US allies has removed their nuclear bombs from the Royal Air Force base at Lakenheath

[MikkiR]

I cannot imagine that! Do you hear that our US allies has removed their nuclear bombs from the Royal Air Force base at Lakenheath, Suffolk, where they had been stationed since 1954?
I never believe that the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Britain that, by the way, is not publicly announced, is an act of good will of Washington, directed to US non-strategic weapons cuts in Europe. Either the Pentagon decided to drop its nuclear bombs from US planes stationed at its air base in the UK, because now this type of nuclear weapons play a much smaller role in the US nuclear arsenal in general or … because their location in this country constitutes serious problems from the viewpoint of their control.
It is common knowledge that any tactical nuclear weapons are very vulnerable for various kinds of unauthorized employment. Moreover, pocket-size of US non-strategic nuclear weapons and absence of special electronic locks on them turns this type of weapons into sitting duck for any pirates, including Muslim terrorists, for whom London has become their reliable shelter now thanks to indulgent policy of our present authorities.
So after checking that Brown’s government is not able to fight effectively against such modern threats as corruption and terrorism, Washington has decided to withdraw secretly its tactical nuclear weapons from this country after more than 50 years!

[Expounder]

I cannot imagine that! Do you hear that our US allies has removed their nuclear bombs from the Royal Air Force base at Lakenheath, Suffolk, where they had been stationed since 1954?
I never believe that the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Britain that, by the way, is not publicly announced, is an act of good will of Washington, directed to US non-strategic weapons cuts in Europe. Either the Pentagon decided to drop its nuclear bombs from US planes stationed at its air base in the UK, because now this type of nuclear weapons play a much smaller role in the US nuclear arsenal in general or … because their location in this country constitutes serious problems from the viewpoint of their control.
It is common knowledge that any tactical nuclear weapons are very vulnerable for various kinds of unauthorized employment. Moreover, pocket-size of US non-strategic nuclear weapons and absence of special electronic locks on them turns this type of weapons into sitting duck for any pirates, including Muslim terrorists, for whom London has become their reliable shelter now thanks to indulgent policy of our present authorities.
So after checking that Brown’s government is not able to fight effectively against such modern threats as corruption and terrorism, Washington has decided to withdraw secretly its tactical nuclear weapons from this country after more than 50 years!

This is good news for Britain ,we won't automatically be a target for a counterstrike by a nuclear nation who may be unilaterally nuked by the US .

During the cold war we have been the first to be wiped off the face of the earth had the trigger happy US military had decided to hit the Soviets first. I think that every one in Britain will feel a bit safer.:cool:

[pauli007001]

This is good news for Britain ,we won't automatically be a target for a counterstrike by a nuclear nation who may be unilaterally nuked by the US .

During the cold war we have been the first to be wiped off the face of the earth had the trigger happy US military had decided to hit the Soviets first. I think that every one in Britain will feel a bit safer.:cool:

Trigger happy????Provide evidence please!Alternativly take a strong medcine for your verbal diahorea!!!!!

[hobbit_feet]

are you suggesting that the US wants to drop a nuke that is older than 50 on sombody?!

Surely the US arson of nuclear weapons is many many many more times powerful and advanced than the weapons stored here?

[Tacitus]

I cannot imagine that! Do you hear that our US allies has removed their nuclear bombs from the Royal Air Force base at Lakenheath, Suffolk, where they had been stationed since 1954?

Well Germany has just found out we are to be recieving a load of U.S nukes that we did not have before. So it COULD be them.

are you suggesting that the US wants to drop a nuke that is older than 50 on sombody?!

Surely the US arson of nuclear weapons is many many many more times powerful and advanced than the weapons stored here?

:confused: Are you PRETENDING to be thick, or....?

The weapons, as those on my ship, are subject, to rotation.

My local supermarkett has had "Rewe bread" for twentyfive years. I can ASSURE you the bread that I bought yesterday is NOT 25 years old.

[Trouble43]

This is good news for Britain ,we won't automatically be a target for a counterstrike by a nuclear nation who may be unilaterally nuked by the US .

During the cold war we have been the first to be wiped off the face of the earth had the trigger happy US military had decided to hit the Soviets first. I think that every one in Britain will feel a bit safer.:cool:

I'm certainly not sorry. :)

[Citizen Smith]

I just hope that the Americans can keep the lid on their aggression- as our governments never seem to want to stand up to them on issues like Torture, Guantanamo, or Aggression, or Nuclear activity.

[Citizen Smith]

Trigger happy????Provide evidence please!Alternativly take a strong medcine for your verbal diahorea!!!!!
To be honest... I think you need to take your own advice...sorry. :p

[Trouble43]

Trigger happy????Provide evidence please!Alternativly take a strong medcine for your verbal diahorea!!!!!

Paulie all the socalled 'friendly fire' that armed forces have been subjected to at the hands of the US for decades is 'evidence' enugh I think. I think the worst instance was in the first iraq war when the Americans fired on a UK red cross transporter. It had a huge red cross on the roof of the vehicle and yet they still hit it and killed many of the injured and nursing staff. In the end it became a joke that the Brits had more to fear from the US planes (which had, at that time, also shot down a number of Brit planes too) than they did the iraqi forces.

Not a nice joke I admit, but relevant all the same. Its not really got any better since then. I think the problem is they tend to just pull the trigger without always thinking first.

[Tacitus]

Paulie all the socalled 'friendly fire' that armed forces have been subjected to at the hands of the US for decades is 'evidence' enugh I think. I think the worst instance was in the first iraq war when the Americans fired on a UK red cross transporter.

Do not underestimate the British capacity for equal stupidity.

I have been at te recieving end of BRITISH "friendly fire THREE times in the Falklands, once in Gulf one, and twice in Northern Ireland. And only this week there was a story in the news about a British Apache that fired missiles at members of the Parachute regiment.

And on EXERSIZE, similar has happened top me twenty, thirty times. There abouts.

[Tete123]

Do not underestimate the British capacity for equal stupidity.

I have been at te recieving end of BRITISH "friendly fire THREE times in the Falklands, once in Gulf one, and twice in Northern Ireland. And only this week there was a story in the news about a British Apache that fired missiles at members of the Parachute regiment.

And on EXERSIZE, similar has happened top me twenty, thirty times. There abouts.

Maybe they were trying to tell you something Tacitus, in a subtle way of course!!

[Tacitus]

Maybe they were trying to tell you something Tacitus, in a subtle way of course!!


To change my soap? :D

[Tete123]

To change my soap? :D

I think a soap change may have helped your cause but, if you were as wonderfully blunt and dare I say arrogant on exercise as you are on here then I fear this could have contributed to you being fired upon.. I am just throwing some theories out there!!!:D

[pauli007001]

Paulie all the socalled 'friendly fire' that armed forces have been subjected to at the hands of the US for decades is 'evidence' enugh I think. I think the worst instance was in the first iraq war when the Americans fired on a UK red cross transporter. It had a huge red cross on the roof of the vehicle and yet they still hit it and killed many of the injured and nursing staff. In the end it became a joke that the Brits had more to fear from the US planes (which had, at that time, also shot down a number of Brit planes too) than they did the iraqi forces.

Not a nice joke I admit, but relevant all the same. Its not really got any better since then. I think the problem is they tend to just pull the trigger without always thinking first.

It wasnt a red cross transporter,it was a coy of the 1st battalion Royal Regt of Fusileers!Any yes there were many comments on the Issue,i made many myself!
Blue on Blue is a fact of war,it happens,the British army have a more systemic approach to battle and work on a smaller scale,training reduces the chances of Blue on blue(there is no such thing as freindly fire,it is all likely to kill you).
What tou are not told of course is that the purse string holders in parliment wouldnt pay for radio recognition devices for warrior AFVs and instead had them painted with an orange cross of course in the desert this could barely be seen from the air.No radio recognition=Enemy forces was the US training(since changed)the warrior was also a new weapons system!

[Trouble43]

It wasnt a red cross transporter,it was a coy of the 1st battalion Royal Regt of Fusileers!Any yes there were many comments on the Issue,i made many myself!
Blue on Blue is a fact of war,it happens,the British army have a more systemic approach to battle and work on a smaller scale,training reduces the chances of Blue on blue(there is no such thing as freindly fire,it is all likely to kill you).
What tou are not told of course is that the purse string holders in parliment wouldnt pay for radio recognition devices for warrior AFVs and instead had them painted with an orange cross of course in the desert this could barely be seen from the air.No radio recognition=Enemy forces was the US training(since changed)the warrior was also a new weapons system!

That aside the fact remains that the US fired on allied forces. The joke, sick though it is, still remains that the only safe place with a US soldier is behind him.

I see what you mean about friendly fire - but I think they call that to show it is from an ally and not an enemy. Though I do wonder if someone might one day just call the enemy shooting unfriendly fire?

Still, I wouldve though that there was radios in the planes they shot down? Surely the Brit fliers tried to get their attention before they blown out of the sky?

I think the trouble is (as has been said), the US military is a bit trigger happy. Shoot first and ask questions later - Im not saying that it wasn't a good idea years ago; but these days, with all the kit they have, there's time to at least try and see if the plane/truck/soldier they are about to fire on is an ally rather an enemy?

[pauli007001]

That aside the fact remains that the US fired on allied forces. The joke, sick though it is, still remains that the only safe place with a US soldier is behind him.

I see what you mean about friendly fire - but I think they call that to show it is from an ally and not an enemy. Though I do wonder if someone might one day just call the enemy shooting unfriendly fire?

Still, I wouldve though that there was radios in the planes they shot down? Surely the Brit fliers tried to get their attention before they blown out of the sky?

I think the trouble is (as has been said), the US military is a bit trigger happy. Shoot first and ask questions later - Im not saying that it wasn't a good idea years ago; but these days, with all the kit they have, there's time to at least try and see if the plane/truck/soldier they are about to fire on is an ally rather an enemy?

You can show evidence that british planes were shot down of course?
You seem to make it up a little,eg an infantry unit being bombed cos the MOD wouldnt supply radio recognition devces to warrior AVFs becomes in your invention of a post an attack on a red cross convoy?Last time that happened in war was a german attack on a french red cross convoy in WW1!In WW2 they used hospital trains,which also came under attack(german red cross trains bombed by the allies)!
Perhaps you should re examine your hatred for the American people and learn to overcome your bigotry and learn to love your fellow being!Although i understand how hard this might be with the BBC indoctrination system bombarding you with anti American rhetoric at every second.Oh yeah and nulabs cool britannia rules state that hating america is cool,those who dont get their TAX CREDITS cut!!!

[Spades]

That aside the fact remains that the US fired on allied forces. The joke, sick though it is, still remains that the only safe place with a US soldier is behind him.

I see what you mean about friendly fire - but I think they call that to show it is from an ally and not an enemy. Though I do wonder if someone might one day just call the enemy shooting unfriendly fire?

Still, I wouldve though that there was radios in the planes they shot down? Surely the Brit fliers tried to get their attention before they blown out of the sky?

I think the trouble is (as has been said), the US military is a bit trigger happy. Shoot first and ask questions later - Im not saying that it wasn't a good idea years ago; but these days, with all the kit they have, there's time to at least try and see if the plane/truck/soldier they are about to fire on is an ally rather an enemy?

There are always incidents of friendly fire but if you must go down this road I only have one thing to say... Operation Market Garden.

[Trouble43]

You can show evidence that british planes were shot down of course?

Umm, so you never watched the news either in the US or in the UK, never read a paper either, during the first iraqi war? Because, seriously, it was all over the news. You couldn't miss it.

You seem to make it up a little,eg an infantry unit being bombed cos the MOD wouldnt supply radio recognition devces to warrior AVFs becomes in your invention of a post an attack on a red cross convoy?

No I didn't make it up, a convoy was bombed wasn't it? I made a mistake about it being a red cross one is all, for that I apologise. But friendly fire is friendly fire - they still blew up British troops.


Perhaps you should re examine your hatred for the American people and learn to overcome your bigotry and learn to love your fellow being!

Where do you get the idea I hate the American people and that Im a bigot? Perhaps you could do the same with your rabid hatred of anything British?

As for me having a hatred of the american people - that's actually funny. I have an amerian friend who likes in New York (The Village) and is a republican. I've known him since I was 18 and we became penpals; now we're best buds and have met up whenever he comes to the UK. I would love to visit him in NY one day.

I have another friend who lives in Savannah - she says its lovely there and Ive known her for 5 years. I love America; but that doesn't stop me seeing its faults; jsut like my friends do. They love their country but they see its faults. Perhaps you could try that too - to see a country's faults doesn't mean you don't love it, it doesn't mean youre not loyal.

I love my country, but I see its faults - I see the faults of the government. But I still love the people and the place.

Although i understand how hard this might be with the BBC indoctrination system bombarding you with anti American rhetoric at every second.Oh yeah and nulabs cool britannia rules state that hating america is cool,those who dont get their TAX CREDITS cut!!!

Oh good, another rant; what is the point of these Paulie? Really, what is the point?

[Trouble43]

There are always incidents of friendly fire but if you must go down this road I only have one thing to say... Operation Market Garden.


I agree; 15% of the casualities in Market Garden came from the American guns. That's quite high I would think.

Oh and you wanted evidence of the downed British jet in the Iraqi war? Here we go then. Its from the Washington Post, dated March 2003 and was written by Betsy Pisik.

"Byline: Betsy Pisik, THE WASHINGTON TIMES KUWAIT - A U.S. Patriot anti-aircraft battery mistakenly shot down a British fighter jet over northern Kuwait last night, in the most serious "friendly fire" incident of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The two crew members on board the Tornado GR4 were killed, according to British officials, who promised that the incident would not lead to hard feelings or disrupt the close cooperation between the coalition allies."

[Albion 69]

Friendly fire incidents are just an inevitable consequence of the fog of war and human error. A British Apache Helicopter gunship fired on a unit of Paras the other day in Afghanistan seriously injuring several of them.

The high number of US related blue on blue incidents is most likely down to the fact the US airforce provides the vast bulk of air cover specifically close air support (CAS) in the war zones we operate . We do not get to hear about the many examples when US CAS saves our troops lives by obliterating the correct target . I would think the vast majority of UK troops would praise the US forces.

[Trouble43]

Friendly fire incidents are just an inevitable consequence of the fog of war and human error. A British Apache Helicopter gunship fired on a unit of Paras the other day in Afghanistan seriously injuring several of them.

The high number of US related blue on blue incidents is most likely down to the fact the US airforce provides the vast bulk of air cover specifically close air support (CAS) in the war zones we operate . We do not get to hear about the many examples when US CAS saves our troops lives by obliterating the correct target . I would think the vast majority of UK troops would praise the US forces.

Apparently the British are saying the problem with the US friendly fire icidents are that they have the best equipment but little training.

I think the case with the most recent British friendly fire was they were scared. They seem to be getting pounded in Iraq and Afghanistan and I think, after all this time its starting to tell.

Im not knocking the US forces or the people A69; just trying to get Paulie to accept that the US is not the God he seems to think it is. The country is lovely (new hampshire and Boston are just two places I'd like to visit, not to mention NY) and the people are wonderful; my friend from NY is brilliant and has been there for me through some rough times, so of course Im not condemning them.

But it does jar a little when a person refuses, despite the evidence, to see a fault in someone and or somewhere.

[Citizen Smith]

Friendly fire incidents are just an inevitable consequence of the fog of war and human error. A British Apache Helicopter gunship fired on a unit of Paras the other day in Afghanistan seriously injuring several of them.

The high number of US related blue on blue incidents is most likely down to the fact the US airforce provides the vast bulk of air cover specifically close air support (CAS) in the war zones we operate . We do not get to hear about the many examples when US CAS saves our troops lives by obliterating the correct target . I would think the vast majority of UK troops would praise the US forces.
This happens because nations are too heavily armed and too agressive

[Tete123]

This happens because nations are too heavily armed and too agressive

*Note to PM - Please send our troops to battle with confetti and feather dusters *

There that should solve the problem, do you agree?

[Citizen Smith]

*Note to PM - Please send our troops to battle with confetti and feather dusters *

There that should solve the problem, do you agree?
No, but the PM could start by not being so aggressive and paranoid and following every blind and crazy right wing warmonger into controversial and not entirely justified wars, and standing and fighting with allies who are abusing human rights as badly as the enemy. :mad:

[pauli007001]

Umm, so you never watched the news either in the US or in the UK, never read a paper either, during the first iraqi war? Because, seriously, it was all over the news. You couldn't miss it.



No I didn't make it up, a convoy was bombed wasn't it? I made a mistake about it being a red cross one is all, for that I apologise. But friendly fire is friendly fire - they still blew up British troops.




Where do you get the idea I hate the American people and that Im a bigot? Perhaps you could do the same with your rabid hatred of anything British?

As for me having a hatred of the american people - that's actually funny. I have an amerian friend who likes in New York (The Village) and is a republican. I've known him since I was 18 and we became penpals; now we're best buds and have met up whenever he comes to the UK. I would love to visit him in NY one day.

I have another friend who lives in Savannah - she says its lovely there and Ive known her for 5 years. I love America; but that doesn't stop me seeing its faults; jsut like my friends do. They love their country but they see its faults. Perhaps you could try that too - to see a country's faults doesn't mean you don't love it, it doesn't mean youre not loyal.

I love my country, but I see its faults - I see the faults of the government. But I still love the people and the place.



Oh good, another rant; what is the point of these Paulie? Really, what is the point?

Is anything you dont agree with a rant?
i would report this serioud and repeated insultative behaviour but
1/TLE is your buddy,and has been trying to ban me,tacitus and Daft Fan ever since LN was banned
2/I find it amusing that you constantly accuse me of ranting and hating britain.both untrue!

[Spades]

I agree; 15% of the casualities in Market Garden came from the American guns. That's quite high I would think.

Oh and you wanted evidence of the downed British jet in the Iraqi war? Here we go then. Its from the Washington Post, dated March 2003 and was written by Betsy Pisik.

"Byline: Betsy Pisik, THE WASHINGTON TIMES KUWAIT - A U.S. Patriot anti-aircraft battery mistakenly shot down a British fighter jet over northern Kuwait last night, in the most serious "friendly fire" incident of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The two crew members on board the Tornado GR4 were killed, according to British officials, who promised that the incident would not lead to hard feelings or disrupt the close cooperation between the coalition allies."

Friendly Fire is sad, and I am not saying that the US hasn't made there share of errors, but as we learn in Research Design class you cannot make a causal claim

"the US military is a bit trigger happy. Shoot first and ask questions later"

Without a sound study. There could be other possible explanations for this 'phenomena' than being trigger happy. Maybe since there are more active US troops than there would be more Friendly Fire incidents? Maybe media highlights only certain stories because of their biases? These are only possible explanations not certainties.

[Trouble43]

Is anything you dont agree with a rant?
i would report this serioud and repeated insultative behaviour but
1/TLE is your buddy,and has been trying to ban me,tacitus and Daft Fan ever since LN was banned
2/I find it amusing that you constantly accuse me of ranting and hating britain.both untrue!

Yes I disagree with many points on here and many of them are not rants.
1. I been have told by Steve Taylor to not get into personal arguments; so I won't be responding to this.
2. are you saying this is not a rant against Britain? It certainly sounds like it.

[ Although i understand how hard this might be with the BBC indoctrination system bombarding you with anti American rhetoric at every second.Oh yeah and nulabs cool britannia rules state that hating america is cool,those who dont get their TAX CREDITS cut!!!

[Spades]

every blind and crazy right wing warmonger into controversial and not entirely justified wars

I am starting to see and underlying theme in your mentality against the right. Do I have to remind you that your views are unfounded.

[SickBritain]

Friendly fire incidents are just an inevitable consequence of the fog of war and human error. A British Apache Helicopter gunship fired on a unit of Paras the other day in Afghanistan seriously injuring several of them.

The high number of US related blue on blue incidents is most likely down to the fact the US airforce provides the vast bulk of air cover specifically close air support (CAS) in the war zones we operate . We do not get to hear about the many examples when US CAS saves our troops lives by obliterating the correct target . I would think the vast majority of UK troops would praise the US forces.

Here, Here! As an ex-serving member of our armed forces, I would agree 100% with what you say abouve. I have a deep respect for US military after serving side by side with them for over 3 years. I've seen them ACCIDENTLY cause us Brits Poo and I've seen them INTENTIONALLY get us out of the poo.

I'm totally *****d off with the fashionable 'Yank Bashers' you hear everyday. These people want to take a good look at themselves - Hippy Freaks!!!

God Bless the Yanks and our Boys!

[pauli007001]

Yes I disagree with many points on here and many of them are not rants.
1. I been have told by Steve Taylor to not get into personal arguments; so I won't be responding to this.
2. are you saying this is not a rant against Britain? It certainly sounds like it.

[

No it is not a rant against britain.It is in fact a statement of fact that the british government is controlling anti freedom and will use all its power to keep people subservient to them,including the government controlled BBC(which under NU LAB has become a propeganda machine,used to ridicule
1/fathers for justice in some of its shows.
2/British identity in many of its shows
and to change the perception of
1/the historical nature of Britain in many of its shows
2/any positive aspects of british history

I am British,i dont hate myself(a terrible and racist thing in the eyes of NULAB)nor do i hate britain!I put my life on the line for this country,how can i hate it?
I love my country,but i fear its government!!!:)
Hope you now see my point of view!!!!!

[pauli007001]

Here, Here! As an ex-serving member of our armed forces, I would agree 100% with what you say abouve. I have a deep respect for US military after serving side by side with them for over 3 years. I've seen them ACCIDENTLY cause us Brits Poo and I've seen them INTENTIONALLY get us out of the poo.

I'm totally *****d off with the fashionable 'Yank Bashers' you hear everyday. These people want to take a good look at themselves - Hippy Freaks!!!

God Bless the Yanks and our Boys!
HERE HERE!!!!!!I couldnt agree more with your opinion!!!!!!!

[Trouble43]

No it is not a rant against britain.It is in fact a statement of fact that the british government is controlling anti freedom and will use all its power to keep people subservient to them,including the government controlled BBC(which under NU LAB has become a propeganda machine,used to ridicule
1/fathers for justice in some of its shows.
2/British identity in many of its shows
and to change the perception of
1/the historical nature of Britain in many of its shows
2/any positive aspects of british history

I am British,i dont hate myself(a terrible and racist thing in the eyes of NULAB)nor do i hate britain!I put my life on the line for this country,how can i hate it?
I love my country,but i fear its government!!!
Hope you now see my point of view!!!!!

I agree that nulab is all about spin and has no substance, not sure about the BBC. To be honest their partisan to whatever party is in power - sort of licking the hand that feeds you. ;)

I am, as you know, a socialist and I have no truck with nulab. They are not Labour and have no real right to that name now. They are basically the 'nucons' and should be called as such.

1. I think the fathers for children group ask for a lot of the ridicule they encounter. There are men who're addressing this issue a lot more seriously and are so be listened to. Sadly we mostly here from the clowns looking like delboy and rodders stuck up on a roof somewhere. They make a mockery of fathers who are cut off from their children by mothers intent on using them as a weapon (dispicable action if you ask me).

2. I think British identity is suffering for the most part on all media wavelengths though, not just the beeb. I think C4 is the only one whose challenging nulabs claims about our society in any real way though.

3. Again the beeb isnt alone in this. As a HUGE fan of ancient history in particular and all history in general, it does annoy me the way a lot of it is convenently forgotten to enable nulab to suck up to the EU. We lost a lot of great servicemen and women, and a lot of innocent civilians, during the second world war (and millions of soldiers died in appalling conditions in WWI). So to just buzz over them in school curriculums, etc bugs the hell out of me. But again its a nulab salve to the EU.

Though to be honest I think nulab have a double edged sword with WWII as they're trying to suck up to Israel too. But how can you suck up to countries that were at such opposite ends of a conflict like Israel and germany were? You can't 'forget' the facts of the Holocaust to please the germans, because the Iraelis would go mad; but then you can't make a lot of the Holocaust because the germans would be angry that the memory is maintained. I do find that dodgeball really funny to watch.

4. I don;t think te beeb gets rid of all aspects of positive events in British history. Even nulab can't manage that. We have too rich a history for them to blank over all of it effectively. I am proud of my history and so long as people who wish to learn about our past are continuing to do so the government and such will never be able to make us forget.

I agree, I too love my country and fear my governemnt. They're not nazies, paulie, theyre totalitarian - to me thats worst. Big brother is alive and well and live in no.10. ;)

I hope we can see each other's points better. <grin> (sorry only allowed two smilies.)

[Tacitus]

You can't 'forget' the facts of the Holocaust to please the germans, because the Iraelis would go mad; but then you can't make a lot of the Holocaust because the germans would be angry that the memory is maintained.

Don't start blaming us for that.

We have more holocaust memorials, and holocaust memorial days that the rest of the world added together, INCLUDING Israel.

It is also us, and not the U.K that has BANNED holocaust denial. Or had you forgotten that?

I supose you think our motorways have no speed limits as well?

[Trouble43]

Don't start blaming us for that. I didn't/

We have more holocaust memorials, and holocaust memorial days that the rest of the world added together, INCLUDING Israel. well, that's good, perhaps it will stop the nazis finding a foothold in gernmany at least. We can only hope the same for the rest of Europe.

It is also us, and not the U.K that has BANNED holocaust denial. Or had you forgotten that? wait you said before that it was the UK and others that insisted it happen in 47/48? So which version is the right one? Im confused.:confused:

I supose you think our motorways have no speed limits as well? Its up to germany what speed limit you have; as I never have, and never intend to, visit germany I can't say ive given it much thought. Its not a place im particularly interested in. In fact next year Im off to Eire.:)

[Tete123]

Don't start blaming us for that.

We have more holocaust memorials, and holocaust memorial days that the rest of the world added together, INCLUDING Israel.

It is also us, and not the U.K that has BANNED holocaust denial. Or had you forgotten that?

I supose you think our motorways have no speed limits as well?

The problem is Tacitus , to what extent can British schools / media cover the events of WWII without causing offense to either Germans for showing they're involvement in the holocaust or Jews for down playing Germany's involvement??

I found this article written in the Guardian in 2007 regarding holocaust denial laws , this is a view I also share:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/18/comment.secondworldwar (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/18/comment.secondworldwar)

[Tacitus]

wait you said before that it was the UK and others that insisted it happen in 47/48? So which version is the right one? Im confused.:confused:


THEY insisted WE had it. But Like the arrogant pieces of dog turd they are, failed to take notice of their own advice.

You need to learn not EVERYTHING is black and white.

The problem is Tacitus , to what extent can British schools / media cover the events of WWII without causing offense to either Germans for showing they're involvement in the holocaust or Jews for down playing Germany's involvement??

I have a link showing that far from being worried about Jews and Germans, shools are not teaching "holocaust studies" so as not to offend the muslims who insist it was all invernted to give the Jews the benefit of being the State every ione tiptoed around and let get away with murder.

I can not find it right now, but I will try and search it on the news sites tomorow.

[Trouble43]

The problem is Tacitus , to what extent can British schools / media cover the events of WWII without causing offense to either Germans for showing they're involvement in the holocaust or Jews for down playing Germany's involvement??

I found this article written in the Guardian in 2007 regarding holocaust denial laws , this is a view I also share:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/18/comment.secondworldwar (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/18/comment.secondworldwar)

I take the point you're making about the laws but, having said that, I do find the holocaust deniars the lowest of the low.

[Tete123]

I take the point you're making about the laws but, having said that, I do find the holocaust deniars the lowest of the low.

Oh me too , but I think it would be more productive having these people out in the open. The laws deny them the right to speak openly about it , not hold the opinion , therefore this evil can flourish in underground disscussions without debate and condemnation from the public.

[Tete123]

I have a link showing that far from being worried about Jews and Germans, shools are not teaching "holocaust studies" so as not to offend the muslims who insist it was all invernted to give the Jews the benefit of being the State every ione tiptoed around and let get away with murder.

I can not find it right now, but I will try and search it on the news sites tomorow.

Is this is Tacitus:

Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-445979/Teachers-drop-Holocaust-avoid-offending-Muslims.html)

I add this to the list as well then. British teachers should be able to teach the events of WWII , the Nazi genocide of the Jews and anything else they see fit from history, providing that evidence is available to back up any claims made. This should be allowed without concern for , Germans , Jews , Muslims or any other nations feelings.

[Trouble43]

THEY insisted WE had it. But Like the arrogant pieces of dog turd they are, failed to take notice of their own advice.

So germany didn't make the decision themselves - the Allies forced them? tacitus; is there really any need for name calling like that?

germany committed many attrocities against the Jews, Poles, Russians, and so many others that there are many that the final death toll of the camps is closer to between 9-12 MILLION men, women and children.

They started the war by invading Poland - then went onto commit genocide. If anyone was at fault here tacitus, it was germany surely?

You need to learn not EVERYTHING is black and white.I think it is in this case.


I have a link showing that far from being worried about Jews and Germans, shools are not teaching "holocaust studies" so as not to offend the muslims who insist it was all invernted to give the Jews the benefit of being the State every ione tiptoed around and let get away with murder.Then that's wrong and should be addressed immediately.

[Tacitus]

Thanks Tete. THATS the one.

So germany didn't make the decision themselves - the Allies forced them?

Forced. Not quite. The allies WERE the Government when it was brought in, and the first elected traitor German Government after the war adopted it. Along with the rest of the constitution, which was basically word for word the Prussian constitution , but without the King bit, and some additions "reccomended" by the scum, such as "Germany may not send it's soldiers out of Germany" (ANOTHER one that we are now getting blamed for (Afghanistan), yet was not put there by US, but the very people that are now complaining.)

IF, however, the German Government had NOT accepted these additions, the allies made it clear that they would NOT be handing power over to the ELECTED Government of the German people.

germany committed many attrocities against the Jews, Poles, Russians, and so many others that there are many that the final death toll of the camps is closer to between 9-12 MILLION men, women and children.

GERMANY is spelled wit a CAPITAL "G", by the way.

And what about the millions (estimates by the old Soviet Government records recently released are 4 million) of Germans that were forced out of their homes in Poland, Russia, and Chekoslovakia, and put into Polish concentration camps, where hundreds of thousands of them died, in the 1920's?

What about the three million women and chilödren killed by the Russians in East and West Prussia? What about the 350,000 rapes by Russian troops, REPORTED (Estimates are closer to a million+ hen NOT reprted incidents are taken into account, but doctors notes and remarks/suspiscions from the time are taken into account) in Berlin AFTER the war was over?

("The fall of Berlin", can not remember the authors (two of them) as I can not find the book right now. It is SOMEWHERE among the 5 and a half thousand I ahave spread all over the house. But THAT is available through Amazon U.K under that title I believe.)

But British schools do not teach that inconvenient little bit of history do they?

The best book on the subject, among HUNDREDS is, Wolfgang Popp "Wehe den Besiegten", Grabert Verlag 2000, 5th edition 2007. ISBN 978-3-87847-191-2 ).

They started the war by invading Poland - then went onto commit genocide. If anyone was at fault here tacitus, it was germany surely?

See last pargraph above.

And I will accept what you say when Britain and the U.S start demanding the Russian war criminals are brought to account for the 55 million + that THEY killed under Stalin.

But NO, you are all chummy with THEM aren't you?

Then that's wrong and should be addressed immediately.

It WAS been addressed, by a Tory M.P. And he had to give up when every time he asked a question he was drowned out by yells of "racism" from the press, from "civil rights" groups, and from his own party leaders.

As to holocaust denial, THIS may be worth repeating although I HAVE only recently put it on another thread;

A German court has sentenced Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel to jail for incitement to hatred. His punishment is appropriate -- and no transgression against freedom of speech, according to DW's Daphne Antachopoulos.
There was no alternative for the court except to hand down the maximum punishment of five years in jail to Ernst Zündel. Anything else would neither have been commensurate with the German legal system nor with the Germans' understanding of history. To make it clear from the outset: In Germany people are punished for incitement to hatred not only for denying the Holocaust, but for contesting the veracity of acts carried out under the Nazi dictatorship. All Nazi atrocities are dealt with equally.

The Holocaust is a historical fact -- which Zündel explicitly denies. It is the most intensively researched historical occurrence of the 20th century. Countless documents, photos and witness accounts prove it happened -- such as the Wannsee Conference protocol, which documents exactly how the acts of deportation and annihilation were organized. The films the Allies made in the immediate aftermath of the liberation of concentration camps are also contemporaneous documents. Additional details have also been established in numerous criminal trials and analyses by historians.
Thus, by denying the atrocities of the Nazi era Holocaust deniers like Ernst Zündel are not expressing an opinion -- which possibly would be defensible under the mantel of freedom of expression. Instead it is an allegation that is patently and consciously untrue. And there, jurisprudence is clear: According to Germany's Constitutional Court, allegations that have been proven to be false or that the speaker knows to be false are not protected by freedom of expression.

People who deny the Holocaust don't do it by accident. They do it willfully and with a particular aim: to portray the Jews' fate under the Nazi dictatorship as a cock-and-bull story, while connecting it to Germany's alleged exploitation for the benefit of the Jews.

Those ideas are consistent with the anti-Semitic ideology of the Nazis, who chose the Jews and other minorities as scapegoats. In those days, the majority of Germans' did not bridle against this ideology -- some tolerated it and looked away, others backed it.

Dealing with German history was a painful process. Nor can it be brought to a close, in view of the dimensions of the Nazis' crimes. Accounting for the past includes legal action against those who have failed to learn any lessons. Remembrance of the victims and their progeny should be protected as should confidence in the constitutional state which will never again allow such atrocities and their adulation.

Incidentally, denying the Holocaust is not only illegal in Germany, but also in France, Austria and Switzerland. But due to its history, Germany bears the greatest responsibility on the subject. If no punishment were handed down here, of all places, it would send a fatal signal abroad.

But is it right to grant people who use hate speech, such as Zündel and his lawyers -- some of whom are notorious right-wing extremists themselves -- a public forum such as a courtroom? Or is allowing them a public forum a reason in itself to avoid putting them on trial?

The answer is clear-cut: They should face a court, and they shouldn't be ignored. Since, turning a blind eye has already had devastating consequences in Germany.

Daphne Antachopoulos is a reporter for Deutsche Welle specializing in German domestic and foreign policy (ncy)

Opinion: Hate Speech Has Nothing to Do With Freedom of Speech | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 16.02.2007 (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2353054,00.html)


Here are things regarding this law as they stand in Germany, and others;

The use of insignia of organizations that have been banned in Germany (like the Nazi swastika or the arrow cross) may also be illegal in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, France, Brazil (???) and other countries, depending on context.

In Germany, the applicable law is paragraph 86a of the criminal code (StGB) (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany.), in Poland – Art. 256 of the criminal code (Dz.U. 1997 nr 88 poz. 553).

See also
Verbotene Symbole (http://www.ida-nrw.de/html/Fverbsymb.htm?http://www.ida-nrw.de/html/Hverbsymb.htm%7EmainFrame)

Sprachcodes (http://www.ida-nrw.de/html/Fsprache.htm?http://www.ida-nrw.de/html/Hsprache.htm%7EmainFrame)

Aktion Zivilcourage e.V. | Pirna | Start (http://www.zivilcourage-pirna.de/cgi-bin/page.pl?idx=31)

Allthough in German, The symbols that are banned, OR BANNED IN CERTAIN CASES (in combination with other factors. In this case they are seen as "evidence indicitive of an offence", or are used in helping a Mens rea case.

As evidence of neo nazi links in cases of racial violence (Therefore giving the prosecution more weight, for example.)

For those that ask why Germany, and others ban the symbolism of the third Reich.

A while back I was hearing on BBC World service, the controversy over the new Hitler comody film.

One example I heard was from a BBC reporter who asked "Should the Germans be making this film".

See the hysteria in the world, particular British, press when the NPD win a couple of seats in a Landestag (Land Parliament), or certain areas are suppossedly declared "no go areas" for any but white football fans.

Now imagine how much worse the "anti" would be if we allowed the N.P.D (Neo nazis) to walk (I will NOT say march, men of honour MARCH neo nazis are just wan…. You get the idea) around Germany, Austria, in SS uniforms and flying "Die Hakenreuz Fahnne".

THAT is why these symbols are banned here.

[Trouble43]

Forced. Not quite. The allies WERE the Government when it was brought in, and the first elected traitor German Government after the war adopted it. Along with the rest of the constitution, which was basically word for word the Prussian constitution , but without the King bit, and some additions "reccomended" by the scum, such as "Germany may not send it's soldiers out of Germany" (ANOTHER one that we are now getting blamed for (Afghanistan), yet was not put there by US, but the very people that are now complaining.)['quote]

How can the first german government be a 'traitor' one? why are they scum, in fact who are you refering to as scum?

I would assume that the 'german soldiers can't leave germany' rule has long since lapsed, or been dropped by later german governments - so not sure what that has to do with afghanistan?

[quote] IF, however, the German Government had NOT accepted these additions, the allies made it clear that they would NOT be handing power over to the ELECTED Government of the German people.

Well it wouldve been difficult to hand it over to the elected government as most of them had been arrested for war crimes or had cimmitted suicide in fear rather than face the consequences of their crimes. So I dont think it wouldve been easy to hand control to a non existent group of people?


GERMANY is spelled wit a CAPITAL "G", by the way.

sure it is, as are a lot of other words i type; but, as ive mentioned often, two strokes later my spelling, grammar and punctution are shot. So is my short term memory and my speech isn't good either. Im slightly brain damaged tacitus - surely ive mentioned it before?

And what about the millions (estimates by the old Soviet Government records recently released are 4 million) of Germans that were forced out of their homes in Poland, Russia, and Chekoslovakia, and put into Polish concentration camps, where hundreds of thousands of them died, in the 1920's?

But russia was run by animals too - the allied alliance with them was never an easy one, as the rest of the allied countries were very wary of the russian leaders and didn't trust them.

What about the three million women and chilödren killed by the Russians in East and West Prussia? What about the 350,000 rapes by Russian troops, REPORTED (Estimates are closer to a million+ hen NOT reprted incidents are taken into account, but doctors notes and remarks/suspiscions from the time are taken into account) in Berlin AFTER the war was over?

The russians were terrible, there is no other way of saying it - but you can never detract from the amount of people slaughtered by the germans. 9-12 million people will be a fact carried by germany forever; much as Stalin's crimes will haunt Russia.

("The fall of Berlin", can not remember the authors (two of them) as I can not find the book right now. It is SOMEWHERE among the 5 and a half thousand I ahave spread all over the house. But THAT is available through Amazon U.K under that title I believe.)

Well, I know the allies wanted to take berlin first - and not just because of getting hitler. They knew what the russians were capable of and wanted to be there to stop it. They didn't make it.

But British schools do not teach that inconvenient little bit of history do they?

No, but then they're not taught about the holocaust either. You certainly don't seem to like Britain much, do you?

See last pargraph above.

Are you seriously trying to say germany, didn't start the war? Because that wont fly - history is sadly aginst you.

And I will accept what you say when Britain and the U.S start demanding the Russian war criminals are brought to account for the 55 million + that THEY killed under Stalin.

Stalin's dead; as are all his cronies

But NO, you are all chummy with THEM aren't you?

Not really, no. Have you not seen the situation between us and russia recently?


It WAS been addressed, by a Tory M.P. And he had to give up when every time he asked a question he was drowned out by yells of "racism" from the press, from "civil rights" groups, and from his own party leaders.

well, they were silly weren't they? If he felt he was right, he shouldve pressed on.

As to holocaust denial, THIS may be worth repeating although I HAVE only recently put it on another thread

yes, I read it and replied to it in that thread.

[Tacitus]

Forced. Not quite. The allies WERE the Government when it was brought in, and the first elected traitor German Government after the war adopted it. Along with the rest of the constitution, which was basically word for word the Prussian constitution , but without the King bit, and some additions "reccomended" by the scum, such as "Germany may not send it's soldiers out of Germany" (ANOTHER one that we are now getting blamed for (Afghanistan), yet was not put there by US, but the very people that are now complaining.)

How can the first german government be a 'traitor' one? why are they scum, in fact who are you refering to as scum?

They rolled over and not only DID what the scum said, but carried on doing it when they did not have to. Ie, after sovriegnty was gained.

Scum = British and American army of occupation.

I would assume that the 'german soldiers can't leave germany' rule has long since lapsed, or been dropped by later german governments - so not sure what that has to do with afghanistan?

If it had, would I hve mentioned it???

Certainly has not. It is one of the Ground rules of the constitution. It can NOT be dropped.

The soldiers that are, at present, in Afghanistan were only sent after a special TEMPORY amendment to the NATO rules, that meant it was within the NATO area of responsibility, therefore the Germans could be sent. BUT in severely restricted numbers, and only after a tempory amendment to the constitution. Which is NOT a change, merely a "tempory emergency measure", which is allowed for.

WHAT it has to do with Afghanistan, is NOW the U.S and the Brits are complaining like HEL that we are not sending more troops, when it is THEIR rules that stop us.

Well it wouldve been difficult to hand it over to the elected government as most of them had been arrested for war crimes or had cimmitted suicide in fear rather than face the consequences of their crimes. So I dont think it wouldve been easy to hand control to a non existent group of people?

On 08/05/1949 the constitution came into force. This allowed for elections to the Bundestag (Parliament)

On 14/08/1949, was the first elections in Germany since 1933. The CDU/CSU won outright and Adenauer became Kanzler.

Through the Paris treaty of 1955, Germany regained full sovreignty, with Theodor Heuss as head of state.

Now PLEASE, as you seem to be an expert on post 1945 German history, tell me WHO from that Government was in prison for war crimes or dead from suicide?

Im slightly brain damaged tacitus - surely ive mentioned it before?

Ahhh. No.

But russia was run by animals too - the allied alliance with them was never an easy one, as the rest of the allied countries were very wary of the russian leaders and didn't trust them.

They have still never been held to account. Typicaly, and it shows in the British police toiday, they only EVER go for the easy targets. JUST like vultures.

The russians were terrible, there is no other way of saying it - but you can never detract from the amount of people slaughtered by the germans. 9-12 million people will be a fact carried by germany forever; much as Stalin's crimes will haunt Russia.
55 million makes 9 - 12 a drop in the ocean.

I am not saying that Germany should NOT have been prosecuted, but NOT when BIGGER criminals were getting away scot free.

Well, I know the allies wanted to take berlin first - and not just because of getting hitler. They knew what the russians were capable of and wanted to be there to stop it. They didn't make it.

Churchill and Roosevelt (*******s) agreed at Yalta with Stalin, that the Russians could take Berlin first. The U.S and British armys were DELIBERATELY stopped at the Elbe.

No, but then they're not taught about the holocaust either. You certainly don't seem to like Britain much, do you?

HATE the place. Always have.

Are you seriously trying to say germany, didn't start the war? Because that wont fly - history is sadly aginst you.
No. Britain and France declared war on Germany, IF you want to get literal.

Germany entered Poland to defend it' self from Soviet aggression. The same as Russia used East Europe as a buffer zone throughout the cold war. Again, every one blames Germany for invading Poland, but no one lifts an eybrow that the Russiand did EXACTLY the same at EXACTLY the same time.

AND, democraticaly German was justified under international law for doing so.

The return of "Polish" land to Germany was a democratic choice of the inhabitants;

As an example in the four North East of Westpreussen ("Polish corridor") voting areas, Ro-senberg, Stuhm, Marienwerder, and Marienberg, on 11.7.20, 92,43% voted to be German, with a population of 15,94% Poles.

In Masuren, in the South of Ostpreussen, 97,8% for Germany, with a 12,85% Polish population.

In Oletzko, also Ostpreussen, 1117 Poles, 406 Masuren, and 9981 mixed,there were only TWO VOTES (!) in favour of being Poland!! The rest were to "return" to Germany.

Ortelsburg, with 63,4 Masuren, the vote for Being a part of Germany was 98,95%!

(Wolfgang Popp. "Wehe den Besiegten". Grabert Verlag 2000. PP 30-31)

Therefore Germany was within it's democratic rights to keep/retake these lands.


Stalin's dead; as are all his cronies

So is Hitler. They are STILL prosecuting war criminals from 1939-45.

well, they were silly weren't they? If he felt he was right, he shouldve pressed on.
Bit hard to do when you are sacked.

[Trouble43]

They rolled over and not only DID what the scum said, but carried on doing it when they did not have to. Ie, after sovriegnty was gained.

But they had to do as the allies said. They were defeated, and a good thing too considering what hitler wanted to do to the Jews and anyone not considerd 'aeryan' enough, so how could a morally bankrupt government - with most of its seniors dead, running away or arrested - be able to govern itself? There was no elected german government left.

Scum = British and American army of occupation.not exactly called for, is it? Germany had to be stopped, end of subject. God know what would've happened if hitler had won; it doesn't bear thinking about.

If it had, would I hve mentioned it???quite possible, yes. you mentiona lot of things in your posts.

Certainly has not. It is one of the Ground rules of the constitution. It can NOT be dropped.The soldiers that are, at present, in Afghanistan were only sent after a special TEMPORY amendment to the NATO rules, that meant it was within the NATO area of responsibility, therefore the Germans could be sent. BUT in severely restricted numbers, and only after a tempory amendment to the constitution. Which is NOT a change, merely a "tempory emergency measure", which is allowed for.well surely thats a good thing? its not as igf the german people support the wars in iraq and Afghanistan - much like the rest of europe, actually.

WHAT it has to do with Afghanistan, is NOW the U.S and the Brits are complaining like HEL that we are not sending more troops, when it is THEIR rules that stop us.we're not complaining - ive never complained about ; most brits aren't bothered how many germans go there. In fact a lot think, now the despots are gone, we should be withdrawing and letting the people govern themselves, otherwise what was the point? They deserve their freedom.



On 08/05/1949 the constitution came into force. This allowed for elections to the Bundestag (Parliament)On 14/08/1949, was the first elections in Germany since 1933. The CDU/CSU won outright and Adenauer became Kanzler. Through the Paris treaty of 1955, Germany regained full sovreignty, with Theodor Heuss as head of state.

Now PLEASE, as you seem to be an expert on post 1945 German history, tell me WHO from that Government was in prison for war crimes or dead from suicide?I was talking about the previous government, hitlers lot just to be clear, and the post war years. the war in Europe ended in 1945 so, going by your dates above, there was 4 years of no government. Therefore the only democratically elected government, until 1949, was hitlers lot.

Actually I am not an expert in german history, sadly its never appealed. I much prefer ancient history - particularly Roman.


Ahhh. No.are you sure? I mean, I must've mentioned my two strokes right? Well, anyway, first one left me a bit numb down right side (very mild one apparently), second one caused a lot more damage , as ive said (it was 'moderate' they said). They managed to stop anymore. They said another one couldve killed me or left me severely disabled. I was very lucky.

They have still never been held to account. Typicaly, and it shows in the British police toiday, they only EVER go for the easy targets. JUST like vultures.its a bit hard as Stalin and his lot are all very, very dead. I suppose they could hold posthumous trials, but itd be a bit of a nonsense wouldn't it?

Tacitus, if I spoke about your germany like that you'd go mad. Please stop talking about my country in the same way. its not necessary. We acted, along with the other allies, to try and stop a murdering madman from trying to take control of the world. It was a world war, it wasnt only britain involved.


55 million makes 9 - 12 a drop in the ocean.no, actually it doesnt. Its just as bad. Any form of genocide needs to be stopped. Any form of slaughter is never acceptable, even if only two people die. Also, this is only those who died in the camps - then there's the cities, towns and villages the germans decimated as they went. Particularly in russia. I have watched a programme (thankfully mostly subtitled or dubbed as my german is hugely rusty now) about the weirmarcht; good Lord those men were horrendous. Its hard to believe the german historians thought the SS were worse.

I am not saying that Germany should NOT have been prosecuted, but NOT when BIGGER criminals were getting away scot free.There was no way Britain was in any way able to start yet another war after WW2. We were almost bankrupt and it took us years to pull our country together - by that time Stalin and his ilk had died.


Churchill and Roosevelt (*******s) agreed at Yalta with Stalin, that the Russians could take Berlin first. The U.S and British armys were DELIBERATELY stopped at the Elbe.Is that language really necessary? Churchill wanted berlin first - he made no bones about it, so did the US. It was both the kudos for the nabbing of hitler; the saving of german civilians from the russians was the icing on the cake. But they didnt manage it. Stalin wanted berlin first and he would stop at nothing to get it.

Stalin threw his men like snow at the german defences until sheer weight of numbers finally overcame them and the Russians then swept into berlin. Churchill and Rosevelt had more care for their men.


HATE the place. Always have.But why? what have we done to you personally? nothing.


No. Britain and France declared war on Germany, IF you want to get literal.fine, we both declared war to save Poland.

Germany entered Poland to defend it' self from Soviet aggression. The same as Russia used East Europe as a buffer zone throughout the cold war. Again, every one blames Germany for invading Poland, but no one lifts an eybrow that the Russiand did EXACTLY the same at EXACTLY the same time.no they didn't. hitler wnated to see how far he could push it. After the poor excuse for a PM, Chamberlain, caved over Yugoslabvia and came back waving that nonsensical stupid bit of paper and warbling 'peace in our time', hitler thought he had us over a barrell. that he could do as he pleased and no one would stop him - even as he signed a peace treaty with stalin he was also making plans to invade. He was a.....well, an increbily evil man, is the politest way I can think to put it.

AND, democraticaly German was justified under international law for doing so.no it wasn't - they invaded Poland. That was the whole point of the war. The governments of the allies were not just going to sit back and let the yugoslav debacle happened all over again.

chamberlain thought, silly man that he was, that if we capitulated over yuoglsavia then hitler would be satisfed; war would be averted and everyone would go away happy (all excep the poor Yugoslaves, but apparently they didn't count). However everyone else knew hitler would never be satisfied, he was already showing signs of mental helath problems (brone out by the concoction of pills, etc that his personal 'doctor' had him on).

The return of "Polish" land to Germany was a democratic choice of the inhabitants;Only some, who were of germanic descent, welcomed the german soldiers, not all of them did. Many were terrified, and with good cause as it turned out.

As an example in the four North East of Westpreussen ("Polish corridor") voting areas, Ro-senberg, Stuhm, Marienwerder, and Marienberg, on 11.7.20, 92,43% voted to be German, with a population of 15,94% Poles.
In Masuren, in the South of Ostpreussen, 97,8% for Germany, with a 12,85% Polish population. In Oletzko, also Ostpreussen, 1117 Poles, 406 Masuren, and 9981 mixed,there were only TWO VOTES (!) in favour of being Poland!! The rest were to "return" to Germany.Ortelsburg, with 63,4 Masuren, the vote for Being a part of Germany was 98,95%!

(Wolfgang Popp. "Wehe den Besiegten". Grabert Verlag 2000. PP 30-31)

Therefore Germany was within it's democratic rights to keep/retake these lands.

if you choose to believe what were no doubt third reich generated figures - which I dont. There is such a thing as vote rigging; even back then. I beleive the facts of the Poles in concentration camps being tortured and murdered. If they were so happy to be german again, then why would the they be treated in such a way (and it wasnt all Jewish Poles either).

But then of course there is the Jewish question itself - the way the germans systematically anniahiltaed these people. Oh and, having watched the documentary about the weimarcht, it wasn't just the SS who seemed to take....the only word I can think of is pleasure, out of what they were doing. It beggars belief. Not all germans were 'just following orders'. It didn't matter what nationality the poles were, if orders came to wipe out a village, they did so. It wasn't just the arena of war - it was genocide. if you didn't fit the 'aeryan template, you died.

A lot of the german historians were very shocked by what they found out about the weirchmarcht. One soldier, who I felt very sorry for, said he went away an artist and came back a murderer. He said what he saw others do and what he did himself, haunts him to this day. It was so terrible for him, I felt sorry for him. He did try and help. He left some of the russian Commisares go (I think they were like the news/propeganda people); hitler said they had to be killed immediately as they were the ones who would help the Russian soldiers fight by putting things out to encourage them. But this weirmarcht boy let one go; after that if he was sent to shoot people in the back and he was alone, he would try and let them go.

It was terrible what went on; how some felt they had to disobey orders they felt were wrong just to be able to live with themselves later.

So is Hitler. They are STILL prosecuting war criminals from 1939-45.and that is a good thing. I am very glad that there are people hunting down these war criminals who think they can run away and pretend the attrocities they carried out never happened.


Bit hard to do when you are sacked.even as a member of the public you can speak out; and as a member of the backbenches you can do the same.

[Albion 69]

Scum = British and American army of occupation.


We should have let the Russians have you :)

[Tacitus]

we're not complaining - ive never complained about ; most brits aren't bothered how many germans go there.

Don't get around the web sites much do you?

Try pointing out that Germany ALREADY has the third largest troop deployment in Afghanistan on any U.S dominated political board, and see what happens.

Try reading what Bush said re German deployment earlier this year at the NATO confrence, try reading what Brown sais re the same subject.

I was talking about the previous government, hitlers lot just to be clear, and the post war years. the war in Europe ended in 1945 so, going by your dates above, there was 4 years of no government. Therefore the only democratically elected government, until 1949, was hitlers lot.

The scum were the "Government".

Actually I am not an expert in german history,

THAT is going to come back and HAUNT you darlin, I will make sure of THAT.

are you sure? I mean, I must've mentioned my two strokes right? Well, anyway, first one left me a bit numb down right side (very mild one apparently), second one caused a lot more damage , as ive said (it was 'moderate' they said). They managed to stop anymore. They said another one couldve killed me or left me severely disabled. I was very lucky.

Wat you want a get well card?

I don't CARE about your personal problems.

its a bit hard as Stalin and his lot are all very, very dead. I suppose they could hold posthumous trials, but itd be a bit of a nonsense wouldn't it?


LESS dead than Hitlers lot, (as Stalin did not die until 1953), but they are STILL prosecuting THEM. Therre was one in court JUST LAST WEEK.


Actually I am not an expert in german history,


no they didn't. hitler wnated to see how far he could push it. After the poor excuse for a PM, Chamberlain, caved over Yugoslabvia and came back waving that nonsensical stupid bit of paper and warbling 'peace in our time', hitler thought he had us over a barrell. that he could do as he pleased and no one would stop him - even as he signed a peace treaty with stalin he was also making plans to invade. He was a.....well, an increbily evil man, is the politest way I can think to put it.



Actually I am not an expert in german history,

no it wasn't - they invaded Poland. That was the whole point of the war. The governments of the allies were not just going to sit back and let the yugoslav debacle happened all over again.


Actually I am not an expert in german history,

chamberlain thought, silly man that he was, that if we capitulated over yuoglsavia then hitler would be satisfed; war would be averted and everyone would go away happy (all excep the poor Yugoslaves, but apparently they didn't count). However everyone else knew hitler would never be satisfied, he was already showing signs of mental helath problems (brone out by the concoction of pills, etc that his personal 'doctor' had him on).



Actually I am not an expert in german history,

if you choose to believe what were no doubt third reich generated figures -

WHEN did Hitler come to power?

WHEN is the date of the REFERENDUM I mentioned?

The figures are the official vote count INCLUDING the actual ballot papers that are in the official records of the WEIMAR Republic Government files kept at Koblenz.

Hitler was not even a member of the party until 1919, 1920 (The date of the referendum, just to remind you), he was still an insignificant bar room brawler.

Actually I am not an expert in german history,

which I dont. There is such a thing as vote rigging; even back then. I beleive the facts of the Poles in concentration camps being tortured and murdered. If they were so happy to be german again, then why would the they be treated in such a way (and it wasnt all Jewish Poles either).

WHAT are you ON about?

In 1920, the ONLY people in concentration camps in Poland were GERMANS, held by the Polish Government.

AS I pointed out previously on this thread.

We are talking 1920 NOT 1939.

But then of course there is the Jewish question itself - the way the germans systematically anniahiltaed these people. Oh and, having watched the documentary about the weimarcht, it wasn't just the SS who seemed to take....the only word I can think of is pleasure, out of what they were doing. It beggars belief. Not all germans were 'just following orders'. It didn't matter what nationality the poles were, if orders came to wipe out a village, they did so. It wasn't just the arena of war - it was genocide. if you didn't fit the 'aeryan template, you died.


Actually I am not an expert in german history,

and that is a good thing. I am very glad that there are people hunting down these war criminals who think they can run away and pretend the attrocities they carried out never happened.


But you think Stalins lot should be let off. (Remember Stalin did not die until 1953.

We should have let the Russians have you :)

My family are EAST German, the scumbags DID!

Which also answers;

But why? what have we done to you personally? nothing.

AND therefore, as far as we asr concerned Britain canm take the bloody missiles back.

PREFERABLY running live and targeted.

[Trouble43]

Im not getting into a personal argument with you about me and my country Tacitus. This is where I walk away.:(

[Tacitus]

Im not getting into a personal argument with you about me and my country Tacitus. This is where I walk away.:(

YET again we see you use the same old tired excuse when you have lost a discussion.

AND there is a BIG differnce between "peronal argument" and discussing facts, OR as you, presenting "facts" that are NOT that (Actually I am not an expert in german history,) and trying to slander a whole nation by doing so.

I asked MANY more questions are you also going to refuse to answer those as well?

If so, I think we can safely say every knows EXACTLY who had the right on THIS topic.

[Albion 69]

My family are EAST German, the scumbags DID!


To clarify you view the British and Americans as scum but you would have wanted them to take on the Red Army to 'Liberate/occupy' the whole of Germany :confused:

[Trouble43]

YET again we see you use the same old tired excuse when you have lost a discussion.

AND there is a BIG differnce between "peronal argument" and discussing facts, OR as you, presenting "facts" that are NOT that () and trying to slander a whole nation by doing so.

I asked MANY more questions are you also going to refuse to answer those as well?

If so, I think we can safely say every knows EXACTLY who had the right on THIS topic.


No tacitus, I am walkng away becuase, yet again, youve taking to bullying and makin insults to get your way.

So bettr I wa lk away; if you want to think this mak you right, i can only say, that's fine. Now leave me alone. I am NOT getting dragged into a slanging ma tch again.,

If read back,you will see you re the one 'slandering' whole nations. Ive said nowt bout german peoples. only hitler and his lot.

Youve said lot bout british peoples., and none of it nice. You hate the british, you admit that.

I am not going to respond you in this thread anymore. LET IT GO NOW, please.

[Citizen Smith]

YET again we see you use the same old tired excuse when you have lost a discussion.

AND there is a BIG differnce between "peronal argument" and discussing facts, OR as you, presenting "facts" that are NOT that () and trying to slander a whole nation by doing so.

I asked MANY more questions are you also going to refuse to answer those as well?

If so, I think we can safely say every knows EXACTLY who had the right on THIS topic.
hey, back off and stop being so aggressive :mad:

[Tete123]

hey, back off and stop being so aggressive :mad:

The point of this is ??? Tacitus has been banned already!!!

[Trouble43]

The point of this is ??? Tacitus has been banned already!!!


CS didn't know that when he posted it Tete. He was just trying to stick up for me against a tirade is all.

For that I thank him, very sincerely. He is both a gentleman and a scholar.:)

[pauli007001]

CS didn't know that when he posted it Tete. He was just trying to stick up for me against a tirade is all.

For that I thank him, very sincerely. He is both a gentleman and a scholar.:)

AH Tacitus banned again by the axis of report button,better not disagree with them again!Ragnar will be back again!:cool:

[Trouble43]

AH Tacitus banned again by the axis of report button,better not disagree with them again!Ragnar will be back again!:cool:

No Paulie, Tacitus was banned for being abusive and nasty. I don't think there is any need for that to put a point across, do you? Neither do I think everyone on the forum should have to suffer such treatment in silence.

As I've already said Paulie, no one is singled out for rebukes. You have had warnings, I have had an infraction. We are all treated the same; if the mods think we've over stepped the mark then they deal with it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Albion 69]

As I've already said Paulie, no one is singled out for rebukes. You have had warnings, I have had an infraction. We are all treated the same; if the mods think we've over stepped the mark then they deal with it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Very true T43 , once upon a time people were sanctioned for their political stance or for personal reasons but those days are long gone .... even sweet little old me has recieved the odd infraction !! .... hard to believe i know :D

[Trouble43]

Very true T43 , once upon a time people were sanctioned for their political stance or for personal reasons but those days are long gone .... even sweet little old me has recieved the odd infraction !! .... hard to believe i know :D

You?!! I don't believe it! You're so sweet and cuddly. ;)

[Albion 69]

You?!! I don't believe it! You're so sweet and cuddly. ;)

AAwwwwww ..... well you got the cuddly bit right , middle aged spread such an attractive sight ! :o

[Trouble43]

AAwwwwww ..... well you got the cuddly bit right , middle aged spread such an attractive sight ! :o

Hey listen, I've got enough spread for the both of us!! LOL! and that's after losing 2.5 stone!!!:D