View Full Version : 70 years ago today.
Nathan_Bell
09-01-09, 17:44
The most destructive war the world has yet seen kicked off for real.
Figured someone would have brought it up by now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/1/newsid_3506000/3506335.stm
Figured someone would have brought it up by now.
Those that ignore history are destined to repeat it. Too bad most seem not to give a shit anymore.
That is a statement regarding the general population, as thankfully I know many here are more aware of such things. But with everything going on today it is easy to forget such an important date.
Business_Casual
09-01-09, 18:50
OK, history buffs - without using Wiki or Google, what was the operation named (in English)?
M_P
Fell Weiss, or something like that?
Business_Casual
09-01-09, 18:56
Close. Und auf Deutsch.
M_P
stevenhyde
09-01-09, 19:50
The stuff they didnt teach me in high school........
Dont blame me, I learned more reading by myself after I graduated high school, than I did in high school.
Thomas M-4
09-01-09, 20:14
The start of the phony war.The big war didn't start until May 10th.:D
Nathan_Bell
09-01-09, 21:48
The start of the phony war.The big war didn't start until May 10th.:D
Sad fact of WWII. France and england declared because they were treaty bound to protect the sovereignity of Poland.
Tens of millions dead later the war ended with Poland still being controlled by a foreign power
Army Chief
09-02-09, 08:10
It definitely got more attention here in Europe. There were a number of commemorations in Poland, which is to be expected. I'm surrounded by Polish officers in the neighboring NATO HQ, but didn't really have occasion to bring it up -- I can only wonder what the day must have meant to them.
AC
And technically the war began with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931.
Nathan_Bell
09-02-09, 14:16
And technically the war began with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931.
The is when one of bellegerents started a regional conflict. One that would not have brought the world's major powers into conflict largely due to the fact that it was "little yellow people killing other little yellow people" and most of the major powers really didn't care two spits about this situation. If they were interested, it was to see what would need to be done to benefit from it not to interfere.
The German invasion of Poland was an act that impacted directly, diplomatically, France and England. They had to respond to it or face being made by-standers in Europe where most of the world's wealth and power was concentrated.
The is when one of bellegerents started a regional conflict. One that would not have brought the world's major powers into conflict largely due to the fact that it was "little yellow people killing other little yellow people" and most of the major powers really didn't care two spits about this situation. If they were interested, it was to see what would need to be done to benefit from it not to interfere.
The German invasion of Poland was an act that impacted directly, diplomatically, France and England. They had to respond to it or face being made by-standers in Europe where most of the world's wealth and power was concentrated.
Not exactly. Just because "we thought" it was going to be a regional conflict doesn't make it so. It was the beginning of Japans war of conquest which included the entire pacific rim and all the US territories and bases within that zone.
WWII also began with Hitler reoccupying the Rhineland and annexing Austria. Just because we didn't realize those plans would eventually include Poland, France and Russia doesn't mean Hitler didn't start his war with those acts.
Simply put, the invasion of Poland was when France and the UK learned they would be fighting Germany and Pearl Harbor was when we learned we would be fighting Japan. But Japan and Germany began their wars long before that.
And of course the US fought Japan as early as 1940 with the AVGs in China and and in a limited role against Germany during the Spanish Civil War from 1936, unofficially of course. And the Atlantic War with Germany was also already in progress prior to Hitlers declaration of war against the US.
Like the wise man once said, just because you aren't interested in war doesn't mean war isn't interested in you. And the allies collectively seemed to learn that one the hard way in every instance.
Like the wise man once said, just because you aren't interested in war doesn't mean war isn't interested in you. And the allies collectively seemed to learn that one the hard way in every instance.
Yes they did, that because they were willing to do almost anything to avoid war. This with blatant aggressors spitting in their face.
Hoped we, as both a nation and a world, would have moved past this flawed practice by now. But I swear I can see it starting all over again.
I am starting to see liberals as narcissists. It's what they want, so consequences and facts be damned. I find narcissists to be the most vile of all humans, next to molesters. I have no room for any in my life and have personally made each one relevant to me well aware of this.
The is when one of bellegerents started a regional conflict. One that would not have brought the world's major powers into conflict largely due to the fact that it was "little yellow people killing other little yellow people" and most of the major powers really didn't care two spits about this situation. If they were interested, it was to see what would need to be done to benefit from it not to interfere.
The German invasion of Poland was an act that impacted directly, diplomatically, France and England. They had to respond to it or face being made by-standers in Europe where most of the world's wealth and power was concentrated.
The invasion of Poland was only the last of a series of events that directly impacted France and England. Germany's rearmament in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the "annexation" of its neighbors preceeded the invasion and the complete failure of France and England to respond in any other way but appeasement facilitated the invasion.
Thomas M-4
09-03-09, 12:56
It could be argued that the war started at the end of the first world war. General Purshings thoughts:American General John Pershing didn't believe in the Armistice. It was, he believed, clearly a mistake, letting Germany off the hook.
It could be argued that the war started at the end of the first world war. General Purshings thoughts:American General John Pershing didn't believe in the Armistice. It was, he believed, clearly a mistake, letting Germany off the hook.
Seems he also knew how to deal with Muslim extremists :One important thing to note beforehand is that Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise (and those 72 virgins) and doomed to hell.
Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks on the United States forces in the Philippines by; you guessed it, Muslim extremists. So General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts execution style. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the now horrified terrorists.
The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc. They let the 50th terrorist go. And for the next forty-two years, there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world.
Pershing was a Brevet Major during the Phillipine-American War and Moro insurrection, if that's the one you are thinking of. The pig bullet bit is considered mythology, and it certainy didn't stop Muslim extremists attacks during WWII (when they fought for the Axis) or during the years before and after the formation of Israel (within 50 years of the insurrection).
As for the Treaty of Versailles, it was considered a failure by Wilson and most historians because it was too harsh on Germany, not to mild. Its restrictions were unprecedented and, along with the reparations demand, was designed to humiliate and cripple Germany. That's why the US refused to sign it. It couldn't have laid the seeds for Hitler's rise to power if it was designed to do so.
Thomas M-4
09-03-09, 13:10
I revised it my post once I found out it was undocumented.
Nathan_Bell
09-03-09, 14:06
The invasion of Poland was only the last of a series of events that directly impacted France and England. Germany's rearmament in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the "annexation" of its neighbors preceeded the invasion and the complete failure of France and England to respond in any other way but appeasement facilitated the invasion.
Yup France and England were bending over backwards for germany. Which is why the could not ignore the invasion of Poland. It would have proven that they were forfeiting their power on the continent.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.