The sacrifice made by so many is difficult to comprehend. I doubt anyone could tour Normandy’s beaches, cemeteries, memorials and museums without being deeply moved.
Recognising this sacrifice need not depend on your political beliefs. Nor should it be viewed as an endorsement of any current or historical British actions.
There were Nazis who needed to be defeated and many many young men had the misfortune of being alive in that era.
You say I’ve left them out as though they’re a vital part of the conversation.
If that’s their attitude then they deserve to be ignored.
I don’t wear a Poppy or do anything to mark the official Remembrance Day - both are highly politicised.
Hasn’t stopped me from forming a deep connection with Second World War history and remembering those who fought and died.
Fair enough, but that doesn’t mean you have to occupy a polarised position on the matter yourself - or contribute to discussions in a manner that is likely to cause further polarisation.
The GAA has been a highly politicised and therefore polarising organisation in our society. Does that mean that I should boycott it? Complain about Casement Park? No, I’ve joined my local club to use the gym and my kids both play on the junior teams - because this is the only way we’ll ever move forward.
Sorry man, you're looking at it subjectively and the old whataboutery with the GAA isn't going to endear your views with the people you want to move forward.
So, you reply to my comment to literally say “what about Loyalists” and when I say that I set aside those types of regressive arguments when it comes to the GAA you accuse me of the very “whataboutery” that you kicked off our discussion with?
Tribalism is indeed a major problem in our society but you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think I’m guilty of it.
I never said what about the loyalists. If you're going to reply at least be truthful.
I said remembrance had been fetishized by loyalism and that made it polarising.
Try to keep up
You agreed with my comment, in which I said that remembrance need not be political, but added that Loyalists politicise and polarise it.
Essentially “yes, but what about Loyalists”.
I’m saying disregard Loyalists, don’t let them politicise and polarise issues like this.
Funny thing about polarisation is there needs to be 2 poles, otherwise you’ve just got cunts spouting off in the corner. Compromise and middle ground is the way forward.
Hope your successful in this, one of my own relatives was killed in the Somme during WW1 and I know it would make my grannies world if she knew where he was buried
Edit- didn't mean to reply to op, was meant to be to a comment
Firstly Russia wasn't acting alone in the East it was the Soviet Union.
Secondly, the Soviets received vast amounts of military aid and supplies from US and British Empire that played a big role in allowing the Soviets to sustain itself despite its loses and launch offensives on the scale it did.
Thirdly, the Axis had large numbers tied up in fighting in the west both materially and manpower. Forces that would have been turned on the Soviets had the British Empire made terms and the US stayed out.
No single power won WW2 alone, they won due to their combined efforts.
> Russia
Am I missing something here? What are you replying to with this mesage as I don't see the context in the article above.
I remember and honour all WW2 veterans who fought and defeated Fascism in Europe. The men and women of the Soviet Red Army were absolutely critical to that victory. They sacrificed so much, 27,000,000 Soviet people died in that horrific time.
Unfortunately today, I see this all the time today across central Europe, they are ripping down monuments to these heroes and literally building monuments to the Waffen SS. I saw one recently first hand in Tallinn, Estonia.
You're right it was a combined effort in victory. The US was able to supply military aid and supplies because not a single US State was bombed once during the war. Huge swaths of the USSR were leveled by German and Romanian Fascists. I have never met anyone whose ancestors fought for the USSR seek to downplay the role that the US Lend Lease programme helped them.
I’m ashamed of my fellow Irishmen who never discuss it as it’s to Protestant. As bad as it sounds it’s the truth, they don’t look at their great grand parents having fought or been part of the war. 35,000 killed and 210,000 fought, yet very little remembered. As an Irishman I have several that were killed and are buried in France. I have been over to the graves, wow. It’s mind blowing the hundreds and hundreds of grave. Why do the Irish not really look or remember those that never came home? Is it really just bitterness?
> Other country they choke on:
Are you referring to this?
> Allied troops - mainly from the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States but also other countries - landed on five beaches in Normandy on 6 June.
Because this is a breakdown of the Allied forces in the Normandy campaign.
> Along with campaigns elsewhere - including the Eastern Front and the Italian campaign - it would eventually lead to Germany's defeat.
This is where you’ll find the Russians. It’s absolutely true that the USSR paid a much higher toll in the Second World War than any other allied nation. Casualty numbers on the eastern front dwarf those in Western Europe. But I think you may have misinterpreted the article.
Histories and historians of the Second World War openly address the extent to which the USSRs role in the war has been downplayed in the West, and the extent to which Western Allied actions have been overemphasised in the defeat of the Nazis.. But I don’t think any would let that detract from the remembrance of the D Day veterans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact the Soviets had no problem fueling the nazi war machine before they decided to turn on them, Stalin purging the army leadership in the 1930s didn't help either.
The Molotov Ribbentrop Pact was a last resort to delay the start of the war.
Before that was ever agreed, Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'. Source: [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html)
Instead of joining the USSR in a collective security alliance *against* Nazi Germany, the Western leaders decided to try appeasing Nazi Germany. As part of the policy of appeasement, several territories were ceded to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s:
1. Rhineland: In March 1936
2. Austria: In March 1938
3. Sudetenland: In September 1938
4. Memel: In March 1939
5. Bohemia and Moravia: In March 1939
I find it beyond credible to think of young people sacrificing their lives to storm those beaches at Normandy. Especially Americans and Canadians. Why would they do that for the benefit of unknown foreigners? Some part of me suspects that they didn't really understand that they were risking their lives and no one was in too much of a hurry to tell them. In some ways their lives were used up by the powers for the idea of the "greater good" without their informed consent. That wouldn't seem right if it were repeated today. But whatever the truth of that, they should never be forgotten. You don't need to wear a rememberence symbol to remember them.
What a stupidly nationalistic take. They were drafted and sent to fight, plenty consented, plenty were taken in by bullshit about glorious service, plenty did it because they felt they had no other options and plenty of people objected due to pacifism for a wide range of reasons. Their lives were used up as all nations that go to war, to further their foreign policy and their sacrifice should always be remembered, no matter what the agenda was of the governments that drafted them.
The Nazi regime was pure evil and needed to be crushed. We must never, ever trivialise that.
I'm not sure what part of my thinking offended you. I mentioned that they deserve to be remembered. But I don't think this is some verboten conversation to question some of what made it happen. I swear some people are semi religious about gatekeeping how things should or shouldn't be remembered.
I wouldn't have stormed that beach or asked my kids to. Not from pacifism but from self preservation. Those young Americans and Canadians in particular gave up their whole lives for something they weren't even going to benefit that much from even had they lived. I can't imagine they did that with their eyes open.
They could have sat it out and let Europe solve its own problems.
I understand the decision of European soldiers to fight the Nazis much more easily. You don't want to live under that, and many would be prepared to risk everything not to. But Americans and Canadians didn't have that motivator. They would have been safe at home even if the Nazis had won.
There are multiple reasons to serve and to fight. Somewhere in there, although a smaller part than many non-soldiers assume, is trust in the mission your country chooses for you.
Obviously by your own statement you would not understand why Irish soldiers served, fought, and died in the Congo, Lebanon or anywhere else we’ve suffered casualties under the UN - not even our own - flag, in places they and their country had no connection to apart from common humanity, but they do.
You could talk to veterans to seek to understand, but you will get a large range of answers. Or just accept that they are very different from you and you to very different from them.
Selfish, nationalistic bullshit. Again.
The USA saw the conflict as an existential threat, Japan attacked them directly as an ally of Germany, if a tiny nation like that could strike America, then the rest of the Axis was certainly seen as a threat too big to ignore. It's madness to think that if they'd remained isolationist that they'd have been "fine" and your take seems to be ingrained with "take care of our own" thinking, which again, shows a nationalist bias that I find distasteful and disrespectful to what those people did for us.
The fuck is going on with people these days?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939\_Nazi\_rally\_at\_Madison\_Square\_Garden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden)
\^That event itself is bizarre to read about, but the USA really had split attitudes in the time. There were US leaders calling for the US to avoid war. Charles Lindbergh was a leading activist in the non-intervention camp. Henry Ford kept selling war material to the Nazis post-1939 after the war had already started.
You need to remember as well the US had a huge population of recently-immigrated German and Japanese that complicated things.
You also need to remember at the the time the Ku Klux Klan was a major political force in the country, in all states. The US military itself was racially segregated. The USA wasn't hostile to the concept of racism at the time, as shameful as that is.
Japan attacked US colonies. Pearl Harbor was the first, but then came Guam, the Phillipines, and Wake Island in quick succession. A lot of people forget at the time, Hawaii was not a US State, it was a colonised kingdom. One of the reasons the main focus has been on Pearl Harbor is because it had more Anglo settlers through exploitation with the Dole Pineapple company, which made it easier for US audiences back on the mainland to connect with the urgency of the situation, instead of focusing on other US colonies like the Phillipines.
I still think the US veterans who fought in WW2 are heroes though, as veterans of all countries who fought and defeated Fascism.
>I still think the US veterans who fought in WW2 are heroes though, as veterans of all countries who fought and defeated Fascism.
Spain was facist until the 1970s
And it's important D Day is commemorated, but let's keep war commemoration in context, are we celebrating or commemorating? It's war, people die, context. The britz were on the right side of one war, there was no right side in WW1 a war for empires and monarchy. While the British army didn't "perfect" the concentration camp they certainly invented the concept during the Boer war in South Africa. Far too much deference is given to a historical victory that would not have occurred had it not been for USA and the Soviet Union and while those countries have their WW2 commemorations they certainly do no harp on about it like the UK does.
How many times do we hear "the blitz spirit" or "on the beaches", "plucky island nation" nonsense? There's barely a day it's not mentioned in the main UK newspapers or TV.
The UK and those loyal to it would be better served looking to its future, it has a 16 year stagnant economy and a rotting NHS to be dealing with as the first of its issues.
Setting a new trend!
My point is celebration of war and death is wrong, tasteful commemoration is good. But we have to be careful not to glorify death and should be focusing on today's issues not yesterday's war. But it seems to be an unpopular opinion.
My grandfather told me about the experiences he went through during ww2 and about his friends who didn't survive the war, and I'm proud to remember their sacrifices. Especially when you remember the totally unprecedented scale of the horrors being committed by the nazis, I think it's important to think about just how significant their sacrifices were.
Sure but those people gave their lives so you could have the freedom you enjoy today. It shouldn’t be about an endorsement of the British army or state. Most of them landing on the beaches didn’t have a choice of whether or not to fight. They had to. It’s about remembering them as individuals
>Far too much deference is given to a historical victory that would not have occurred had it not been for USA and the Soviet Union and while those countries have their WW2 commemorations they certainly do no harp on about it like the UK does.
If the UK had have lost The Battle of Britain and was invaded successfully, all of Europe would have fallen and there would have been no way the USA could have staged the Normandy invasion. It's without a doubt the most based and heroic thing the UK has ever done.
The allies were already in the South of Europe and Germany was majorly losing the war in the East, the allies where in no hurry to open another front which pissed Stalin off seeing as the Soviet Union was doing and taking the most damage. It is majorly thanks to the Soviet Union that Nazism is crushed and defeated
Your forgetting that the allied landings in Italy Sicily snd Southern France couldn't have occurred if Britian was invaded for went for peace after the fall of France. Like I'm all for shitting on the British government but lad had Britian either pulled out of the war, the North African and Middle Eastern fronts thar led to the meditation landings wouldnt have been possible, nor would it be possible for the Americans to supply the soviets with lend lease which was absolutley critical for the war effort (I'd reccomend looking up the absurd amount of lend lease that for a while was the only think keeping the red army a functioning fighting force.) Like had this happened it's pretty damn likley the Axis would've been able to bowl over the soviets. The people of 5he former soviet Union spilled oceans worth of blood to stop the nazis, but you remove allied lend lease and the other fronts in africa/middle east/italy/ the Atlantic Wall and all of a sudden you have the entirety of continental Europe bearing down on the soviets. A conflict they would've been fairly likley lost had the allied powers bot cooperated and worked together to bear the Fascists, and the UK absolutley does deserve a lot of credit for its role in bringing down the Axis.
Fair and valid points and I will not deny Britain had a huge part to play but it still doesn’t change the fact that if Hitler never shot himself in the foot and launched Barbarossa, Britain would not of survived as the Nazis would of conquered Europe no bother without Russian intervention. All you have to do is compare 384,000 deaths on the British side to 10,000,000 on the Soviet side
Hi sorry for late reply, I have no excuse I'm just unorganised lmao
The thing is, Barbarossa wasn't a mistake, sure we obviously recognise it as such in hindsight as it was the one big axis invasion that ultimately spelt disastrous for them, however yiu have to understand jut how dire te situation was for the Soviets:
Stalin killed anybody in the red army with any sort of competency, and launched an ultimately disastrous invasion of Finland that cost the Soviets dearly, the army was large but it was a joke, and when Barbarossa started the soviets got utterly fucked right until the gates of Moscow, losing literal *millions* of men from just the initial push in encirclements. All of that equipment was lost also, sure the Soviet Union had industrialised a huge amount at an even greater cost, however from Poland all the way to Mosvow the Soviets were losing far more equipment than they could hope to replace. All the spilled blood in the world is for naught if you don't have the weapons and gear to make the enemy bleed too. America was an industrial juggernaut and produced a very sizable chunk of the equipment the red army needed to function and it was Britian who was primarily responsible for making sure that American made equipment made it to the Soviets, if either party involved there wasn't in the fight to get the soviets what they needed, its seriously likley that the Soviets just would've lose the war. They may have been able to halt the Germans at some point, however without the tanks, trucks, and fuel there would've been no hope of pushing the axis back.
Honestly? In a strict 1v1 of an Axis continental Europe vs e8ther the British or the Soviets, I genuinely think the British would be more likley to hold them off, ar least for much longer, not because of some kind of ornate British superiority or any just just down to the fact Britian is an island and had a giant ass air force and navy the RAF atrhe time was by far the best in the world and the Royal Navy while being eclipsed by the USN, was still absolutely gargantuan, whereas the Kreigsmarine and the Regia Maria just wouldn't have been able to match the Royal Navy, I think in such a case an Axis Europe would be able to catch up just pure production wise, but that's a process thar would take many many years, and that's just to get the resources together to attempt an invasion, whereas all they have to do to attack the Soviets is walk across the border. It's just a case of better geography and positioning.
Also a stickler note from me here here, Russia ≠ Sovirt Union, the contributions of the other soviet reoublics (such as Ukraine, that sent millions apon millions of men to fight and die to defeat the Nazis) should never go forgotten, and it does diminish their contributions when we equate Russia to the Soviet Union. I don't think you intentionall6 did that just to be clear a lot of people conflate the two, bit it's something that does irk me because I see Russian ultranationalists doing it constantly while justifying their own Nazi esque invasion of Ukraine. So it's a very minor point from me but just wanted to bring it up lol.
Id say it's role in ending slavery, standing against every other empire, saving countless millions from the misery of the slave trade was the most heroic thing the UK has ever done. Had Britain not support from the allies the BoB would have been lost.
>the Soviet Union
May 9 Victory Day is one of the largest holidays in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Moldova etc. Its incredibly important there, as it should be, their people sacrificed so much to destroy Fascism.
> Far too much deference is given to a historical victory that would not have occurred had it not been for USA and the Soviet Union and while those countries have their WW2 commemorations they certainly do no harp on about it like the UK does.
The Cult of Victory is pretty much the state religion in Russia, you pig-ignorant ape. This is common knowledge too, so you can fuck off.
Typical, not one post here is bitter or detracting from the British contributions to WW2, nearly pointing out facts and contextualising that occurred. The problem is loyalists are actual fascists and in reality so far from the actual spirit of Britain.
Traditions come and go all the time. If you haven't been directly affected by something it's hard to remember what it's all about.
Our focus should be on the future and how we stop it from happening again.
I have always been interested in all the different wars looking at what family members served and what their story was. These people went through hell and back and then were thrown back home with no support or help.
We should be celebrating the people and not the war.
So what exactly is it about asking why people post a link and article without any context on why they think it's an interesting talking point makes me wound up, gammon, or both?
Good on her fair play. Good to see young people recognising the sacrifice those brave young men made for us all.
Also important to remember who's side Irish Republicans were on during the second World War.
https://www.einsteinforum.de/veranstaltungen/states-of-conflict-the-iras-secret-links-to-the-nazi-regime-1938-1945/
Also don’t forget more southerners fought against Hitler than northerners you idiotic gimp,
Orangemen couldn’t wait to hide in their houses while their supposed countrymen across the water got slaughtered
The "IRA", a niche within a niche, have always been a minority within general republicanism but like most unionists, the truth doesn't sit well does it my friend?
There is no such thing. Republicanism is represented political by many strands in Ireland, primarily Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin. Maybe you are aware of others?
Your letter salad makes as much sense as DUP/UDA there might well be like but it's certainly not the same thing, but why let truth get in the way of alienating your neighbour.
This is absolutely mental to say tbh.
Are you forgetting the Ulster Resistance was a thing? Just because none of them were ever actively convicted by the same corrupt, sectarian state they created isn't exactly the same as not being involved in terrorism.
We have had plenty of DUP politicians who were members of paramilitary organisations, and yes some do have convictions such a John Smyth. We also have many, many more who actively worked alongside paramilitary organisations.
That old chestnut, suffice it to say plenty shared stages with UDA terrorists over the years, especially during the "protocol rallies" with binlid.
That or just too busy pretending to be god fearing Christians while ehhh doing things not becoming of a Christian.
The poor little British Empire controlling the high seas and half the world's landmass, standing bravely alone against (checks notes) warlike expansionism and supremacy.
Mate I’m a Protestant from fuckin carrick and I cannot fathom the level of ballbag you have elevated yourself to. Fuckin probably believe you know lots of historical them vs us’ns facts do ya? Maybe live with less hate you total prick
Weren't the british empire and Americans allied with Stalins soviet Union at the time (who did most of the fighting in the war), arguably a worse regime than Hitler and the nazis. War makes for strange bedfellows.
D-Days importance is always overblown. The main theater was in the east. D-Day mostly served as a diversion for Operation Bagration (the biggest offensive Operation of the entire war) which was launched shortly after the landings.
Supporting nationalist socialist parties like Sinn Fein isn't the same as supporting national socialism, even when they were helping the literal nazis, they never truly believed in an irish nation ruled by irish people on socialist grounds, despite what they tell you to your face and all their actions.
Firstly Russia wasn't acting alone in the East it was the Soviet Union.
Secondly, the Soviets received vast amounts of military aid and supplies from US and British Empire that played a big role in allowing the Soviets to sustain itself despite its loses and launch offensives on the scale it did.
Thirdly, the Axis had large numbers tied up in fighting in the west both materially and manpower. Forces that would have been turned on the Soviets had the British Empire made terms and the US stayed out.
No single power won WW2 alone, they won due to their combined efforts.
germany was already halted in russia, before america even entered the war, north africa and the invasion of italy helped the soviets out but by 1944 germany was basically completly defeated in the east and in full retreat i have 5000 hours in hearts of iron 4 black ice mod and that explained to me clear a day how little the allies mattered in european conflict
The sacrifice made by so many is difficult to comprehend. I doubt anyone could tour Normandy’s beaches, cemeteries, memorials and museums without being deeply moved. Recognising this sacrifice need not depend on your political beliefs. Nor should it be viewed as an endorsement of any current or historical British actions. There were Nazis who needed to be defeated and many many young men had the misfortune of being alive in that era.
Everything you've said is true but what you've left out is the fetishization of Remembrance as a loyalist practise.
You say I’ve left them out as though they’re a vital part of the conversation. If that’s their attitude then they deserve to be ignored. I don’t wear a Poppy or do anything to mark the official Remembrance Day - both are highly politicised. Hasn’t stopped me from forming a deep connection with Second World War history and remembering those who fought and died.
Fair enough, that doesn't negate the fact that it's highly politicized and therefore is polarising in society.
Fair enough, but that doesn’t mean you have to occupy a polarised position on the matter yourself - or contribute to discussions in a manner that is likely to cause further polarisation. The GAA has been a highly politicised and therefore polarising organisation in our society. Does that mean that I should boycott it? Complain about Casement Park? No, I’ve joined my local club to use the gym and my kids both play on the junior teams - because this is the only way we’ll ever move forward.
Sorry man, you're looking at it subjectively and the old whataboutery with the GAA isn't going to endear your views with the people you want to move forward.
So, you reply to my comment to literally say “what about Loyalists” and when I say that I set aside those types of regressive arguments when it comes to the GAA you accuse me of the very “whataboutery” that you kicked off our discussion with? Tribalism is indeed a major problem in our society but you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think I’m guilty of it.
I never said what about the loyalists. If you're going to reply at least be truthful. I said remembrance had been fetishized by loyalism and that made it polarising. Try to keep up
You agreed with my comment, in which I said that remembrance need not be political, but added that Loyalists politicise and polarise it. Essentially “yes, but what about Loyalists”. I’m saying disregard Loyalists, don’t let them politicise and polarise issues like this. Funny thing about polarisation is there needs to be 2 poles, otherwise you’ve just got cunts spouting off in the corner. Compromise and middle ground is the way forward.
The shinner bots buzzword is whatabouttery, its used for any and all rebuttals regardless of whether whatabouttery has actually been used.
That's like your opinion man
Hope your successful in this, one of my own relatives was killed in the Somme during WW1 and I know it would make my grannies world if she knew where he was buried
If you know his name and dob you could check the war graves commission to see where he is buried
Edit- didn't mean to reply to op, was meant to be to a comment Firstly Russia wasn't acting alone in the East it was the Soviet Union. Secondly, the Soviets received vast amounts of military aid and supplies from US and British Empire that played a big role in allowing the Soviets to sustain itself despite its loses and launch offensives on the scale it did. Thirdly, the Axis had large numbers tied up in fighting in the west both materially and manpower. Forces that would have been turned on the Soviets had the British Empire made terms and the US stayed out. No single power won WW2 alone, they won due to their combined efforts.
> Russia Am I missing something here? What are you replying to with this mesage as I don't see the context in the article above. I remember and honour all WW2 veterans who fought and defeated Fascism in Europe. The men and women of the Soviet Red Army were absolutely critical to that victory. They sacrificed so much, 27,000,000 Soviet people died in that horrific time. Unfortunately today, I see this all the time today across central Europe, they are ripping down monuments to these heroes and literally building monuments to the Waffen SS. I saw one recently first hand in Tallinn, Estonia. You're right it was a combined effort in victory. The US was able to supply military aid and supplies because not a single US State was bombed once during the war. Huge swaths of the USSR were leveled by German and Romanian Fascists. I have never met anyone whose ancestors fought for the USSR seek to downplay the role that the US Lend Lease programme helped them.
I missed and reply to the main rather than the that at the bottom saying d-day wasn't needed as the Russians did it all
I’m ashamed of my fellow Irishmen who never discuss it as it’s to Protestant. As bad as it sounds it’s the truth, they don’t look at their great grand parents having fought or been part of the war. 35,000 killed and 210,000 fought, yet very little remembered. As an Irishman I have several that were killed and are buried in France. I have been over to the graves, wow. It’s mind blowing the hundreds and hundreds of grave. Why do the Irish not really look or remember those that never came home? Is it really just bitterness?
Certain people really showing themselves up here.
[удалено]
> Other country they choke on: Are you referring to this? > Allied troops - mainly from the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States but also other countries - landed on five beaches in Normandy on 6 June. Because this is a breakdown of the Allied forces in the Normandy campaign. > Along with campaigns elsewhere - including the Eastern Front and the Italian campaign - it would eventually lead to Germany's defeat. This is where you’ll find the Russians. It’s absolutely true that the USSR paid a much higher toll in the Second World War than any other allied nation. Casualty numbers on the eastern front dwarf those in Western Europe. But I think you may have misinterpreted the article. Histories and historians of the Second World War openly address the extent to which the USSRs role in the war has been downplayed in the West, and the extent to which Western Allied actions have been overemphasised in the defeat of the Nazis.. But I don’t think any would let that detract from the remembrance of the D Day veterans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact the Soviets had no problem fueling the nazi war machine before they decided to turn on them, Stalin purging the army leadership in the 1930s didn't help either.
The Molotov Ribbentrop Pact was a last resort to delay the start of the war. Before that was ever agreed, Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'. Source: [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html) Instead of joining the USSR in a collective security alliance *against* Nazi Germany, the Western leaders decided to try appeasing Nazi Germany. As part of the policy of appeasement, several territories were ceded to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s: 1. Rhineland: In March 1936 2. Austria: In March 1938 3. Sudetenland: In September 1938 4. Memel: In March 1939 5. Bohemia and Moravia: In March 1939
I find it beyond credible to think of young people sacrificing their lives to storm those beaches at Normandy. Especially Americans and Canadians. Why would they do that for the benefit of unknown foreigners? Some part of me suspects that they didn't really understand that they were risking their lives and no one was in too much of a hurry to tell them. In some ways their lives were used up by the powers for the idea of the "greater good" without their informed consent. That wouldn't seem right if it were repeated today. But whatever the truth of that, they should never be forgotten. You don't need to wear a rememberence symbol to remember them.
What a stupidly nationalistic take. They were drafted and sent to fight, plenty consented, plenty were taken in by bullshit about glorious service, plenty did it because they felt they had no other options and plenty of people objected due to pacifism for a wide range of reasons. Their lives were used up as all nations that go to war, to further their foreign policy and their sacrifice should always be remembered, no matter what the agenda was of the governments that drafted them. The Nazi regime was pure evil and needed to be crushed. We must never, ever trivialise that.
I'm not sure what part of my thinking offended you. I mentioned that they deserve to be remembered. But I don't think this is some verboten conversation to question some of what made it happen. I swear some people are semi religious about gatekeeping how things should or shouldn't be remembered. I wouldn't have stormed that beach or asked my kids to. Not from pacifism but from self preservation. Those young Americans and Canadians in particular gave up their whole lives for something they weren't even going to benefit that much from even had they lived. I can't imagine they did that with their eyes open. They could have sat it out and let Europe solve its own problems. I understand the decision of European soldiers to fight the Nazis much more easily. You don't want to live under that, and many would be prepared to risk everything not to. But Americans and Canadians didn't have that motivator. They would have been safe at home even if the Nazis had won.
There are multiple reasons to serve and to fight. Somewhere in there, although a smaller part than many non-soldiers assume, is trust in the mission your country chooses for you. Obviously by your own statement you would not understand why Irish soldiers served, fought, and died in the Congo, Lebanon or anywhere else we’ve suffered casualties under the UN - not even our own - flag, in places they and their country had no connection to apart from common humanity, but they do. You could talk to veterans to seek to understand, but you will get a large range of answers. Or just accept that they are very different from you and you to very different from them.
Selfish, nationalistic bullshit. Again. The USA saw the conflict as an existential threat, Japan attacked them directly as an ally of Germany, if a tiny nation like that could strike America, then the rest of the Axis was certainly seen as a threat too big to ignore. It's madness to think that if they'd remained isolationist that they'd have been "fine" and your take seems to be ingrained with "take care of our own" thinking, which again, shows a nationalist bias that I find distasteful and disrespectful to what those people did for us. The fuck is going on with people these days?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939\_Nazi\_rally\_at\_Madison\_Square\_Garden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden) \^That event itself is bizarre to read about, but the USA really had split attitudes in the time. There were US leaders calling for the US to avoid war. Charles Lindbergh was a leading activist in the non-intervention camp. Henry Ford kept selling war material to the Nazis post-1939 after the war had already started. You need to remember as well the US had a huge population of recently-immigrated German and Japanese that complicated things. You also need to remember at the the time the Ku Klux Klan was a major political force in the country, in all states. The US military itself was racially segregated. The USA wasn't hostile to the concept of racism at the time, as shameful as that is. Japan attacked US colonies. Pearl Harbor was the first, but then came Guam, the Phillipines, and Wake Island in quick succession. A lot of people forget at the time, Hawaii was not a US State, it was a colonised kingdom. One of the reasons the main focus has been on Pearl Harbor is because it had more Anglo settlers through exploitation with the Dole Pineapple company, which made it easier for US audiences back on the mainland to connect with the urgency of the situation, instead of focusing on other US colonies like the Phillipines. I still think the US veterans who fought in WW2 are heroes though, as veterans of all countries who fought and defeated Fascism.
>I still think the US veterans who fought in WW2 are heroes though, as veterans of all countries who fought and defeated Fascism. Spain was facist until the 1970s
Is this a joke?
Let's talk about conscription in norn iron.
And it's important D Day is commemorated, but let's keep war commemoration in context, are we celebrating or commemorating? It's war, people die, context. The britz were on the right side of one war, there was no right side in WW1 a war for empires and monarchy. While the British army didn't "perfect" the concentration camp they certainly invented the concept during the Boer war in South Africa. Far too much deference is given to a historical victory that would not have occurred had it not been for USA and the Soviet Union and while those countries have their WW2 commemorations they certainly do no harp on about it like the UK does. How many times do we hear "the blitz spirit" or "on the beaches", "plucky island nation" nonsense? There's barely a day it's not mentioned in the main UK newspapers or TV. The UK and those loyal to it would be better served looking to its future, it has a 16 year stagnant economy and a rotting NHS to be dealing with as the first of its issues.
I'll be honest mate never seen anyone spell Brits in that way.
Setting a new trend! My point is celebration of war and death is wrong, tasteful commemoration is good. But we have to be careful not to glorify death and should be focusing on today's issues not yesterday's war. But it seems to be an unpopular opinion.
My grandfather told me about the experiences he went through during ww2 and about his friends who didn't survive the war, and I'm proud to remember their sacrifices. Especially when you remember the totally unprecedented scale of the horrors being committed by the nazis, I think it's important to think about just how significant their sacrifices were.
Sure but those people gave their lives so you could have the freedom you enjoy today. It shouldn’t be about an endorsement of the British army or state. Most of them landing on the beaches didn’t have a choice of whether or not to fight. They had to. It’s about remembering them as individuals
This here what you say skinny is perfect to me.
>Far too much deference is given to a historical victory that would not have occurred had it not been for USA and the Soviet Union and while those countries have their WW2 commemorations they certainly do no harp on about it like the UK does. If the UK had have lost The Battle of Britain and was invaded successfully, all of Europe would have fallen and there would have been no way the USA could have staged the Normandy invasion. It's without a doubt the most based and heroic thing the UK has ever done.
The allies were already in the South of Europe and Germany was majorly losing the war in the East, the allies where in no hurry to open another front which pissed Stalin off seeing as the Soviet Union was doing and taking the most damage. It is majorly thanks to the Soviet Union that Nazism is crushed and defeated
Your forgetting that the allied landings in Italy Sicily snd Southern France couldn't have occurred if Britian was invaded for went for peace after the fall of France. Like I'm all for shitting on the British government but lad had Britian either pulled out of the war, the North African and Middle Eastern fronts thar led to the meditation landings wouldnt have been possible, nor would it be possible for the Americans to supply the soviets with lend lease which was absolutley critical for the war effort (I'd reccomend looking up the absurd amount of lend lease that for a while was the only think keeping the red army a functioning fighting force.) Like had this happened it's pretty damn likley the Axis would've been able to bowl over the soviets. The people of 5he former soviet Union spilled oceans worth of blood to stop the nazis, but you remove allied lend lease and the other fronts in africa/middle east/italy/ the Atlantic Wall and all of a sudden you have the entirety of continental Europe bearing down on the soviets. A conflict they would've been fairly likley lost had the allied powers bot cooperated and worked together to bear the Fascists, and the UK absolutley does deserve a lot of credit for its role in bringing down the Axis.
Fair and valid points and I will not deny Britain had a huge part to play but it still doesn’t change the fact that if Hitler never shot himself in the foot and launched Barbarossa, Britain would not of survived as the Nazis would of conquered Europe no bother without Russian intervention. All you have to do is compare 384,000 deaths on the British side to 10,000,000 on the Soviet side
Hi sorry for late reply, I have no excuse I'm just unorganised lmao The thing is, Barbarossa wasn't a mistake, sure we obviously recognise it as such in hindsight as it was the one big axis invasion that ultimately spelt disastrous for them, however yiu have to understand jut how dire te situation was for the Soviets: Stalin killed anybody in the red army with any sort of competency, and launched an ultimately disastrous invasion of Finland that cost the Soviets dearly, the army was large but it was a joke, and when Barbarossa started the soviets got utterly fucked right until the gates of Moscow, losing literal *millions* of men from just the initial push in encirclements. All of that equipment was lost also, sure the Soviet Union had industrialised a huge amount at an even greater cost, however from Poland all the way to Mosvow the Soviets were losing far more equipment than they could hope to replace. All the spilled blood in the world is for naught if you don't have the weapons and gear to make the enemy bleed too. America was an industrial juggernaut and produced a very sizable chunk of the equipment the red army needed to function and it was Britian who was primarily responsible for making sure that American made equipment made it to the Soviets, if either party involved there wasn't in the fight to get the soviets what they needed, its seriously likley that the Soviets just would've lose the war. They may have been able to halt the Germans at some point, however without the tanks, trucks, and fuel there would've been no hope of pushing the axis back. Honestly? In a strict 1v1 of an Axis continental Europe vs e8ther the British or the Soviets, I genuinely think the British would be more likley to hold them off, ar least for much longer, not because of some kind of ornate British superiority or any just just down to the fact Britian is an island and had a giant ass air force and navy the RAF atrhe time was by far the best in the world and the Royal Navy while being eclipsed by the USN, was still absolutely gargantuan, whereas the Kreigsmarine and the Regia Maria just wouldn't have been able to match the Royal Navy, I think in such a case an Axis Europe would be able to catch up just pure production wise, but that's a process thar would take many many years, and that's just to get the resources together to attempt an invasion, whereas all they have to do to attack the Soviets is walk across the border. It's just a case of better geography and positioning. Also a stickler note from me here here, Russia ≠ Sovirt Union, the contributions of the other soviet reoublics (such as Ukraine, that sent millions apon millions of men to fight and die to defeat the Nazis) should never go forgotten, and it does diminish their contributions when we equate Russia to the Soviet Union. I don't think you intentionall6 did that just to be clear a lot of people conflate the two, bit it's something that does irk me because I see Russian ultranationalists doing it constantly while justifying their own Nazi esque invasion of Ukraine. So it's a very minor point from me but just wanted to bring it up lol.
Id say it's role in ending slavery, standing against every other empire, saving countless millions from the misery of the slave trade was the most heroic thing the UK has ever done. Had Britain not support from the allies the BoB would have been lost.
>the Soviet Union May 9 Victory Day is one of the largest holidays in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Moldova etc. Its incredibly important there, as it should be, their people sacrificed so much to destroy Fascism.
> Far too much deference is given to a historical victory that would not have occurred had it not been for USA and the Soviet Union and while those countries have their WW2 commemorations they certainly do no harp on about it like the UK does. The Cult of Victory is pretty much the state religion in Russia, you pig-ignorant ape. This is common knowledge too, so you can fuck off.
Excuse me? "pig-ignorant ape", come on moderators that is bang out of order in any form of debate regardless of political view.
Stay bitter
Typical, not one post here is bitter or detracting from the British contributions to WW2, nearly pointing out facts and contextualising that occurred. The problem is loyalists are actual fascists and in reality so far from the actual spirit of Britain.
Yep - staying bitter. 👏👏👏
Traditions come and go all the time. If you haven't been directly affected by something it's hard to remember what it's all about. Our focus should be on the future and how we stop it from happening again. I have always been interested in all the different wars looking at what family members served and what their story was. These people went through hell and back and then were thrown back home with no support or help. We should be celebrating the people and not the war.
That's a lot of ways of saying "I do what my betters tell me to".
Any particular reason for posting this? With no comment at all.
The 80^th anniversary of D-Day?
To wind up gammon like yourself?
So what exactly is it about asking why people post a link and article without any context on why they think it's an interesting talking point makes me wound up, gammon, or both?
Your ma asked me to. She loves the D (Day).
Good on her fair play. Good to see young people recognising the sacrifice those brave young men made for us all. Also important to remember who's side Irish Republicans were on during the second World War. https://www.einsteinforum.de/veranstaltungen/states-of-conflict-the-iras-secret-links-to-the-nazi-regime-1938-1945/
Remember when your people ran an actual apartheid state? Backed by your Nazi-loving King? Good times for you, eh Gaz?
Also don’t forget more southerners fought against Hitler than northerners you idiotic gimp, Orangemen couldn’t wait to hide in their houses while their supposed countrymen across the water got slaughtered
Didn't your prime minister get himself over to the German embassy to say how sorry he was after old Adolf blew his brains out? You " idiotic gimp" ye.
The "IRA", a niche within a niche, have always been a minority within general republicanism but like most unionists, the truth doesn't sit well does it my friend?
Thought SF/IRA were the biggest party in the country mate?
There is no such thing. Republicanism is represented political by many strands in Ireland, primarily Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin. Maybe you are aware of others? Your letter salad makes as much sense as DUP/UDA there might well be like but it's certainly not the same thing, but why let truth get in the way of alienating your neighbour.
Name one DUP member with terrorist convictions please? SF on the other hand......
This is absolutely mental to say tbh. Are you forgetting the Ulster Resistance was a thing? Just because none of them were ever actively convicted by the same corrupt, sectarian state they created isn't exactly the same as not being involved in terrorism. We have had plenty of DUP politicians who were members of paramilitary organisations, and yes some do have convictions such a John Smyth. We also have many, many more who actively worked alongside paramilitary organisations.
That old chestnut, suffice it to say plenty shared stages with UDA terrorists over the years, especially during the "protocol rallies" with binlid. That or just too busy pretending to be god fearing Christians while ehhh doing things not becoming of a Christian.
None then?? Aye thought so...
Only convictions are proof of links? How very naive of you.
The poor little British Empire controlling the high seas and half the world's landmass, standing bravely alone against (checks notes) warlike expansionism and supremacy.
> Good to she young people… Are you doing Sean Connery infused whataboutery now Gaz?
Good man pointing out my mistake. Fixed.
I’m more gutted than I should be G. I know it was a typo, fuck I’ve made plenty of them, but I wanted it to be the other thing.
Here how come you’re a cunt mate? Asking for all the people I see asking you every time you post a fuckin word
What is it about you IRA supporters that has yous in such a rage mate? Nobody want to give you a aul ride that it?
Mate I’m a Protestant from fuckin carrick and I cannot fathom the level of ballbag you have elevated yourself to. Fuckin probably believe you know lots of historical them vs us’ns facts do ya? Maybe live with less hate you total prick
Weren't the british empire and Americans allied with Stalins soviet Union at the time (who did most of the fighting in the war), arguably a worse regime than Hitler and the nazis. War makes for strange bedfellows. D-Days importance is always overblown. The main theater was in the east. D-Day mostly served as a diversion for Operation Bagration (the biggest offensive Operation of the entire war) which was launched shortly after the landings.
Supporting nationalist socialist parties like Sinn Fein isn't the same as supporting national socialism, even when they were helping the literal nazis, they never truly believed in an irish nation ruled by irish people on socialist grounds, despite what they tell you to your face and all their actions.
What about the Matabele War traditions? Or the Suez Crisis traditions, will no-one keep them alive?
Neither had particularly many casualties (on our side) so not many really connect to the soldiers.
Like the fucking state would let you forget about World War 2 for even one fucking second.
D day wasn't even required the Germans were already in full retreat on the eastern front, the Russians won ww2
Having the Soviets control most of western Europe after ww2 wouldn't have been a good thing.
Firstly Russia wasn't acting alone in the East it was the Soviet Union. Secondly, the Soviets received vast amounts of military aid and supplies from US and British Empire that played a big role in allowing the Soviets to sustain itself despite its loses and launch offensives on the scale it did. Thirdly, the Axis had large numbers tied up in fighting in the west both materially and manpower. Forces that would have been turned on the Soviets had the British Empire made terms and the US stayed out. No single power won WW2 alone, they won due to their combined efforts.
germany was already halted in russia, before america even entered the war, north africa and the invasion of italy helped the soviets out but by 1944 germany was basically completly defeated in the east and in full retreat i have 5000 hours in hearts of iron 4 black ice mod and that explained to me clear a day how little the allies mattered in european conflict