'President Putin 'probably' approved Litvinenko murder'

[Tangled up in Blue]

We are allowed to because we are British. Don't forget half the world owes its freedom to us British, something Johnny foreigner is all to quick to forget.:thumbsup:

There is a very sound argument to be made, that it in effect it was Russia who won WW2 for the Allied cause.Certainly their losses were greater than that of any other nation state ,including the UK.

 

[Benfleet A1]

There is a very sound argument to be made, that it in effect it was Russia who won WW2 for the Allied cause.Certainly their losses were greater than that of any other nation state ,including the UK.

They won the war in Eastern Europe certainly but their losses would have been a lot less if they hadn't employed WW1 tactics and machine gunning their own if the turned back after a failed attack. Just an observation.

 

[Blueronron]

They won the war in Eastern Europe certainly but their losses would have been a lot less if they hadn't employed WW1 tactics and machine gunning their own if the turned back after a failed attack. Just an observation.

As opposed to the British who just tied their own to a post and shot them for cowardliness, though it was PTS

Still when like Haig you send thousands to their deaths whilst sitting a table enjoying the finest food and drink, whilst young men were knee deep in mud, letS deflect the problem on to others and bury bad news

UTS

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

There is a very sound argument to be made, that it in effect it was Russia who won WW2 for the Allied cause.Certainly their losses were greater than that of any other nation state ,including the UK.

Tell me please, what countries invaded Poland in 1939?

 

[rigsby]

As opposed to the British who just tied their own to a post and shot them for cowardliness, though it was PTS

Still when like Haig you send thousands to their deaths whilst sitting a table enjoying the finest food and drink, whilst young men were knee deep in mud, letS deflect the problem on to others and bury bad news

UTS

Not in WW2 they didn't. The Russians, around 300,000 and the Germans around 10,000 certainly did.

Anyway in WW1 Haig actually commuted more than 90% of death sentences and they were all released early. Some of the 304 shot had stolen money from their own platoon and gone AWOL etc. Certainly not all of them were suffering form PTS as many people like to claim 100 years later.

With over 800,000 killed and over 1m injured you certainly had a better change if you were charged with cowardliness.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Tell me please, what countries invaded Poland in 1939?

It's fairly well known that half a million Russian troops invaded Poland just a week after the Nazi's did.This was in accordance with the non-aggression pact signed by Germany and Russia.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

There is a very sound argument to be made, that it in effect it was Russia who won WW2 for the Allied cause.Certainly their losses were greater than that of any other nation state ,including the UK.

Yes but it was Britain who stood alone whilst Hitler and Uncle Joe got into bed together.
Try again, Britain hater.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Can I just ask, why the heck are we poking the bear with this latest Russian Spy business?

The guy is basically a traitor to his country and if a British Spy double crossed us, I'd be expecting the SAS to be paying him/her a visit too. We are walking into a very hazardous and precarious situation by stirring up this hornets nest.

I say wheel him up to the Kremlin in his hospital bed, ring the doorbell and run away. We can then move on with our lives.

I don't think you know too much about espionage do you?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Yes but it was Britain who stood alone whilst Hitler and Uncle Joe got into bed together.
Try again, Britain hater.

In your revisionist version of history, you're forgetting the role of the Commonwealth, which always stood by the UK and the decisive role played by the US when they eventually entered the war.

 

[southendkid]

I've never understood why people argue about who 'won' WW2 for the allies, is it so hard to believe that if we'd pulled out Russia would have lost and if Russia had pulled out then we would have lost?

 

[Benfleet A1]

In your revisionist version of history, you're forgetting the role of the Commonwealth, which always stood by the UK and the decisive role played by the US when they eventually entered the war.

Eventually being the magic word. They had a habit of coming to the party late and profiteering beforehand.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Eventually being the magic word. They had a habit of coming to the party late and profiteering beforehand.

Certainly the key word here.As Robert Saunders points out in his excellent Yes to Europe!:- (Roy) "Jenkins also challenged the romantic image of Britain in 1940, "standing alone" against the continental dictators.Between the fall of France and the declaration of war by the United States and the Soviet Union,he argued,Britain had been compelled to stand alone; but the central focus of its diplomacy had been to find new allies and to return to the Continent in arms.There was "the world of difference" ,he noted tartly,"between standing alone because others have succumbed and you have survived ,and standing alone because others are successfully co-operating and you are sulking in a corner."

 

[Benfleet A1]

Certainly the key word here.As Robert Saunders points out in his excellent Yes to Europe!:- (Roy) "Jenkins also challenged the romantic image of Britain in 1940, "standing alone" against the continental dictators.Between the fall of France and the declaration of war by the United States and the Soviet Union,he argued,Britain had been compelled to stand alone; but the central focus of its diplomacy had been to find new allies and to return to the Continent in arms.There was "the world of difference" ,he noted tartly,"between standing alone because others have succumbed and you have survived ,and standing alone because others are successfully co-operating and you are sulking in a corner."

WTF you are whittering about? Try reading a book by someone without their head up their own arse.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Certainly the key word here.As Robert Saunders points out in his excellent Yes to Europe!:- (Roy) "Jenkins also challenged the romantic image of Britain in 1940, "standing alone" against the continental dictators.Between the fall of France and the declaration of war by the United States and the Soviet Union,he argued,Britain had been compelled to stand alone; but the central focus of its diplomacy had been to find new allies and to return to the Continent in arms.There was "the world of difference" ,he noted tartly,"between standing alone because others have succumbed and you have survived ,and standing alone because others are successfully co-operating and you are sulking in a corner."

Would that be the period where the Vichy French bombed Gibraltar, the French in Syria handed over British airmen to Germany and 9 out of 10 french "rescued" at Dunkirk decided to return to France and give up;- indeed many enlisted and fought for Germany causing there to have been more French loses fighting for the Axis than the Allies during WW2.
Was it the period where British intelligence having broken German code warned Stalin what was coming only to be repeatedly ignored?
The arguments can be made on and on for most of the combative nations however NO Brit should doubt that hard decisions were made and most turned out to be the right ones, for the right reasons and not solely national self interest; which features very large in decisions taken by others.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

WTF you are whittering about? Try reading a book by someone without their head up their own arse.

Sorry if its a little bit too sophisticated for you to follow.:winking: Think Robert Saunders is quoting Roy Jenkins, approvingly, to the effect that while we may have been standing alone in 1940 we were actively trying to find new allies (in the form of the US and the Soviet Union) in order to continue the fight on the Continent.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Sorry if its a little bit too sophisticated for you to follow.:winking: Think Robert Saunders is quoting Roy Jenkins, approvingly, to the effect that while we may have been standing alone in 1940 we were actively trying to find new allies (in the form of the US and the Soviet Union) in order to continue the fight on the Continent.

Russia signed a treaty with Nazi Germany with the sole aim of cutting up Poland. As Massimo quite rightly said, our code breakers warned Stalin of impending attack and he ignored those warnings. Staliin would have stayed out of full on war if it wasn't for the German invasion. He wanted to expand Russian borders but hoped to take advantage once the rest of Europe was on its knees.

As for the Yanks, they were quite happy making money out of suppying via the disgusting Lend Lease scheme, profiteering by any other name. We were still paying that off in the 1990's, nice work if you can get it.

The whole point that you fail or choose not to get is the rest of Europe were either under occupation or non combative so it is a simple fact that British & Commonwealth forces were standing alone until both Russia and the yanks had their hands dealt for them.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Would that be the period where the Vichy French bombed Gibraltar, the French in Syria handed over British airmen to Germany and 9 out of 10 french "rescued" at Dunkirk decided to return to France and give up;- indeed many enlisted and fought for Germany causing there to have been more French loses fighting for the Axis than the Allies during WW2.
Was it the period where British intelligence having broken German code warned Stalin what was coming only to be repeatedly ignored?
The arguments can be made on and on for most of the combative nations however NO Brit should doubt that hard decisions were made and most turned out to be the right ones, for the right reasons and not solely national self interest; which features very large in decisions taken by others.

Russia signed a treaty with Nazi Germany with the sole aim of cutting up Poland. As Massimo quite rightly said, our code breakers warned Stalin of impending attack and he ignored those warnings. Staliin would have stayed out of full on war if it wasn't for the German invasion. He wanted to expand Russian borders but hoped to take advantage once the rest of Europe was on its knees.

As for the Yanks, they were quite happy making money out of suppying via the disgusting Lend Lease scheme, profiteering by any other name. We were still paying that off in the 1990's, nice work if you can get it.

The whole point that you fail or choose not to get is the rest of Europe were either under occupation or non combative so it is a simple fact that British & Commonwealth forces were standing alone until both Russia and the yanks had their hands dealt for them.

The fact remains that WW 2 was brought to a successful conclusion only after the intervention of the US and the Soviet Union on the Allied side.

 

[Benfleet A1]

The fact remains that WW 2 was brought to a successful conclusion only after the intervention of the US and the Soviet Union on the Allied side.

I knew you were a false dawn concerning the country of your birth and I know you hold a deep hatred of its history but I never quite thought you really hated her, until now.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

The fact remains that WW 2 was brought to a successful conclusion only after the intervention of the US and the Soviet Union on the Allied side.

Neither country, USA or USSR joined the cause of the "good, right and free" until and only after they were themselves attacked. USA exploited us (the UK) for all the £s and gold it could get and the USSR kept watch so it could look for an opportunity to expand it's influence and territory.
In essence, and for simplification, morally if your neighbours' house is burning it is not an act of kindness to sell them a bucket and water rights (the USA) or keep a watch to make sure the fire is'nt getting too close but if it is then look to take over some of the burnt property/holdings (USSR).
You should know that a major reason for understanding history is that it often repeats itself & at the moment the USA could be going towards a more isolated path and Russia returning to the cold war bear.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Neither country, USA or USSR joined the cause of the "good, right and free" until and only after they were themselves attacked. USA exploited us (the UK) for all the £s and gold it could get and the USSR kept watch so it could look for an opportunity to expand it's influence and territory.
In essence, and for simplification, morally if your neighbours' house is burning it is not an act of kindness to sell them a bucket and water rights (the USA) or keep a watch to make sure the fire is'nt getting too close but if it is then look to take over some of the burnt property/holdings (USSR).
You should know that a major reason for understanding history is that it often repeats itself & at the moment the USA could be going towards a more isolated path and Russia returning to the cold war bear.

Which rather begs the question, as to why the present UK government is playing hardball with Russia when it has so few (if any ) cards to play?