"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (9 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

its possible the footage is not new but several months old. the story may be correct but no vid was available? Maks 24 labelled this as archive video
It happened mid-November in the Donetsk region.

The Leopard 2A4 belonged to the 33 Mechanized Brigade.
 
But of course...couldn't have Israel seen supporting the fight against modern NAZIs could we?!!! :mad:

 
I don't have a problem with him trying to stave off war. Of course the Allies needed more time to rearm. But saying that it meant peace seems awfully naive -- or cynical.
Churchill was the bigger appeaser, IMO. The whole "formal" reason Britain declared war in 1939 was to defend Poland, and yet in 1944-45 Churchill sold out Poland and much of eastern Europe to another dictator, Stalin. In 1938 at Munich, in the name of buying time and avoiding war, Chamberlain thought it prudent to sell out 15 million Czechoslovakians in a territory of about 140,800 km2. In Feb 1945 at Yalta, for the much of the same reasons, Churchill thought it prudent to sell out 45 million Poles, Romanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians and others covering 1.3 million km2 to fifty years of slavery and servitude.

Furthermore, as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1924 to 1929, Churchill made significant cuts to defense spending, including reductions in the Royal Navy's budget, military aircraft development, and overall military personnel and resources. And yet Chamberlain, whose government led Britain's rearmament, is the great appeaser and Churchill the master victor? I call sus on this.
 
Last edited:
Churchill was the bigger appeaser, IMO. The whole "formal" reason Britain declared war in 1939 was to defend Poland, and yet in 1944-45 Churchill sold out Poland and much of eastern Europe to another dictator, Stalin.

There's a difference between kneeling because you can and kneeling because you must. Stalin handed the West -- not just Churchill -- a fait accompli. Chamberlain had the option to go to war, unpalatable though it was.

Furthermore, as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1924 to 1929, Churchill made significant cuts to defense spending, including reductions in the Royal Navy's budget, military aircraft development, and overall military personnel and resources. And yet Chamberlain, whose government led Britain's rearmament, is the great appeaser and Churchill the master victor? I call sus on this.

As CoE, he was restricted by the 10-year rule, correct? In the financial environment post-WWI, it doesn't matter who was CoE, budget reductions were going to happen. That, however, is a very different issue than not standing up to Hitler's depredations until it was too late.
 
Churchill was the bigger appeaser, IMO. The whole "formal" reason Britain declared war in 1939 was to defend Poland, and yet in 1944-45 Churchill sold out Poland and much of eastern Europe to another dictator, Stalin. In 1938 at Munich, in the name of buying time and avoiding war, Chamberlain thought it prudent to sell out 15 million Czechoslovakians in a territory of about 140,800 km2. In Feb 1945 at Yalta, for the much of the same reasons, Churchill thought it prudent to sell out 45 million Poles, Romanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians and others covering 1.3 million km2 to fifty years of slavery and servitude.

Furthermore, as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1924 to 1929, Churchill made significant cuts to defense spending, including reductions in the Royal Navy's budget, military aircraft development, and overall military personnel and resources. And yet Chamberlain, whose government led Britain's rearmament, is the great appeaser and Churchill the master victor? I call sus on this.
Not wishing to overly divert the thread, but what was Churchill supposed to do about the wester spread of communism? He didn't 'appease' - he accepted an extremely unpleasant reality as being beyond his power to change.
 
Not wishing to overly divert the thread, but what was Churchill supposed to do about the wester spread of communism? He didn't 'appease' - he accepted an extremely unpleasant reality as being beyond his power to change.
That's what Putin is hoping to encounter this time around. What is Trump or any of the Western leaders supposed to do about Russian occupation of 20% of Ukraine including Crimea? They'll be obliged to accept the unpleasant reality as being beyond their power to change, and will de facto accept Russia's annexation of southern Ukraine. No one in the West will support sending their sons and daughters to fight and die for Ukraine. Putin, like Stalin, has our measure.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back