VE DAY

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-10 1:41 PM

John52 - 2017-05-10 8:30 AM

pelmetman - 2017-05-10 8:12 AM

John52 - 2017-05-10 7:30 AM

pelmetman - 2017-05-09 5:45 PMSo do you think Corbyn would defend the UK if we were attacked? ;-) ........

Depends who you mean by UK.He won't defend the likes of Sir Philip GreenThats why he has got the Establishment worried.

I was referring to his refusal to push the button if we were nuked, or kill those who would kill us *-) ........http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/23/jeremy-corbyn-might-not-authorise-strike-against-isil-leader/"Labour's credibility on defence is in tatters after Jeremy Corbyn ruled out **ever** using Britain’s nuclear deterrent, refused to back a drone strike to kill Isil’s leader and said he would suspend air strikes on Syria."

Listen to what he says, not the Torygraph quote of it. or the defence ''Experts' whose salary depends on Britain's military spending. *-) What he said was no first use of nuclear weapons How do other countries like Germany manage without them?Who benefits most from them?If you are royalty or the Duke of Westminster inheriting £10bn tax free, you might want nuclear weapons to defend it.Wheras if you have nothing you might not want the Government closing homeless shelters to pay for nuclear weapons.

You really are one pathetically obsessive individual.  IS THERE ANY THREAD where you find it possible to respond to the topic without throwing in some pathetically predictable irrelevant rubbish in order to include those you clearly have an obsession with.......Royalty, Military, Defence, BoT spending to name just a few?

You even managed to hijack Veronica's innocent topic to remember those on VE Day................shame on you.

But I do want to remember those on VE Day - the ones who Churchill forgot and denied medals to who had the worst job of the war on the Arctic Convoys. I have the greatest respect for them because they must have beloved they were giving their lives for our freedom because thats what they were told. I just believe we should be honest about it. They were taking our supplies which were much needed here, and giving them to save Stalin who was worse than Hitler. That does not mean they weren't Honorable men - they were. But they were misled. and we should be honest about that so we can learn lessons from it instead of rushing into more disastrous wars.

[Charles]

Stalin was our ally at the time, pushing back against the power crazed German nutcase trying to take over Europe. But surely everyone knows this?!

[John52]

Charles - 2017-05-10 3:03 PM

 

Stalin was our ally at the time, pushing back against the power crazed German nutcase trying to take over Europe. But surely everyone knows this?!

 

What we don't know is the Peace deal Rudolf Hess was offering us, because a prison was kept specially for him alone so he never got chance to tell us.

We could have had a deal that allowed us to sit back whilst our 2 worst enemies, Hitler and Stalin, annihilated each other. Then we would have entered the Cold War a lot stronger, with Stalin a lot weaker.

Unfortunately Churchill was one of those politicians, like Thatcher, who needed an enemy :-(

Portillo's secret Britain TV programme revealed Churchill wanted to fight Stalin after the war - enlisting the remnants of the German Army we had been fighting against. We would have faced the weapons our Arctic Convoys had given their lives to deliver to Stalin.. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed and Churchill, no longer having an enemy to fight, was ousted.

[Charles]

What if Hitler would have overpowered Stalin and taken over Russia? Without the need to keep forces in the west the German army would have been much stronger in the East. The war could have dragged on into the nuclear age, god forbid... And I wonder what kind of super power the Third Reich would have been.

 

Anyway It's alright saying what Churchill should have done with hind sight.

[Bulletguy]

John52 - 2017-05-10 2:37 PM

RogerC - 2017-05-10 1:41 PM

John52 - 2017-05-10 8:30 AM

pelmetman - 2017-05-10 8:12 AM

John52 - 2017-05-10 7:30 AM

pelmetman - 2017-05-09 5:45 PMSo do you think Corbyn would defend the UK if we were attacked? ;-) ........

Depends who you mean by UK.He won't defend the likes of Sir Philip GreenThats why he has got the Establishment worried.

I was referring to his refusal to push the button if we were nuked, or kill those who would kill us *-) ........http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/23/jeremy-corbyn-might-not-authorise-strike-against-isil-leader/"Labour's credibility on defence is in tatters after Jeremy Corbyn ruled out **ever** using Britain’s nuclear deterrent, refused to back a drone strike to kill Isil’s leader and said he would suspend air strikes on Syria."

Listen to what he says, not the Torygraph quote of it. or the defence ''Experts' whose salary depends on Britain's military spending. *-) What he said was no first use of nuclear weapons How do other countries like Germany manage without them?Who benefits most from them?If you are royalty or the Duke of Westminster inheriting £10bn tax free, you might want nuclear weapons to defend it.Wheras if you have nothing you might not want the Government closing homeless shelters to pay for nuclear weapons.

You really are one pathetically obsessive individual.  IS THERE ANY THREAD where you find it possible to respond to the topic without throwing in some pathetically predictable irrelevant rubbish in order to include those you clearly have an obsession with.......Royalty, Military, Defence, BoT spending to name just a few?

You even managed to hijack Veronica's innocent topic to remember those on VE Day................shame on you.

But I do want to remember those on VE Day - the ones who Churchill forgot and denied medals to who had the worst job of the war on the Arctic Convoys. I have the greatest respect for them because they must have beloved they were giving their lives for our freedom because thats what they were told. I just believe we should be honest about it. They were taking our supplies which were much needed here, and giving them to save Stalin who was worse than Hitler. That does not mean they weren't Honorable men - they were. But they were misled. and we should be honest about that so we can learn lessons from it instead of rushing into more disastrous wars.

They weren't the only "forgotten" ones John, not so much by the public but more by Government. Churchill never mentioned Bomber Command in his speech at the end of the war and there was no official service medal given either. An unofficial medal was minted 40 years after the war. Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris was a controversial figure, mainly over his carpet bombing tactics on Dresden, Cologne, Dortmund, Hamburg, Berlin and Leipzig. Harris was such a controversial figure, a memorial to him only got erected in 1992 eight years after his death yet crews of Bomber command suffered a very high fatality rate, almost 45%.There is now also a large memorial to Bomber Command at Green Park in London, the funding of which came by some unusual sources! One was Robin Gibb (Bee Gee chap), and John Caudwell, mobile phone bloke who has a 'palace' near me, but he's a billionaire so could have funded it single handed and never noticed!There were some characters from Bomber command who survived the war and possibly the best known being Wing Commander Ken Wallis, better known for building and flying "Little Nellie", the Autogyro he flew in the Bond movie, "You Only Live Twice". Some people would see Wallis as a wacky old eccentric whilst others might say he was plain "nuts" or bonkers as he was still flying around in these things in his 90's! Lot's of clips of him on YouTube. He made 34 world record flights in Autogyros with eight records still unbroken at the time of his death in 2013 aged 97.Here is Wallis firing up one of his many Autogyro's for a quick whizz around the skies! Just as any 95 year old would do eh?!! :D

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-05-10 2:37 PM

RogerC - 2017-05-10 1:41 PM

John52 - 2017-05-10 8:30 AM

pelmetman - 2017-05-10 8:12 AM

John52 - 2017-05-10 7:30 AM

pelmetman - 2017-05-09 5:45 PMSo do you think Corbyn would defend the UK if we were attacked? ;-) ........

Depends who you mean by UK.He won't defend the likes of Sir Philip GreenThats why he has got the Establishment worried.

I was referring to his refusal to push the button if we were nuked, or kill those who would kill us *-) ........http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/23/jeremy-corbyn-might-not-authorise-strike-against-isil-leader/"Labour's credibility on defence is in tatters after Jeremy Corbyn ruled out **ever** using Britain’s nuclear deterrent, refused to back a drone strike to kill Isil’s leader and said he would suspend air strikes on Syria."

Listen to what he says, not the Torygraph quote of it. or the defence ''Experts' whose salary depends on Britain's military spending. *-) What he said was no first use of nuclear weapons How do other countries like Germany manage without them?Who benefits most from them?If you are royalty or the Duke of Westminster inheriting £10bn tax free, you might want nuclear weapons to defend it.Wheras if you have nothing you might not want the Government closing homeless shelters to pay for nuclear weapons.

You really are one pathetically obsessive individual.  IS THERE ANY THREAD where you find it possible to respond to the topic without throwing in some pathetically predictable irrelevant rubbish in order to include those you clearly have an obsession with.......Royalty, Military, Defence, BoT spending to name just a few?

You even managed to hijack Veronica's innocent topic to remember those on VE Day................shame on you.

But I do want to remember those on VE Day - the ones who Churchill forgot and denied medals to who had the worst job of the war on the Arctic Convoys. I have the greatest respect for them because they must have beloved they were giving their lives for our freedom because thats what they were told. I just believe we should be honest about it. They were taking our supplies which were much needed here, and giving them to save Stalin who was worse than Hitler. That does not mean they weren't Honorable men - they were. But they were misled. and we should be honest about that so we can learn lessons from it instead of rushing into more disastrous wars.

So ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!

IS THERE ANY THREAD where you find it possible to respond to the topic without throwing in some pathetically predictable irrelevant rubbish in order to include those you clearly have an obsession with.......Royalty, Military, Defence, BoT spending to name just a few?

Seeing as you have added another 'line', a totally simplistic viewpoint I might add, to your seemingly 'focused on the little guy' trend (I prefer not to select any of those who 'went before'....in my book they 'all' deserve and have my greatest respect....'At the going down of the sun and in the morning.....We will remember them''.......I don't cherry pick, as you seem wont to do, which or who to remember....I simply remember 'them'. 

Despite your not answering my question I will comment on those you choose to remember and in your own inimitable style.......with a barbed comment implying they were stupid and just did as they were told. The Arctic convoys served to support 'Russia' which was in dire need of supplies fending off Operation Barbarossa which was keeping vast numbers of German troops occupied on the Eastern Front.  Had Russia been weak/weaker and quickly overrun due to lack of materiel the number of German troops freed up to return to the Western/European front would have meant the chances of a German victory would have been greatly enhanced and most certainly ever greater numbers of Allied servicemen and women and innocent civilians would have been killed/slaughtered/murdered/tortured/executed/massacred.  So Hitler or Stalin....you choose and consider this "were those Arctic convoy heroes really misled as you claim they were or is it you who doesn't understand????"

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-10 5:40 PM

You really are one pathetically obsessive individual.  IS THERE ANY THREAD where you find it possible to respond to the topic without throwing in some pathetically predictable irrelevant rubbish

I was remembering those who served in the Arctic Convoys who Churchill ignored in his VE Day speech and denied medals. I don't think even you would see them as irrelevant rubbish, so guess you are just having a hissy fit or something. I hope they never put you in charge of a gun.

Oh and by the way if Hitler could have beaten 35000 tanks with equipment that wouldn't work in the Russian winter, and still been strong enough to attack us he would have got an atom bomb like the Japanese. It was the American atom bomb that finished the war remember.

Lets be honest, it was the Americans who bailed us of both World Wars, and the Falklands with their satellites. We have been paying for it ever since. :-S

[John52]

We could, of course, have had our own satellites if the British Government, in its wisdom hadn't decided there was 'no commercial future in satellites *-) cancelled our successful satellite programme, to spend the money on their disastrous rich man's aeroplane (Concorde) instead. >:-)

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-05-10 6:39 PM

 

and the Falklands with their satellites. We have been paying for it ever since. :-S

 

So exactly how did the American satellites help us during the Falklands war John? :-| ......

 

I'll tell you what didn't help us was the French supplied Exocet missiles >:-( ........

 

You can stuff your conspiracy theories where the sun doesn't shine >:-) ......

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17256975

 

As you can see folks..... being stabbed in the back by our near neighbours is a regular habit ;-) .......

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-05-10 6:57 PM

So exactly how did the American satellites help us during the Falklands war John? :-| ......

By letting us see what the Argies were doing when they couldn't see what we were doing. Its called 'intelligence' - you wouldn't understand ;-)

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-10 6:57 PM

I'll tell you what didn't help us was the French supplied Exocet missiles >:-( ........

...... or the military equipment Britiain had supplied to Argentina and Argentinian military officers they trained at Sandhurst :-S

We could have had more support from France if Thatcher hadn't rubbed them up the wrong way. :-(

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-05-10 7:11 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-10 6:57 PM

So exactly how did the American satellites help us during the Falklands war John? :-| ......

By letting us see what the Argies were doing when they couldn't see what we were doing. Its called 'intelligence' - you wouldn't understand ;-)

 

 

So quite how did they let us see what they were doing?......Coz I'm buggered if I can remember such high tech info in any of the operation rooms I was working in during my 10 years in the navy (74 to 84)?......

 

BTW I think you're confusing intelligence with loony left wing b*****ks ;-) .....

 

Or perhaps you've confused satellite communication with Google Earth (lol) .......

 

 

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-05-10 7:46 PM

 

I'm buggered if I can remember such high tech info in any of the operation rooms I was working in during my 10 years in the navy (74 to 84)?......

You mean they didn't show it to everyone *-)

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-05-10 7:11 PM

 

...... or the military equipment Britiain had supplied to Argentina and Argentinian military officers they trained at Sandhurst :-S

 

That's the MOD for you *-) ........They've always been our other enemy >:-( .......

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-05-10 7:51 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-05-10 7:46 PM

 

I'm buggered if I can remember such high tech info in any of the operation rooms I was working in during my 10 years in the navy (74 to 84)?......

You mean they didn't show it to everyone *-)

 

No I mean it wasn't invented *-) .......The satellite imagery that you see now wasn't around back then :-| ......

 

The computers on board ships in those days were not like now days.......try and remember the days before internet had been invented :D ......or mobile phones 8-) ......

 

 

[Bulletguy]

pelmetman - 2017-05-10 6:57 PM

 

John52 - 2017-05-10 6:39 PM

 

and the Falklands with their satellites. We have been paying for it ever since. :-S

 

So exactly how did the American satellites help us during the Falklands war John? :-| ......

 

I'll tell you what didn't help us was the French supplied Exocet missiles >:-( ........

France wasn't the only country by a long chalk.

 

Israel

 

Israel provided intelligence about US-UK talks, UK movements in Gibraltar, and tried to acquire Exocets to triangulate via Peru to Argentina.

A-4’s, Mirages and IAI Daggers spare parts were sent to Argentina.

 

Libya

 

A 707 of the Argentine Air Force took off from Libya in 1982 carrying SA-7 MANPADS missile. They were barely used because the troops had no training on them and only read the manual.

Morter shells, .50 cal ammo, air to air french missiles and other military supply was sent to Argentina.

 

Peru

 

Peruvians sent bombs and transfered 5 IAI Mara’s to the Argentine Air Force to reinforce the border with Chile while the FAA fighters where deployed in the south and the rest protecting Buenos Aires and Cordoba.

Peru tried to buy exocets from France to transfer them to Argentina but they were blocked by the UK.

 

Brazil

 

Brazil informed about every movement made by british ships they saw in the Atlantic and deny the UK ships their ports to refueling or repairs (except for a submarine that was sinking for humanitarian reasons). They did the same with their airplanes.

A UK bomber in emergency got close to brazilian air space requesting landing. The Brazilian Air Force intercepted and landed the plane in Brazil. After heated diplomatic conflicts with UK Brazil agreed to return the plane, but the missiles on it were removed and captured by Brazil.

 

Nicaragua and Dominican Republic

 

Offered troops trained in the School of the Americas where they were trained by Argentine commandos.

 

Soviet Union

 

Offered some intel and 100 Mig-23 with missiles but were rejected by the anticommunist military junta in order to keep good relationships with the USA.

 

USA

 

Neutral in the sovereign dispute and supporting UK in the conflict. They gave satellite information without knowing it. As the excellent relationships and collaboration with the NASA and the Argentine space program, were partners in and earth observatory constellation. As those satellites supposedly did not have resolution to search for the Task Force the access for Argentina was never cut. A woman working in the program discovered she could detect the task force by looking for water disturbances left by several ships in formation and requested several scans of specific ocean sectors that were used to track the task force and coordinate attacks.

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2017-05-10 8:33 PM

A woman working in the program discovered she could detect the task force by looking for water disturbances left by several ships in formation and requested several scans of specific ocean sectors that were used to track the task force and coordinate attacks.

 

From space?....... by a satellite that passed over that area once every 24 hours?....... (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Maybe they can track matelot turds ? 8-) .......

 

 

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-05-10 6:39 PM

RogerC - 2017-05-10 5:40 PMYou really are one pathetically obsessive individual.  IS THERE ANY THREAD where you find it possible to respond to the topic without throwing in some pathetically predictable irrelevant rubbish

I was remembering those who served in the Arctic Convoys who Churchill ignored in his VE Day speech and denied medals. I don't think even you would see them as irrelevant rubbish, so guess you are just having a hissy fit or something. I hope they never put you in charge of a gun.Oh and by the way if Hitler could have beaten 35000 tanks with equipment that wouldn't work in the Russian winter, and still been strong enough to attack us he would have got an atom bomb like the Japanese. It was the American atom bomb that finished the war remember.Lets be honest, it was the Americans who bailed us of both World Wars, and the Falklands with their satellites. We have been paying for it ever since. :-S

 

I DON'T ....so please stop trying to paint my comments in the same disgraceful light as your inane rubbish.

It is clear that you are unable to follow a thread without twisting it out of all recognition in your replies.  I was referring to your inclusion of the Duke of Westminster and his inherited fortune when you 'inserted' that claptrap irrelevant nonsense in your post regarding nuclear weapons.

Oh and as has already been pointed out the satellite imagery was not of the quality of today, was hindered by atrocious weather conditions and again as has already been pointed out to you before the greatest asset in locating and targeting Argentine forces was our SAS/SBS who were on the ground in the FI way before the task force landed it's troops.

You also wrote (I have added the numbering in order to clarify my replies):

1..And I respect why some want to present the wars as a great success to 'justify' the price they paid. 

But then that encourages them to get involved in more wars. 

2..So I think we should be honest about what really happened, and what it achieved. 

3..So we might learn from the mistakes and stop them keep happening all over again. 

Then the sacrifice they made might be worthwhile.

As unlikely as it might seem I agree with you on one point.....number 3.  However as long as the human race contains those of ambition and are in positions of power, where politicians feel threatened, where despots have no compunction in delivering genocide it is I fear a forlorn hope.....however I do not agree it needs the first part of your comment at 3 to bring about the last part......Keeping peoples free or released from oppression, invasion etc is always an honourable thing to do and those that give of themselves under those considerations deserve to be thanked and remembered regardless of whether or not 'lessons are learned'.

Point 1.

Why would anyone paint a war as a success in order to justify the price they paid and consequently encourage further wars?  Unless of course you are looking at 'war' from the viewpoint of an aggressor who has just won.  I however am looking at it from 'our' viewpoint which is one of responding to an aggressor.

Point 2:

Honest about what really happened and what it achieved?

Were 'we' not honest about what really happened?  Were we not honest about what it achieved?  I don't get your point.

At risk of getting your 'target' incorrect I will assume you are referring to the wars mentioned in this thread....WWI/WWII & Falklands conflict.

So WWI.  We all know, or are able to research why WWI happened so that really is not an issue.  What it achieved?  Apart from death and destruction on all sides the Allies "defeated the aggressor" which is surely the main and most honourable of reasons for going to war.

WWII......What happened?  Again a rather simplistic (brevity in consideration of forum space and my time) answer.....Nazi's take Czechoslovakia, Hitler invades Poland.....war declared.  

What it achieved.....simplistic answer....it put a stop to the aggressor nations ambitions, halted the occupation and subjugation of self determining nations by the Nazis and other Axis powers.  Restored freedoms to those nations subjected to invasion and domination by

aggressor nations.

Falkland Islands:

Simple...Argentina invades to relieve internal pressures and attempt to divert public opinion elsewhere.  UK responds militarily and ejects the aggressor nation..........so what is not open and honest about that?

Now I hope you really already knew those things but one can never be too certain.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-05-11 1:54 PM

 

Hitler invades Poland.....war declared.  

What it achieved.....simplistic answer....it put a stop to the aggressor nations ambitions, halted the occupation and subjugation of self determining nations by the Nazis and other Axis powers.  Restored freedoms to those nations subjected to invasion and domination

 

No it didn't because we left Poland occupied by Stalin who was worse than Hitler.

[Charles]

No he wasn't. Hitler started WORLD WAR 2 where millions died. Off the top of my head I think did 9 million Germans die? Plus god knows how many others.

Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler did, but at least wasn't dreaming of genocide and world domination.

[Charles]

AND it's Hitler's fault we left Poland to Stalin. If we'd have taken on Russia at the end of the war we would have been as bad as Hitler.

[John52]

Charles - 2017-05-11 6:53 PM

 

No he wasn't. Hitler started WORLD WAR 2 where millions died. Off the top of my head I think did 9 million Germans die? Plus god knows how many others.

Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler did, but at least wasn't dreaming of genocide and world domination.

Charles - 2017-05-11 6:56 PM

 

AND it's Hitler's fault we left Poland to Stalin. If we'd have taken on Russia at the end of the war we would have been as bad as Hitler.

I suppose Rudolf Hess would have pointed out it was Britain who declared war on Germany. But he was kept in a prison on his own for the rest of his life so we were never allowed to hear what peace deal he was offering us, so we could have sat back whilst our 2 worst enemies, Hitler and Stalin, annihilated each other. :-S

[John52]

If we had gone to war with Russia as Churchill wanted, we would have been facing the weapons we took them on the Arctic Convoys. So the Merchant seamen who had the worst job of the war were denied medals and ignored in Churchill's VE Day speech. :-(

Like those in Bomber Command - their carrying out Churchill's drunken orders had become an embarrassment to him, so he ignored them.

But we should remember them as well on VE Day.

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-05-12 8:47 AMIf we had gone to war with Russia as Churchill wanted, we would have been facing the weapons we took them on the Arctic Convoys. So the Merchant seamen who had the worst job of the war were denied medals and ignored in Churchill's VE Day speech. :-( Like those in Bomber Command - their carrying out Churchill's drunken orders had become an embarrassment to him, so he ignored them.But we should remember them as well on VE Day.

You really can't resist the outpouring of bile can you?

Had it not been for Churchill we would all be Germans today so yet again you chose to unnecessarily attack those who served.

In commenting that Bomber Command carried out Churchill's 'drunken orders' you also insult those who were in the positions of implementing government policy....the Group Captains, Air Commodores etc etc who were men of integrity and intelligence.  To simply state Churchill issued 'drunken orders' and everyone jumped to obey is simply a sick untrue thing to say and insults everyone concerned.

You really are one bitter and twisted individual.

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-05-12 2:01 PM

 

John52 - 2017-05-12 8:47 AMIf we had gone to war with Russia as Churchill wanted, we would have been facing the weapons we took them on the Arctic Convoys. So the Merchant seamen who had the worst job of the war were denied medals and ignored in Churchill's VE Day speech. :-( Like those in Bomber Command - their carrying out Churchill's drunken orders had become an embarrassment to him, so he ignored them.But we should remember them as well on VE Day.

You really can't resist the outpouring of bile can you? Had it not been for Churchill we would all be Germans today so yet again you chose to unnecessarily attack those who served..................

Hmmmmm. Shouldn't Roosevelt get a look-in here somewhere?

[Muswell]

Brian Kirby - 2017-05-12 2:23 PM

 

RogerC - 2017-05-12 2:01 PM

 

John52 - 2017-05-12 8:47 AMIf we had gone to war with Russia as Churchill wanted, we would have been facing the weapons we took them on the Arctic Convoys. So the Merchant seamen who had the worst job of the war were denied medals and ignored in Churchill's VE Day speech. :-( Like those in Bomber Command - their carrying out Churchill's drunken orders had become an embarrassment to him, so he ignored them.But we should remember them as well on VE Day.

You really can't resist the outpouring of bile can you? Had it not been for Churchill we would all be Germans today so yet again you chose to unnecessarily attack those who served..................

Hmmmmm. Shouldn't Roosevelt get a look-in here somewhere?

 

and, like it or not, Stalin? The Russian losses in the war were colossal.