Will you wear a poppy 2013?

IrishProd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You sir, haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

Oh look, another pointless post from Fred who cannot even address the points I made and the facts presented, and instead attempts to pathetically engage in ad hominem remarks.

Surprise, surprise. :pac:

Matt_Trakker

bumper234 wrote: »

At Yalta, the negotiations went very much in Stalin's favour, but this was because Roosevelt wanted Russian help in the Pacific, and was prepared to agree to almost anything as long as Stalin agreed to go to war with Japan.

Although the Conference appeared successful, however, behind the scenes, tension was growing, particularly about reparations, and about Poland.

After the conference, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt that ‘The Soviet Union has become a danger to the free world.’ And on their return home both he and Roosevelt were criticised for giving away too much to the Soviets:

Now when there are 3 people in negotiations and 2 of the 3 (America & Russia) agree to something then it's kinda hard for the 3rd person to change the terms with their lone voice right?

Accordingly, Stalin made it clear that some of his demands regarding Poland were not negotiable: the Russians were to gain territory from the eastern portion of Poland and Poland was to compensate for that by extending its Western borders, thereby forcing out millions of Germans. Reluctantly, Stalin promised free elections in Poland, notwithstanding the recently installed Communist puppet government. However, it soon became apparent that Stalin had no intentions of holding true to his promise of free elections. In fact, it was fifty years after the Yalta Conference that the Poles first had the opportunity to hold free elections.

However, Roosevelt was oblivious to Stalin's objectives because of Stalin's excellent 'poker face,' and he readily met Stalin's price, leaving the Yalta Conference exuberant because Stalin had agreed to enter the Pacific war against Japan.

But it was all Churchill's doing right :rolleyes:

Roosevelt needed Stalin, Churchill didn't at that stage of the war.

Anyway, from your emboldened post, we can all clearly see that old Franklin and Winston, even though they outnumbered old uncle Joe at the negotiating table, weren't interested in helping out a wee country like Poland, or the like of Czech, Slovakia, etc. The irony of course being that Churchilll had been more than happy to use Poland as an excuse to go to war in 1939. :rolleyes:

You cannot take off your patriotic blinkers for even a moment and accept the truth of the matter. :rolleyes:
A bit sad really.

bumper234

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Roosevelt needed Stalin, Churchill didn't at that stage of the war.

Anyway, from your emboldened post, we can all clearly see that old Franklin and Winston, even though they outnumbered old uncle Joe at the negotiating table, weren't interested in helping out a wee country like Poland, or the like of Czech, Slovakia, etc. The irony of course being that Churchilll had been more than happy to use Poland as an excuse to go to war in 1939. :rolleyes:

You cannot take off your patriotic blinkers for even a moment and accept the truth of the matter. :rolleyes:
A bit sad really.

We can also see that Roosevelt needed Stalin to help with the war in the Pacific and he was willing to agree to almost anything to to achieve this. I will take of my "Patriotic" blinkers when you take off your Brit bashing hat

And too funny you thinking that Churchill actually WANTED to go to war with the Nazis and "used" Poland as an excuse:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

IrishProd wrote: »

Oh look, another pointless post from Fred who cannot even address the points I made and the facts presented, and instead attempts to pathetically engage in ad hominem remarks.

Surprise, surprise. :pac:

What points did you make, that republicans and blue shirts fought on different sides in the Spanish civil war?

Yoikes, you'll be telling me bears crap in the woods next.

T runner

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What selfish reasons?

To ensure the liberation of Britain and her "real" allies which did not include liberation of Poland as Poles were deliberately mislead to believe.

Your question.

Do you think the men who ordered and carried out the atrocities on the civilian population of northern Germany should benefit (should have benefited) from the sale of poppies?

Fratton Fred

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Roosevelt needed Stalin, Churchill didn't at that stage of the war.

Anyway, from your emboldened post, we can all clearly see that old Franklin and Winston, even though they outnumbered old uncle Joe at the negotiating table, weren't interested in helping out a wee country like Poland, or the like of Czech, Slovakia, etc. The irony of course being that Churchilll had been more than happy to use Poland as an excuse to go to war in 1939. :rolleyes:

You cannot take off your patriotic blinkers for even a moment and accept the truth of the matter. :rolleyes:
A bit sad really.

Churchill declared war?

Have we slipped in to a different reality?

bumper234

T runner wrote: »

To ensure the liberation of Britain and her "real" allies which did not include liberation of Poland as Poles were deliberately mislead to believe.

Your question.

Do you think the men who ordered and carried out the atrocities on the civilian population of northern Germany should benefit (should have benefited) from the sale of poppies?

Which atrocities are you talking about?

Fratton Fred

T runner wrote: »

To ensure the liberation of Britain and her "real" allies which did not include liberation of Poland as Poles were deliberately mislead to believe.

Your question.

Do you think the men who ordered and carried out the atrocities on the civilian population of northern Germany should benefit (should have benefited) from the sale of poppies?

Britain did not need liberating though, in case you hadn't noticed and by the timeout Yalta, France et al were practically all freed anyway.

So, I'll ask again, what selfish reasons?

Should RAF pilots have benefited from the sale of poppies? Yes, of course.

Fratton Fred

Bambi wrote: »

It's probably worth noting that the soviets invaded Poland along with the Germans but the british didn't declare war on russia in response.


Friends like that....

Yeah, that would have worked out well. Britain and France declaring war on Germany and then Russia.

Comments like that to be honest are just stupid.

T runner

bumper234 wrote: »

You mean like the constant fire bombing of London by the Luftwaffe against the civilian population?

Ok i see. So deliberate attacks on innocent civilian populations is OK as long as your enemy starts it?

Did the women, children and babies of northern Germany order or carry out the (despicable) blitz attacks on London and other European cities? No they did not, the remaining guys responsible for that were tried in Nurmberg.

Please answer honestly. Why were men, women, children and babies murdered in their 100s of thousands in Nortehrn Germany when the war was already over? Do you condone the men who ordered and carried out this action? Yes? Shame on you!

No? Then how can you condone monies that went to/is going to these de facto war criminals from poppy sales?

Fratton Fred

T runner wrote: »

Ok i see. So deliberate attacks on innocent civilian populations is OK as long as your enemy starts it?

Did the women, children and babies of northern Germany order or carry out the (despicable) blitz attacks on London and other European cities? No they did not, the remaining guys responsible for that were tried in Nurmberg.

Please answer honestly. Why were men, women, children and babies murdered in their 100s of thousands in Nortehrn Germany when the war was already over? Do you condone the men who ordered and carried out this action? Yes? Shame on you!

No? Then how can you condone monies that went to/is going to these de facto war criminals from poppy sales?

Stop being a drama queen. No one van defend the raids on Dresden, but to claim woman and babies were targeted is ridiculous in the extreme.

Matt_Trakker

bumper234 wrote: »

We can also see that Roosevelt needed Stalin to help with the war in the Pacific and he was willing to agree to almost anything to to achieve this. I will take of my "Patriotic" blinkers when you take off your Brit bashing hat

And too funny you thinking that Churchill actually WANTED to go to war with the Nazis and "used" Poland as an excuse:rolleyes:

Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and a member of the War Cabinet, as he had been during the first part of the First World War. When they were informed, the Board of the Admiralty sent a signal to the Fleet: "Winston is back".[160][161] In this position, he proved to be one of the highest-profile ministers during the so-called "Phoney War", when the only noticeable action was at sea. Churchill advocated the pre-emptive occupation of the neutral Norwegian iron-ore port of Narvik and the iron mines in Kiruna, Sweden, early in the war. However, Chamberlain and the rest of the War Cabinet disagreed, and the operation was delayed until the successful German invasion of Norway.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, Churchill did want war, as we can see, he even wanted to invade neutral Norway & Sweden.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Churchill declared war?

Have we slipped in to a different reality?

haha, opps, of course. :rolleyes:
Sorry about that, got caught up in the moment there and forgot about Neville Chamberlain, you must excuse me, sure hasn't most of history forgotten about that meek old dear.

Judgement Day

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Churchill declared war?

Have we slipped in to a different reality?

:rolleyes: Some here could do with reading this as a starting off point before posting again: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/british_declaration_of_war.htm

bumper234

T runner wrote: »

Ok i see. So deliberate attacks on innocent civilian populations is OK as long as your enemy starts it?

Did the women, children and babies of northern Germany order or carry out the (despicable) blitz attacks on London and other European cities? No they did not, the remaining guys responsible for that were tried in Nurmberg.

Did the men women and children of London, Birmingham, Manchester Invade Poland and start a war? DThe fact that it was home to major rail transport and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort comes into it.

T runner wrote: »

Please answer honestly. Why were men, women, children and babies murdered in their 100s of thousands in Nortehrn Germany when the war was already over? Do you condone the men who ordered and carried out this action? Yes? Shame on you!

No? Then how can you condone monies that went to/is going to these de facto war criminals from poppy sales?

Because the Nazi war machine was still alive and Hitler was sending out old men and teenagers to fight his war.

Matt_Trakker

bumper234 wrote: »

Did the men women and children of London, Birmingham, Manchester Invade Poland and start a war? DThe fact that it was home to major rail transport and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort comes into it.



Because the Nazi war machine was still alive and Hitler was sending out old men and teenagers to fight his war.

If that's the case then why didn't Britain, the US and Russia bomb the sh!te out of the Silesia (Sląsk) region of Poland, that area was the hub of Germany's war effort truth be told, More tanks, bombs etc were made there than anywhere else during the war.
Do you know how many bombs fell in Silesia from the allies?
None.
Why? They wanted to carve it up among themselves once the war was over.

You really do need to learn more about history if you are going to continue to post about it.

dublinbhoy88

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Stop being a drama queen. No one van defend the raids on Dresden, but to claim woman and babies were targeted is ridiculous in the extreme.

(During first World War): “Perhaps the next time round the way to do it will be to kill women, children and the civilian population.”
Churchill quote,ridiculous eh?

T runner

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Should RAF pilots have benefited from the sale of poppies? Yes, of course.

Thats not what i asked. Should the men who ordered the bombing and bombed northern Germany DELIBERATELY targetting and killing innocent civilains in their 100's of thousands.. men, woman, children, babies...indiscriminate.....Should these men benefit from poppy sales? And dont be a coward, show some of that Brit back bone. Answer the question youve been asked. Dont cower behind another question!

Britain did not need liberating though, in case you hadn't noticed and by the timeout Yalta, France et al were practically all freed anyway.

So, I'll ask again, what selfish reasons?

Churchill covertly agreed with Stalin that the Atlantic charter did not apply to Poland or the Balkan states.

The Charter stated the ideal goals of the war: no territorial aggrandizement; no territorial changes made against the wishes of the people; restoration of self-government to those deprived of it; free access to raw materials; reduction of trade restrictions; global cooperation to secure better economic and social conditions for all; freedom from fear and want; freedom of the seas; and abandonment of the use of force, as well as disarmament of aggressor nations

Thats what i said. Putting Britain and its "real" allies interests above those of those of Poland and others. Thats what allowed Stalin to sit by and watch as 200,000 Poles dies in the Warsaw rising believing help was on its way from its "allies". Churchill and Stalin had agreed years earlier that no help would come.

Matt_Trakker

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

(During first World War): “Perhaps the next time round the way to do it will be to kill women, children and the civilian population.”
Churchill quote,ridiculous eh?

Dresden was bombed for the same reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were.

To completely and utterly demoralize the German/Japanese soldiers. Civilian targets were the order of the day and the West totally got away with those disgusting war crimes.

Wile E. Coyote

I look forward to this thread every year. The stupidity and inability for most people to see the situation from someone elses point of view is as frustrating as it is humerous. I mostly love the posters who support the poppy appeal but don't actually realise what it's for.

bumper234

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Yes, Churchill did want war, as we can see, he even wanted to invade neutral Norway & Sweden.



haha, opps, of course. :rolleyes:
Sorry about that, got caught up in the moment there and forgot about Neville Chamberlain, you must excuse me, sure hasn't most of history forgotten about that meek old dear.[/QUOTE]

Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and a member of the War Cabinet, as he had been during the first part of the First World War. When they were informed, the Board of the Admiralty sent a signal to the Fleet: "Winston is back".[160][161] In this position, he proved to be one of the highest-profile ministers during the so-called "Phoney War", when the only noticeable action was at sea. Churchill advocated the pre-emptive occupation of the neutral Norwegian iron-ore port of Narvik and the iron mines in Kiruna, Sweden, early in the war. However, Chamberlain and the rest of the War Cabinet disagreed, and the operation was delayed until the successful German invasion of Norway.

In 1939, Germany's war industry depended upon iron ore mined in Kiruna and Malmberget in Sweden. During the summer season, this ore could be sent by cargo ship to Germany through the Baltic Sea via the Swedish port of Luleå on the Gulf of Bothnia. However, when the Gulf of Bothnia froze during the winter, more shipments of the ore needed to be transported through Narvik and, from there, down the west coast of Norway to Germany.

Churchill proposed laying a naval minefield in Norwegian territorial waters around Narvik (referred to as "the Leads"),[8] or else occupying the town with Allied troops. The Allies hoped that they might be able to use an occupied Narvik as a base from which to secure the Swedish ore fields and/or to send supplies and reinforcements to Finland, then fighting the Finnish Winter War with the Soviet Union.

Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty was particularly concerned about Swedish exports of iron ore to Germany, and pushed for the British government to take military action to end the trade. From the beginning of the war Churchill tried to persuade his cabinet colleagues to send a British fleet into the Baltic Sea to stop shipping reaching Germany from the two Swedish iron ore ports, Luleå and Oxelösund. The project was called Project Catherine and was planned by Admiral of the Fleet William Boyle, 12th Earl of Cork. However, events overtook this project and it was canceled.[1] Later, when the Baltic ports froze over and the Germans began shipping the iron ore from the Norwegian port of Narvik,

Hardly an invasion:rolleyes:

Happyman42

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Dresden was bombed for the same reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were.

The word/words you are looking for are: terrorise/terrorism.
But it's good terrorism.

Judgement Day

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Dresden was bombed for the same reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were.

To completely and utterly demoralize the German/Japanese soldiers. Civilian targets were the order of the day and the West totally got away with those disgusting war crimes.

I'm sure that it would have satisfied your quaint, politically correct agenda if the the Americans had not dropped the bombs on Japan and instead fought for every square inch of Japanese soil. However, chances are that as many if not more would have died in this scenario. Total war is just that and Dresden can be justified on that basis alone.

T runner

bumper234 wrote: »

Did the men women and children of London, Birmingham, Manchester Invade Poland and start a war? DThe fact that it was home to major rail transport and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort comes into it.

Because the Nazi war machine was still alive and Hitler was sending out old men and teenagers to fight his war.

from HERE

In 1941 Charles Portal of the British Air Staff advocated that entire cities and towns should be bombed. Portal claimed that this would quickly bring about the collapse of civilian morale in Germany. Air Marshall Arthur Harris agreed and when he became head of RAF Bomber Command in February 1942, he introduced a policy of area bombing (known in Germany as terror bombing) where entire cities and towns were targeted.

This "area" bombing was not targetted at factories. The purpose of these bombs was to terrorise the civilain population. That indescriminately includes men, women..and yes..children and babies.

One tactic used by the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Force was the creation offirestorms. This was achieved by dropping incendiary bombs, filled with highly combustible chemicals such as magnesium, phosphorus or petroleum jelly (napalm), in clusters over a specific target. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire.

So should these men who ordered and carried out these bombing killing 100s of thousands of inncoent civilians....should these men benefit from teh sale of the poppy?

In 1945, Arthur Harris decided to create a firestorm in the medieval city of Dresden. He considered it a good target as it had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns. The population of the city was now far greater than the normal 650,000 due to the large numbers of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army.

I reckon Arthur Harris should have been tried as a war criminal. Did he and those like him benefit from the sale of the poppy?

Matt_Trakker

bumper234 wrote: »

Hardly an invasion:rolleyes:

Well, if laying down plans to take over a neutral country's resources isn't an invasion..... duh. :rolleyes:

Judgement Day wrote: »

I'm sure that it would have satisfied your quaint.....

Pontificating on hypothetical situations is always the last resort of those with nothing interesting or worthwhile to add. Those content with making noise just for the sake of hearing their own voice.

bumper234

T runner wrote: »

Thats not what i asked. Should the men who ordered the bombing and bombed northern Germany DELIBERATELY targetting and killing innocent civilains in their 100's of thousands.. men, woman, children, babies...indiscriminate.....Should these men benefit from poppy sales? And dont be a coward, show some of that Brit back bone. Answer the question youve been asked. Dont cower behind another question!

Where did these 100's of thousands die?

Dyr

Winnie invaded iceland too.

bumper234

T runner wrote: »

from HERE



This "area" bombing was not targetted at factories. The purpose of these bombs was to terrorise the civilain population. That indescriminately includes men, women..and yes..children and babies.



So should these men who ordered and carried out these bombing killing 100s of thousands of inncoent civilians....should these men benefit from teh sale of the poppy?



I reckon Arthur Harris should have been tried as a war criminal. Did he and those like him benefit from the sale of the poppy?

Germany bombed civilians in cities too you know!

Dresden was also considered a resting/staging area for troops withdrawing from the front

“Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.”

RAF January 1945

dublinbhoy88

Judgement Day wrote: »

I'm sure that it would have satisfied your quaint, politically correct agenda if the the Americans had not dropped the bombs on Japan and instead fought for every square inch of Japanese soil. However, chances are that as many if not more would have died in this scenario. Total war is just that and Dresden can be justified on that basis alone.

ok lets drop nukes and tell the public it was to save more lives,yes the public will swallow that propaganda

T runner

bumper234 wrote: »

Where did these 100's of thousands die?

read my post!

bumper234

T runner wrote: »

read my post!

No no please.....name the cities where these 100's of thousands died because all you said was Northern Germany and that's a big place.