It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Well it was the same story in WW2. The Ruskies were the ones that beat Hitler.
“I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counterproductive."
Not exactly Dirty Harry is he?
Two things last time I looked Russia is classed as a democracy plus I think you'll find it was the Russian Winter that beat Hitler on the western front, the other allies did have something to do with it as well, government was stronger during WW2, no bullsh*t PC appeasement then, we had Churchill...
Playing down Russia's role in winning WW2 is not cool.
I would put it differently. For me, the guys who came up with invading Iraq, were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and the political fool who followed their stage directions having their way, was GWB. And reading Cheney still is confident, that everything he, Rumsfeld and Karl Rove did, was justified. I do not feel pity for Saddam Hussein and his sons, they were murdereous manicas and bastards, but the invasion and all they did afterwards actually lead to the formation of this IS terrorists.
I think Cheney is genuinely evil. The human manifestation of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of.
I'm never sure what to think of Dubya. I don't think he's tbe idiot he was caricatured as, but at the same time, how do you actually explain him believing that Iraq was a legitimate target?
During the Nuremberg trials Herman Goering was quoted as saying: "Its easy to bend the will of the people. Just say the country is in danger, pacifists are knocked as being un patriotic. This works all the time" (or words to that effect)
Being a student of history, I was just appalled hearing the news broadcasts, the speeches and all leading up to the Iraq Invasion.
@Getafix I agree with your comments on Dick Cheney. The man is the evil prime minister, the real power behind the throne.
And now he is fornicating in the monster god heaven. Congratulations.
Seconded.
I think you'll find all of the US and UK casualties do not even add up to the amount the Russians lost in Stalingrad alone.
Whilst I have the utmost respect for all our people who fell against the Nazis the perception we have in the west that it was our contribution that won it is both laughable and insulting to Russia.
Indeed, we owe Mother Russia a great deal here in the West, the Cold War aside.
Not playing it down, just the winter beat 2 nations, Germany & France (Napoleon, 1812 and all that), should study military history, it was part of strategy lectures at Sandhurst.
I find it somewhat disingenuous to blame it all on supply lines rather than the limitless supply of Russian corpses.
I think there wouldn't have been a problem if the Germans could have just rolled into Stalingrad but the fact that the town refused to fall means they end up getting bogged down for months and months.
It was the defiant Russian resistance they met that makes winter become a factor. But for that they'd have had their feet up and the cigars out by the time the snow started.
Don't look at this through rosey glasses, the Russian people were dead anyway, if they didn't fight they were shot for running away, the winter made the difference because no German conscript had ever experienced anything like it. Again, tactically Hitler was a fool, as he was with the Battle of Britain, had he gone round Starlingrad (Volgograd today) & annexed it from the rest of the soviet army & cut of supplies, it would have fallen eventually, if they'd ignored what was not a stratigic objective in the bigger picture, Hitler's army would probably have conquered Russia. As much as if he'd just headed across the channel in 1940 as concensus believes he'd have overun & conquered Britain, basically we got lucky because the German generals were so afraid of Hitler that they allowed this tactically inept buffoon, who'd been lucky in the past, to lead them to defeat.
Eighteenth, Nineteeth, and Twentieth century all failed invasions. Anybody care to try it in the Twenty-First?
:))
I have a question relating to WW2: Was the UK ever in any real danger of invasion in 1940? I don't think so. The German high command had no idea how to mount a sea born invasion as the only country that had experience at it was Japan; a naval blockage was out of the question as the Kriegsmarine was no match for the Home Fleet: a U boat blockage would have required 200 boats and at the time Germany only had 17 U boats.
Besides Hitler never wanted to fight the British, whom he considered to be good Aryans like the Germans. He felt the French were decadent and the Russians were filthy barbaric Slavs not much better than Jews, Gypsies and Blacks.
He was hoping that the threat would force Britain to the bargaining table. Having failed at that he began planning but the mishandling of the Battle of Britain caused that door to shut. By Dec 1940 he began to draw up plans to invade the Soviet Union. Thus forgetting the UK altogether.
Your not wrong, in country was shear hell on earth, it was an unwinable war, securing any position was a F**king impossiblity, you felt eyes on you everywhere, you couldn't distinguish between friend or foe, lost some good friends, still have nightmares most weeks, hugging my wife right now, crazy, what a f**ked up world.
Anybody cheering the policies of Putin can be considered a headcase, the man is not interested in anything the West wants after all he still covers Assads behind, the man who has killed more Syrians than IS has done. And causing a mass exodus of moderate muslims to the west.
This war and its consequences is a incredible mess and I find the democratic chosen leaders that try and steer through the sh&te with diplomacy of bigger intelligence than those who want to walk in with guns blazing and bombing the crap out of IS and too many innocent bystanders that cannot go anywhere because in essence they are kept hostage and human shield. Becoming a feeding ground for hatred towards the West which in itself is a nice source for new radicals.
The likes of Obama who does not want to make the matters worse than they already are should be cherished instead of those idiots who serve the weapon industries and want a bigger army, more bombs and more war. For f..... sake we already have enough war to keep mankind at the brink of self destruction.
If a President ever tried to take it down, he would get "JFK'd".
End result: we have been at war since the end of WW2 yet we have never declared war since 1942.
Obscene defense budget that drains our resources and while the military has what it wants (but does not necessarily need) the rest of the country is going to sh*t. Bridges falling down, schools a joke, and don't ever get sick in the USA you are really screwed with our frakked up health care system. Why so many retirees move to Central America these days....
First 14 mins
Okay, Bush was indirectly responsible for the Islamist threat. But all the same: France's secularism and ideals of liberty were also attacked. And at least this time, we have people that will truly defend Western civilization. When the US was attacked by Islamists, who were against sex, against gays, against alcohol, it was defended by a bunch of Christian puritans who had nothing against eating bacon. The response in France has been far different. Like Charlie Hebdo said (freely translated): they have the guns, f*ck them, we have the Champagne.