Should Churchill be seen as a warmonger and partial escalator of WW2?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OpenSky

 

Millions? Hyperbole much?

The British sent 4613 aircraft, and just over 5000 tanks and armored vehicles to Russia during the entire course of the war. A total of just over 4200 tanks arrived and were put to use. In 1941, and 42 just over 2900 tanks, or over half of them were sent. The entire Allied force combined sent 15000 artillery pieces and 131000 guns to Russia. By far the largest numbers of equipment were from the US. There were a total of 22000 armored vehicles sent to Russia with 1900 lost at sea. Nowhere near your "millions".

So a few hundred weapons was too much to ask for? Funny I don't remember the Russians sacrificing themselves for Britain in WW1...

reply to post by OpenSky


The Battle of Britain was an aerial battle - it was one of many many battles that Britain was engaged in.

I am not sure what your argument is really apart from to insult the British in a quisling manner [ look it up] and to cause arguments. You have consistently made assertions that are wrong - as other posters such as Zaphoid58 and Alfie amongst others have refuted with accurate facts. Yet you still insist on your petty tirade.

This smacks of petty spoilt 21st century teenage existential angst, That is fine. But do not insult my family or the families of the other British and American servicemen who fought in that war.

Originally posted by OpenSky

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OpenSky

 

Flown by both the RAAF and the RAF. You conveniently leave out the help that England did send, just to rip on them. Why is that?

An outstanding work. In 1943 the legendary Spitfire fighter was employed in the defence of the Darwin area by No.1 Fighter Wing, RAAF. Made up of one British and two Australian squadrons,

avonmorebooks.com.au...

No. 1 Wing was an Australian Flying Corps (AFC) and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) wing active during World War I and World War II. The wing was established on 1 September 1917 as the 1st Training Wing and commanded the AFC's pilot training squadrons in England until April 1919, when it was disbanded. It was reformed on 7 October 1942 as a fighter unit comprising two Australian and one British flying squadrons equipped with Supermarine Spitfire aircraft, and a mobile fighter sector headquarters. The wing provided air defence to Darwin and several other key Allied bases in northern Australia until the end of the war, and was again disbanded in October 1945.

en.wikipedia.org...

Subordinate units:
452 Squadron
457 Squadron
548 Squadron RAF
549 Squadron RAF
54 Squadron
5/105 FCU
7 RSU Return and Salvage Unit

trove.nla.gov.au...

edit on 1/17/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Take note, the Battle for Australia ended in 1943, so I am correct. The British arrived too late just like the Americans. Besides a squadron only consists of about 12 or so planes, what grand help for the tens of thousands who died for Britain....

You are simply in denial. You have gone from denying that any British Spitfires were engaged in the air defence of Darwin to grudgingly conceding a squadron with British pilots was so engaged while still avoiding the fact that another 2 squadrons of British manufactured Spitfires was being used by RAAF pilots.

How did the British Spitfires and pilots arrive too late when they were actually engaged in shooting down attacking Japanese aircraft ?

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by OpenSky

 

The Battle of Britain was an aerial battle - it was one of many many battles that Britain was engaged in.

I am not sure what your argument is really apart from to insult the British in a quisling manner [ look it up] and to cause arguments. You have consistently made assertions that are wrong - as other posters such as Zaphoid58 and Alfie amongst others have refuted with accurate facts. Yet you still insist on your petty tirade.

This smacks of petty spoilt 21st century teenage existential angst, That is fine. But do not insult my family or the families of the other British and American servicemen who fought in that war.

edit on 17-1-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)

The biggest insult you have made to me was by not honouring your duties when a friend needed help...

Originally posted by OpenSky

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by OpenSky

 

The Battle of Britain was an aerial battle - it was one of many many battles that Britain was engaged in.

I am not sure what your argument is really apart from to insult the British in a quisling manner [ look it up] and to cause arguments. You have consistently made assertions that are wrong - as other posters such as Zaphoid58 and Alfie amongst others have refuted with accurate facts. Yet you still insist on your petty tirade.

This smacks of petty spoilt 21st century teenage existential angst, That is fine. But do not insult my family or the families of the other British and American servicemen who fought in that war.

edit on 17-1-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)

The biggest insult you have made to me was by not honouring your duties when a friend needed help...

Hahaha now I am laughing - it is ME who was not born until the 1960s who is the traitor now !!! hahahhahahah laughs her way off this thread to attend to life in general haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Originally posted by HelenConway

Originally posted by OpenSky

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by OpenSky

 

The Battle of Britain was an aerial battle - it was one of many many battles that Britain was engaged in.

I am not sure what your argument is really apart from to insult the British in a quisling manner [ look it up] and to cause arguments. You have consistently made assertions that are wrong - as other posters such as Zaphoid58 and Alfie amongst others have refuted with accurate facts. Yet you still insist on your petty tirade.

This smacks of petty spoilt 21st century teenage existential angst, That is fine. But do not insult my family or the families of the other British and American servicemen who fought in that war.

edit on 17-1-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)

The biggest insult you have made to me was by not honouring your duties when a friend needed help...

Hahaha now I am laughing - it is ME who was not born until the 1960s who is the traitor now !!! hahahhahahah laughs her way off this thread to attend to life in general haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

So not only are you in denial of the Australian sacrifice for Great Britain, but you laugh about it. You were never our allies, you used us as your cannon fodder!!

reply to post by OpenSky


Russia was the key to winning in Europe. If they kept Russia fighting, then Germany kept fighting on two fronts. If Russia fell, then Germany concentrated on Britain, and everything changed. I'm sorry, but if Australia fell, it could be retaken later, and the war wouldn't be potentially lost. If Russia fell, the US was fighting from their own soil, trying to retake England to establish a base again. Or they faced a negotiated settlement and Europe changed completely.

Here a clear difference was appearing - many realised that Britain was not in a position to help Australia but America not only promised help but backed up that promise with men and equipment.

www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

Originally posted by OpenSky

Originally posted by HelenConway

Originally posted by OpenSky

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by OpenSky

 

The Battle of Britain was an aerial battle - it was one of many many battles that Britain was engaged in.

I am not sure what your argument is really apart from to insult the British in a quisling manner [ look it up] and to cause arguments. You have consistently made assertions that are wrong - as other posters such as Zaphoid58 and Alfie amongst others have refuted with accurate facts. Yet you still insist on your petty tirade.

This smacks of petty spoilt 21st century teenage existential angst, That is fine. But do not insult my family or the families of the other British and American servicemen who fought in that war.

edit on 17-1-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)

The biggest insult you have made to me was by not honouring your duties when a friend needed help...

Hahaha now I am laughing - it is ME who was not born until the 1960s who is the traitor now !!! hahahhahahah laughs her way off this thread to attend to life in general haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

So not only are you in denial of the Australian sacrifice for Great Britain, but you laugh about it. You were never our allies, you used us as your cannon fodder!!

Love I hate to burst your ego bubble but you are not Australia, Your are a 20 year old male who lives there [ maybe].

reply to post by OpenSky


The Australian government allowed Australia to get in that position. They sent troops from the army, the air force, and the navy to fight in Europe, because like everyone else, they realized that if Europe fell, that was the start of the rest of the dominoes falling. If Europe went down, that freed up the Axis powers to concentrate on what was left and consolidate forces. So the Australian Government consciously made the choice to support Europe. They KNEW that Britain was in no position to send much help if any, and the people then knew that as well. That's one big reason they approached the US, because we WERE in the position to help, and we did. To say that the British were traitors, or used Australia as cannon fodder is nothing more than revisionist history. If you want to blame someone, blame your own government for sending troops to Europe.

reply to post by OpenSky


Put a chip on your other shoulder, it'll help balance you out.

People have tried to engage in discussion and debate with you, but even when presented with fact you don't want to engage. I don't see the point in pursing this thread any further.

Nice seeing this thread still going!

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
Nice seeing this thread still going!

I note that you still haven't answered my questions by the way...

Quiet in here isn't it?

That question can only be answered with another question :

What's written in the letters that Churchill and Mussolini were repeatedly sending to each other ? They are still kept secret in Rome somewhere ... Berlusconi used to mention them many times, but never a single line of text contained in those letters was revealed ...

What's could possibly be written in them ? A good question for Mattarella and Conte, would answer the question in this thread.