Andrew -
Message 45
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Monday, 17th August 2009
Hi Ron,
The fix for the search facility is sheduled for next week so hopefully it will working v soon now.
Cheers
Andrew -
Message 46
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Monday, 17th August 2009
WW2 People's war was never intended as an ongoing project. Â
Indeed true Andrew. In six years time it will be 70 years and probably few left when they start scrabbling for the last of those people who were there to remember, that is if they can still remember anything at all.
A lost opportunity is how I see it, surely there must be some space in an archive for future generations to hear those stories.
Not down to you I know though someone should be approached about it all.
Frank. -
Message 47
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Monday, 17th August 2009
Hi Ron,
It looks like the search facility is fixed as of today. I've had a go myself and it works fine. The note saying it is broken will be removed by the end of the day.
All the best
Andrew -
Message 48
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Monday, 17th August 2009
Now there is a perfectly good arguement that Britain never followed a policy that could fairly be called 'appeasement'; that on the contrary it resisted Hitler where it had the power to do so. That it calculated that if we had gone to war there would have been disasterous consequences for our economy and our survival as a great power. Calculations that proved to be right, even though we ended up on the winning side.Â
Against this, see the chapter on the Munich crisis in Niall Ferguson 'The War of the World'. Ferguson argues that if Britain & France had gone to war in 1938 over the Czechs we could have defeated Hitler quickly & therefore avoided fighting an economicaly disastrous World War -
Message 49
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 17th August 2009
Idamante Against this, see the chapter on the Munich crisis in Niall Ferguson 'The War of the World'. Ferguson argues that if Britain & France had gone to war in 1938 over the Czechs we could have defeated Hitler quickly & therefore avoided fighting an economicaly disastrous World War As if this is not enough to speculate about, let me throw in another twist to account for Stalin and his enormous armed forces plundering East Europe in 1939-1940: I suggest that the Brits inadvertently helped themselves by collapsing as fast as they did in France. At the end of the day, this made confident Wehrmacht take all the brunt of fighting Red Army, which is what British hapless pre-war diplomacy had failed to accomplish. On the other hand, Stalin had to deal with the brunt of a sudden assault by same confident Wehrmacht instead of finishing the exhausted by the prolonged fight remains of western powers.
-
Message 50
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 17th August 2009
Against this, see the chapter on the Munich crisis in Niall Ferguson 'The War of the World'. Ferguson argues that if Britain & France had gone to war in 1938 over the Czechs we could have defeated Hitler quickly & therefore avoided fighting an economicaly disastrous World WarÂ
This is also the thesis underlying Sir John Wheeler-Bennett's "Munich: A Prologue to Tragedy" published in 1948. This remains the classic, if highly dogmatic, text on the subject.
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  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
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ 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.