Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran (1941)

[LondonCamanachd]

It's the humbug about freedom and democracy while allying itself with the Soviet Union that gets on my nerves.)

Britain did go to war to protect freedom and democracy.  Her own.  But the original point Mayogodhelpus made was that Britain entered WW2 in a spirit of imperial expansion.  WW2 ended the British Empire.

its good to see so many idealists on this thread, but WW2 destroyed Britain, the civilian army was utterly shattered after 6 bloody years, the economy was entirely subject to the war effort and the infrastructure was almost non-existant having been bombed and with all repair budgets being spent on arms.  Britain was in no position to bargain with or persuade the Soviets to do anything.  Britain needed the Soviets to take Berlin as quick as possible just to get the whole business over with.

Roosevelt was an idealist, that led him to believe that the Soviets would keep their word despite Churchill's attempts to persuade him otherwise. 

[seafoid]

You don't have to go all the way to Iran to find a country where Britain was quite happy to reject notions of sovereignty if they clashed with Britain's interests. What brought Neville Chamberlain down was not the Munich accords, the loss of Poland or even of France. It was for sitting by while the dastardly Jerrys invaded Norway first. As a Norwegian friend of mine noted, the reason the British were so quick in arriving to the defence of Trondheim (futile as it was) was because they were already in the boats!

(I would note that I don't see anything wrong with Britain doing what it thought was best in defending what it sees as its national interest. It's the humbug about freedom and democracy while allying itself with the Soviet Union that gets on my nerves.)

I always think it was weird how ww2 started because Poland was invaded and occupied by a totalitarian regime and ended with Poland invaded and occupied by a totalitarian regime (as well as shifted several hundred miles West)

Indeed and after 1948 many in Eastern Europe who had fought with the allies were rounded up and jailed by the Russians for 'colluding with capitalists'.

Very good movie on some of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Blue_World

there was one awful incident post war where the Soviets claimed all of "their" people who had fought with the Germans and the Brits had a crowd of Ukrainians -I think it was Cossacks - and they refused to go over to the other side and the Brits shot and bayoneted them to go and they were all subsequently murdered as they knew they would be by the Soviets.
The Brits and Yanks also betrayed all the Germans living East of the Oder-Neisse line when they agreed with Stalin that the land should be given to Poland . Churchill was shocked but he didn't want to upset Stalin who was a sociopath. Stalin seized half of poland for the Soviet Union and cleared it of Poles and gave them the German land in compensation.

[LondonCamanachd]

You don't have to go all the way to Iran to find a country where Britain was quite happy to reject notions of sovereignty if they clashed with Britain's interests. What brought Neville Chamberlain down was not the Munich accords, the loss of Poland or even of France. It was for sitting by while the dastardly Jerrys invaded Norway first. As a Norwegian friend of mine noted, the reason the British were so quick in arriving to the defence of Trondheim (futile as it was) was because they were already in the boats!

(I would note that I don't see anything wrong with Britain doing what it thought was best in defending what it sees as its national interest. It's the humbug about freedom and democracy while allying itself with the Soviet Union that gets on my nerves.)

I always think it was weird how ww2 started because Poland was invaded and occupied by a totalitarian regime and ended with Poland invaded and occupied by a totalitarian regime (as well as shifted several hundred miles West)

Indeed and after 1948 many in Eastern Europe who had fought with the allies were rounded up and jailed by the Russians for 'colluding with capitalists'.

Very good movie on some of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Blue_World

there was one awful incident post war where the Soviets claimed all of "their" people who had fought with the Germans and the Brits had a crowd of Ukrainians -I think it was Cossacks - and they refused to go over to the other side and the Brits shot and bayoneted them to go and they were all subsequently murdered as they knew they would be by the Soviets.
The Brits and Yanks also betrayed all the Germans living East of the Oder-Neisse line when they agreed with Stalin that the land should be given to Poland . Churchill was shocked but he didn't want to upset Stalin who was a sociopath. Stalin seized half of poland for the Soviet Union and cleared it of Poles and gave them the German land in compensation.

I'll forgive them for not treating the Germans as their top priority.  I wouldn't begrudge any Czech, Pole, Cossasck, Finn, or Soviet PoW who wasn't overly fond of the Western Allies however.

[Capt Pat]

Gdansk where we play a match in the summer was a German/Prussian town. That was a very strange un natural way of sorting things out. Could it still lead to trouble down the road?

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Gdansk where we play a match in the summer was a German/Prussian town. That was a very strange un natural way of sorting things out. Could it still lead to trouble down the road?

The Germans where treated very badly post WW1, however this was more the fault of the French (understandable after the Franco-Prussian war, where French forces was let by a man of Irish descent into horrible defeat) than the also blameable British. Germany entered the first world war with the transparent reasoning of defending Austria, not much difference from France and Britains claims towards Polish integrity in the second world war.

In 1956 the U.K. & France along with Israel were still up to their Imperial gamesmanship.

[trileacman]

Gdansk where we play a match in the summer was a German/Prussian town. That was a very strange un natural way of sorting things out. Could it still lead to trouble down the road?

The Germans where treated very badly post WW1, however this was more the fault of the French (understandable after the Franco-Prussian war, where French forces was let by a man of Irish descent into horrible defeat) than the also blameable British. Germany entered the first world war with the transparent reasoning of defending Austria, not much difference from France and Britains claims towards Polish integrity in the second world war.

In 1956 the U.K. & France along with Israel were still up to their Imperial gamesmanship.

IMO the European powers were geared for war by 1914, the assassination of the Archduke was just the excuse they all needed. Compare the speed at which they declared war at a point when hostilities had not been really commenced. The British danced on the streets when they heard the war had begun and signed up to their slaughter in their droves, the media and the powers that be having convinced them of the glorious Imperial victory over the horrible Huns.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Gdansk where we play a match in the summer was a German/Prussian town. That was a very strange un natural way of sorting things out. Could it still lead to trouble down the road?

The Germans where treated very badly post WW1, however this was more the fault of the French (understandable after the Franco-Prussian war, where French forces was let by a man of Irish descent into horrible defeat) than the also blameable British. Germany entered the first world war with the transparent reasoning of defending Austria, not much difference from France and Britains claims towards Polish integrity in the second world war.

In 1956 the U.K. & France along with Israel were still up to their Imperial gamesmanship.

IMO the European powers were geared for war by 1914, the assassination of the Archduke was just the excuse they all needed. Compare the speed at which they declared war at a point when hostilities had not been really commenced. The British danced on the streets when they heard the war had begun and signed up to their slaughter in their droves, the media and the powers that be having convinced them of the glorious Imperial victory over the horrible Huns.

The first and in particular the second world wars as fed to the general English population seems to have been a national process in England and perhaps the U.K. to rewrite Britain from being glorious because of Empire to being glorious because Britain does good stuff. This is achieved be ignoring pre-20'th century history unless it is Elizabeth I and Sir Francis Drake beating a million Spaniard ships on their own or defeating the French at Agincourt because it was the only battle that counted of that War and England tactically reduced its presence in France  When they look at 20'th century history they continue to ignore all the cruelty, warcrimes and mistakes handed out by Britain and its armed forces.

[trileacman]

Gdansk where we play a match in the summer was a German/Prussian town. That was a very strange un natural way of sorting things out. Could it still lead to trouble down the road?

The Germans where treated very badly post WW1, however this was more the fault of the French (understandable after the Franco-Prussian war, where French forces was let by a man of Irish descent into horrible defeat) than the also blameable British. Germany entered the first world war with the transparent reasoning of defending Austria, not much difference from France and Britains claims towards Polish integrity in the second world war.

In 1956 the U.K. & France along with Israel were still up to their Imperial gamesmanship.

IMO the European powers were geared for war by 1914, the assassination of the Archduke was just the excuse they all needed. Compare the speed at which they declared war at a point when hostilities had not been really commenced. The British danced on the streets when they heard the war had begun and signed up to their slaughter in their droves, the media and the powers that be having convinced them of the glorious Imperial victory over the horrible Huns.

The first and in particular the second world wars as fed to the general English population seems to have been a national process in England and perhaps the U.K. to rewrite Britain from being glorious because of Empire to being glorious because Britain does good stuff. This is achieved be ignoring pre-20'th century history unless it is Elizabeth I and Sir Francis Drake beating a million Spaniard ships on their own or defeating the French at Agincourt because it was the only battle that counted of that War and England tactically reduced its presence in France  When they look at 20'th century history they continue to ignore all the cruelty, warcrimes and mistakes handed out by Britain and its armed forces.

In most regards that is true, but nearly all countries will look back favourably on their history, drawing up their famous victories as often as they can. How much more can we listen to the "Battle of Britain" or "North Africa campaign" shite? The decisive action of the European conflict of WW2 was fought on the streets of Stalingrad and the fields of Russia.

Ignoring warcrimes and cruelty? America and Britain do the same still. Dresden and Agent Orange will remain but footnotes in the Western textbooks as their glorious victories and noble pursuits are recanted to future generations.

[LondonCamanachd]

Gdansk where we play a match in the summer was a German/Prussian town. That was a very strange un natural way of sorting things out. Could it still lead to trouble down the road?

The Germans where treated very badly post WW1, however this was more the fault of the French (understandable after the Franco-Prussian war, where French forces was let by a man of Irish descent into horrible defeat) than the also blameable British. Germany entered the first world war with the transparent reasoning of defending Austria, not much difference from France and Britains claims towards Polish integrity in the second world war.

In 1956 the U.K. & France along with Israel were still up to their Imperial gamesmanship.

IMO the European powers were geared for war by 1914, the assassination of the Archduke was just the excuse they all needed. Compare the speed at which they declared war at a point when hostilities had not been really commenced. The British danced on the streets when they heard the war had begun and signed up to their slaughter in their droves, the media and the powers that be having convinced them of the glorious Imperial victory over the horrible Huns.

The first and in particular the second world wars as fed to the general English population seems to have been a national process in England and perhaps the U.K. to rewrite Britain from being glorious because of Empire to being glorious because Britain does good stuff. This is achieved be ignoring pre-20'th century history unless it is Elizabeth I and Sir Francis Drake beating a million Spaniard ships on their own or defeating the French at Agincourt because it was the only battle that counted of that War and England tactically reduced its presence in France  When they look at 20'th century history they continue to ignore all the cruelty, warcrimes and mistakes handed out by Britain and its armed forces.

In most regards that is true, but nearly all countries will look back favourably on their history, drawing up their famous victories as often as they can. How much more can we listen to the "Battle of Britain" or "North Africa campaign" shite? The decisive action of the European conflict of WW2 was fought on the streets of Stalingrad and the fields of Russia.

And in the North Atlantic, and in the skies over Hiroshima and Nagasak, and...and...i.  It was a seven year long conflict in Northern Europe, and even longer in East Asia.  There was no one decisive conflict of WW2.

Battle of Britain I'll give you, but how often do you the "North Africa Campaign shite" ?  To me, in the UK it seems that the Battle of Britain and D-Day domiante all talk of the "good guys" beating evil Nazis.

Ignoring warcrimes and cruelty? America and Britain do the same still. Dresden and Agent Orange will remain but footnotes in the Western textbooks as their glorious victories and noble pursuits are recanted to future generations.

It was a disgusting period in human history and individuals may escape with credit, but nations rarely will (how many Irishmen feel that sending condolences to the Reichskanzlei on the death of Hitler was the right thing?.  Britons aren't ever going to don the sackcloth and ashes over WW2, because we were fighting the Nazis.  But, aye, it would help if we had a more mature attitude to our own history, and the jingoism and tubthumping do leave a sour taste in the mouth.

[trileacman]

Battle of Britain I'll give you, but how often do you the "North Africa Campaign shite" ?  To me, in the UK it seems that the Battle of Britain and D-Day domiante all talk of the "good guys" beating evil Nazis.

IMO Montgomery's contribution is often lauded beyond its actually importance.