1066 and all that .... - Page 3

Eric · 11-02-2009, 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by steeljack

Yep , have to agree , I suppose that would be why "Ike" had to take you by your hand and show you the way back into Europe in 44.

Horse manure ... it was the Canadian Army that showed the way in 1942; and we didn't need any help finding Juno Beach in '44 ... I often wonder with what kind of embarassed reticence English historians treat Dieppe.

Eric · 11-02-2009, 20:10

And may Mountbatten rot in the darkest corner of hell

Mancie · 11-02-2009, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

Horse manure ... it was the Canadian Army that showed the way in 1942; and we didn't need any help finding Juno Beach in '44 ... I often wonder with what kind of embarassed reticence English historians treat Dieppe.

True... the Canadians input is sometimes overlooked.. considering they were involved as allies right from the start in 1939.

Eric · 11-02-2009, 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

True... the Canadians input is sometimes overlooked.. considering they were involved as allies right from the start in 1939.

Yup ... but we are used to being ignored ... however, the Dutch remember what the Canadian Army did; and their continued gratitude is well received.

If the First World War had gone on into 1919, Lloyd George would probably have appointed Arthur Currie to command on the Western Front, with John Monash as his deputy. A Canadian and an Australian ... but the war ended (or was put on hold for twenty years) and Haig claimed the "victory". History deals with what happened, not with what could have happened ... but "could have happened" is always a fascinating speculation .... the tiny, seemingly unimportant events and acts which have such momentous consequences when the happen in certain volatile climates. Sarajevo comes to mind, and there are no doubt many others the thinking person can think of. For me, the "what ifs" make history more fascinating that other fiction.

Retlaw · 11-02-2009, 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

No doubt about it.. "we" would never have been able to defeat Germany via landing in France with anything like the forces needed without the yanks..but don't forget it was the Russians that took Berlin and really smashed the Nazis.

The Russians took Berlin because the politicians and leaders of the British and American forces were told to hold back. Otherwise the allied forces would have taken Berlin, and Stalin did'nt want that, he wanted revenge.

Retlaw.

Eric · 11-02-2009, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retlaw

The Russians took Berlin because the politicians and leaders of the British and American forces were told to hold back. Otherwise the allied forces would have taken Berlin, and Stalin did'nt want that, he wanted revenge.

Retlaw.

But when you consider what Hitler had in mind for Moscow, had he captured it, Stalin's attitude isn't surprising. It is one of the troubling things about "history", that, in the West even today, historians and the general public (or at least those who think about things other than Oprah and Jerry Springer) still seem to ignore the sacrifices of the Russian people in The Great Patriotic War. I think it's time I tried to find out how Russian historians treat the contributions of the Western Allies in the defeat of Hitler.

An aside: has anyone read Deighton's "SS-GB"?

steeljack · 11-02-2009, 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

An aside: has anyone read Deighton's "SS-GB"?

sounds interesting http://www.geocities.com/smcleish/rev1248.html
will have to check it out

Mancie · 11-02-2009, 22:16

also not mentioned is the fact that Germany and Russia were Allied at the start of WW2.. if they had remained allies things could have turned out very nasty indeed...apart from the massive forces they could have combined.. there would have been the possibility of a German/Russian nuclear weapon delveloped before the USA.
Facts are that it was Hitler who declared war on Russia and the USA.. nutter!

Retlaw · 11-02-2009, 23:10

[quote=Eric;678568]But when you consider what Hitler had in mind for Moscow, had he captured it, Stalin's attitude isn't surprising. It is one of the troubling things about "history", that, in the West even today, historians and the general public (or at least those who think about things other than Oprah and Jerry Springer) still seem to ignore the sacrifices of the Russian people in The Great Patriotic War. I think it's time I tried to find out how Russian historians treat the contributions of the Western Allies in the defeat of Hitler.
----------
Especially if they mention the Britsh Sailors in the Arctic convoys, who lost their lives, and the R.A.F., escorts. The R.A.F., at times had to land on Russian soil to refuel for the return journey, I remember reading of the Russian distrust, even though they had risked their lives escorting the ships, they were under armed guards whilst in Russia. The Ruskies did give medals to British sailors, but are they mentioned in the official Russian histories.

Retlaw.

Eric · 11-02-2009, 23:39

[quote=Retlaw;678619]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

But when you consider what Hitler had in mind for Moscow, had he captured it, Stalin's attitude isn't surprising. It is one of the troubling things about "history", that, in the West even today, historians and the general public (or at least those who think about things other than Oprah and Jerry Springer) still seem to ignore the sacrifices of the Russian people in The Great Patriotic War. I think it's time I tried to find out how Russian historians treat the contributions of the Western Allies in the defeat of Hitler.
----------
Especially if they mention the Britsh Sailors in the Arctic convoys, who lost their lives, and the R.A.F., escorts. The R.A.F., at times had to land on Russian soil to refuel for the return journey, I remember reading of the Russian distrust, even though they had risked their lives escorting the ships, they were under armed guards whilst in Russia. The Ruskies did give medals to British sailors, but are they mentioned in the official Russian histories.

Retlaw.

Don't know if the Russian historians mention these not inconsiderable contributions, but Alexander Werth does so at length in "Russia at War: 1941-45." And those of us who take the trouble to interest ourselves in these events know the value of "official" histories. I, for one, wouldn't wipe my ass on any of them.

The question comes to mind: what is important? Is it what actually happens? Or how what happens is recorded and presented? In Canada we remember the capture of Vimy Ridge as a pivotal moment in our history, an action in which we showed the whole world that Canadians, fighting as an independent force from an independent nation, had taken control of their own destiny, and could no longer be viewed as an appendage of Great Britain. But for most of the rest of the interested world, Vimy Ridge is merely a part of the failed Battle of Arras, even though, in itself, it can be viewed as the first uncluttered victory after 32 frustrating months of war. In this sense, can history ever be taught without biases?

steeljack · 12-02-2009, 04:10

[quote=Eric;678627]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retlaw

The question comes to mind: what is important? Is it what actually happens? Or how what happens is recorded and presented? In Canada we remember the capture of Vimy Ridge as a pivotal moment in our history, an action in which we showed the whole world that Canadians, fighting as an independent force from an independent nation, had taken control of their own destiny, and could no longer be viewed as an appendage of Great Britain. But for most of the rest of the interested world, Vimy Ridge is merely a part of the failed Battle of Arras, even though, in itself, it can be viewed as the first uncluttered victory after 32 frustrating months of war. In this sense, can history ever be taught without biases?

Would imagine the Aussies and Kiwis think the same about Gallipoli , it gets to be part of the national psyche, simaraily with Iwo Jima and the Americans, and the defeat/retreat at Dunkirk with the Brits

Mancie · 12-02-2009, 04:21

Don't get to glorified in your nations Canada/American... forlorn defeats or victories in the world wars.. they were world wars because this nation was pinicale to anything the USA, Canada..and all the more civilized world as was then known..without Britain the "west" would have been .. in time.. destroyed by the Nazis...you played your part and I myself am grateful.. but don't get carried away boys.. it was an "Allied" victory

steeljack · 12-02-2009, 04:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

Don't get to glorified in your nations Canada/American... forlorn defeats or victories in the world wars.. they were world wars because this nation was pinicale to anything the USA, Canada..and all the more civilized world as was then known..without Britain the "west" would have been .. in time.. destroyed by the Nazis...you played your part and I myself am grateful.. but don't get carried away boys.. it was an "Allied" victory

Don't think anyone is saying it wasn't a "joint effort" just saying that one or two events stick in a nations psyche have a unifying effect ...... think of the Blitz on London and how Queen at the time visited the East End to show she was 'one of them' .

But at the same time, the history of the first and second World Wars as taught/projected when I went to school 50s/60s was that Britain with help from the Dominians that faced the enemy , when in fact it should have Britain united with the Dominians faced the enemy .

realistically speaking ,apart from the ideas of 'kith and kin' there was no need for the Aussies/Kiwis/Canadians to enter what was 'only' a European conflict until the attack on Pearl Harbour and the Japanese sweep southwards

Bit of a wander, But just something to think about ...... what would you think Britain/United Europes response would be if China in the near future decided it needed to expand southwards towards Australia/New Zealand to accomodate its increasing population ? Who do you think would be the first to help them out ?

Mancie · 12-02-2009, 05:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by steeljack

Don't think anyone is saying it wasn't a "joint effort"

realistically speaking ,apart from the ideas of 'kith and kin' there was no need for the Aussies/Kiwis/Canadians to enter what was 'only' a European conflict until the attack on Pearl Harbour and the Japanese sweep southwards

Just have to pull you up on that Roy..the USA .. the American administration if not the public..must have seen long before Pearl harbour.. that if the Nazis controled the whole of Europe then there would be no chance of an invasion from the west.. without a stronghold from which troops and supplies could be amassed for any D day invasion would not been impossible without Britain

The priority was to attack and destroy Germany in Europe...the war against the Japs had to take second row.. and it turned out to be the right decision.
The Japs had more victories in Britsh Asia.. such as Singapore.. than they had in the Pacific.. the Aussies and Kiwis were definatly under threat.. and fought valiantly.

Eric · 12-02-2009, 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

Just have to pull you up on that Roy..the USA .. the American administration if not the public..must have seen long before Pearl harbour.. that if the Nazis controled the whole of Europe then there would be no chance of an invasion from the west.. without a stronghold from which troops and supplies could be amassed for any D day invasion would not been impossible without Britain

The priority was to attack and destroy Germany in Europe...the war against the Japs had to take second row.. and it turned out to be the right decision.
The Japs had more victories in Britsh Asia.. such as Singapore.. than they had in the Pacific.. the Aussies and Kiwis were definatly under threat.. and fought valiantly.

This seems reasonable ... but how much of it is hindsight ... particularly the "must have seen" bit. History gives us a viewpoint that was quite probably not available to those in power at the time. One can fume in frustration that British and French political military leaders did not act against Hitler in the 30s ... when he expanded the German Army to 35 divisions, when he moved into the Rhineland, when he started constructing U-Boats and the Luftwaffe, when the .... we can go on for a long time but I think I have made my point. Quite often, war aims develop after the fact .... maybe even after the war is over ... it is a way that history makes sense of the senseless.