As threatened the thread for World War II, many won't be interested and many will be. For many it happened yesterday (in their memories) for everyone it affected their lives even those born this week, it shaped the world as it is today, no matter what you think about it, it is probably as important to the world situation today as the discovery of the wheel was. So what do you think ............
I wasn't around for that war, but my parents were as youngsters and although they didn't participate I heard the stories of the hardship that they had to go through at the time, near misses, being moved around and the fear of being bombed. What I had to live with as most other children of the sixties was loads of war films making war look glamorous, the cold war and the threat of something worse, part of me still thinks that we were all being conditioned to go and fight in the next war. So, what do I think? Its a shame so many had to suffer because of so few, it may have helped shape the world, but maybe there are better ways to shape the world.
many ways to look at the world now. many of those who complain about living here in britain and wish to impose their law and ways would have never seen the light of day if hitler had won. sometimes i feel the freedom we have, no matter how much or little is forgotten. also modern warfare has changed so much that the dreadful vicious close quarters fighting that went on during the second world war is now not needed. technology means we can take out the enemy from a longer distance and have unmanned aircraft and other weapons of mass destruction which can if used end wars in an instant. also because fighting and being a soldier is very different now to what is was back in 1938 you could argue that the tough grit and determination to win and fight has been lost a little. i am not knocking or having a go at the forces here. i read a hell of a lot about service men and women who died and survived going beyond the call of duty and taking on the enemy when facing overwhelming odds. i have walked the beaches at normandy and i can tell you them soldiers heavy laden with all that equipment,soaked through and trying to get on to the beach is one of the greatest feats man has done. all them machine guns mowing men down cutting them to pieces yet the will of the good drove them forward against the nazi machine because it was needed and had to be done. when you walk the beach and run from the water to the bank you understand just how difficult it must have been. when you listen to soldiers that were there and you hear how most of them were dreadfully sick in the landing craft before they got near the beach, most of the american soldiers were not prepared for it because they hadnt ever fought like it. then the shelling into the water, the noise of all the explosions and having to throw yourself over the side as your friends get ripped to shreds by the gun fire. it is hard to think some how they made it out of the water and then had to hold position for over 8 hours while all hell broke loose around them. something thankfully the modern soldier doesnt have to do as the way wars are played out as changed so much. i hold the belief that not even todays gold medal athletes we held up as heros would make it alive on to them beaches carrying all that equipment because today we do not possess the will or the drive to defeat the enemy whatever the cost. then you had all the other battles across the pacific,europe and russia all coming together to stop what was a machine designed to rule forever. and what you also have to remember is hitler. That man bought a shattered germany together got every man,woman and child building the tools and industry needed to make the country proud. his voice,his fierce determination and speeches made everyone proud to be german and stand as one against the world. when chamberlain was greeting hitler with a smile, hitler had already got what he wanted and that was to begin a over the sudetenland to hitler he quickly moved on to poland. and from there everything decended into mass murder of innocents on the fields and in camps. but the second world war bought us the bomb. the ultimate power and over 2000 have been tested on this earth. things have changed. computers program the machines to fight. bombs have got more accurate and powerful. man has got weaker because he relys on the technology to much. and when the next one happens. god help us all because it will be very big and very final.
One thing is certain from WW2 is that we (the human race) do not learn from our conflicts and blindly go in to another, not realising the long term problems we create, the long term damage and the long term cost. The pen is mightier than the sword they say and dialogue is far superior to any sort of munitions. May be we should learn to ask questions first instead of being all macho...?
I don't think the soldiers of today are any different from the soldiers who fought in WWII, they do what they do in the same mindset as their predessors, certainly the Scots Guard in 1982 fought a tough battle using hand to hand combat techniques, bayonets were fixed and they fought the in close quarters and they triumphed against the odds. Sometimes I think their task is harder, those serving now in Afghanistan are restricted in ways those that fought in WWII could never be, back then if you thought the enemy was positioned somewhere you took out that position with whatever means you had, and although that was with your blood and guts sometimes, often it was with tanks, flamethrowers, artillery or air bombardment, the modern soldier can call upon some of that but not when the enemy has positioned himself in a village. At Monte Casino we obliterated one of the most prestideous Monastries the world had to offer because we thought (wrongly) that the German army were using it as a base and an observation platform, today we would not do that. Carpet bombing of Cities is no longer tolerated, Dresden, Coventry, London taught us that this was not the way forward, we did learn something from war. From the inception of the first army soldiers have faced their foe in any way they are told to, from marching forward in lines until you could literally see the whites of their eyes and firing single shot muskets to charging into machine gun fire on beaches and battlefields, under mortar and sniper fire in Afghanistan to charging machine guns through minefields in the Falklands. Technology changes but soldiers don't. I did say that WWII had shaped our future, I did not say it was all for the good and believe that much of it was for the bad. Interestingly war does advance the worlds technology capabilities, again not necessarily for the good and sometimes for a price that is too high. Organ transplant abilities would be 20 years behind where we are now had it not been for the terrible experiments carried out by Nazi Doctors like Josef Mengele, Rockets and space travel much further behind. Funds are poured were poured into research back in WWII that simply would not have been available without the war, nowadays the munitions industry is one of the worlds largest but WWII brought about that situation, the change in war methodology taught Countries the importance of updating their equipment and tactics. War is a terrible thing, but a sad part of the make up of Man, our greed, our passion to possess, our jealousy, our religious beliefs, our love of it, our pride mean that it will never be eradicated.
Quote by MidsCouple24 I don't think the soldiers of today are any different from the soldiers who fought in WWII, they do what they do in the same mindset as their predessors, certainly the Scots Guard in 1982 fought a tough battle using hand to hand combat techniques, bayonets were fixed and they fought the in close quarters and they triumphed against the odds.
Mids a lot of the ' soldiers ' in WW2 were bloody conscripts and certainly not regular soldiers. My Father telling me the day his elder Brother got his call up at 20 having been training to be a journalist. These new young soldiers were called 'militiamen' to distinguish them from the regular army. At the outbreak of war, on 3 September 1939, the Military Training Act was overtaken by the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, and the first intake was absorbed into the army. This act imposed a liability to conscription of all men 18 to 41 years old. Not the same as going into the army by choice. Yes they were trained by the regular army, but as long as they could shoot straight and could carry heavy equipment that was good enough in most cases.
"Not the same as going into the army by choice. Yes they were trained by the regular army, but as long as they could shoot straight and could carry heavy equipment that was good enough in most cases." AKA Canon Fodder
Quote by starlightcouple I don't think the soldiers of today are any different from the soldiers who fought in WWII, they do what they do in the same mindset as their predessors, certainly the Scots Guard in 1982 fought a tough battle using hand to hand combat techniques, bayonets were fixed and they fought the in close quarters and they triumphed against the odds.
Mids a lot of the ' soldiers ' in WW2 were bloody conscripts and certainly not regular soldiers. My Father telling me the day his elder Brother got his call up at 20 having been training to be a journalist. These new young soldiers were called 'militiamen' to distinguish them from the regular army. At the outbreak of war, on 3 September 1939, the Military Training Act was overtaken by the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, and the first intake was absorbed into the army. This act imposed a liability to conscription of all men 18 to 41 years old. Not the same as going into the army by choice. Yes they were trained by the regular army, but as long as they could shoot straight and could carry heavy equipment that was good enough in most cases. Something I have stated many times, and how does that differ from the forces in Afghanistan ? many of whom are territorials ?
Russia would have fallen to the German Blitzkreig had it not been for two important factors. Adolf Hitler made catestrophic mistakes in his tactics. Attacking too late in the Summer of 1941 which meant that his troops were in danger of having to fight a campaign in the coldest areas of Russia during the winter, he did believe it would be all over before the winter and his successes in Poland and France gave credit to that thinking. When operation Barbarossa started the German army advanced in stifling hot temperatures. Adolf Hitler then made two more big mistakes, his decision to win Leningrad by seige instead of taking the City as they could have in 1941 meant that troops were again tied up instead of moving forward on Moscow, although 1.5 million soviets died in Leningrad the Germans could not afford the delay. the same happened in Stalingrad, Hitler had stopped using the excellent and at that time unstoppable tactics of Blitzkreig which could have had Russia beaten within a month or two. And secondly Britain was still fighting, resources much needed in the East were being deployed on the Atlantic Wall and in Africa, the African campaign swallowed up vast amounts of men, munitions, armour and more importantly fuel, something Germany had too little of. In Norway the threat of a British attack kept hundreds of thousands of German soldiers and equipment tied up for almost all the war. The danger of a British Invasion of Scicilly and Italy threatening the German rear meant another waste of valuable men and equipment as well as hampering the supply chain to the Africa Korps. Because of the British the Germans were fighting on 3 fronts (Britain, Africa and Russia) whislt having to maintain a huge occupation force in France, Holland, Belgium, Norway and Poland. Alone we could not have defeated the Germans and thier allies (Finland, Italy, SS Battalions from Ireland, Ukrane and Yugoslavia we did provide the means for the rest of the world to unite to defeat them. Our fight in the far east, mainly Burma also assisted the Americans in what they believe was their own war against Japan.
Something I have stated many times, and how does that differ from the forces in Afghanistan ? many of whom are territorials ?
Choice? Yes choice, is a factor but what difference does it make on the battlefield, the soldier who volunteers and the soldier who is conscripted share a common desire, and that is to survive, many of the untrained soldiers you are talking about were volunteers, at the start of WWII hundreds of thousands volunteered to join the forces, moreso than the amount actually conscripted. in WWI the amount of volunteers was even greater a % than those that were conscripted. Many volunteer soldiers never considered having to actually fight when they joined back in the 70s, a tour of Ireland might be the most they could expect and then mostly for the Infantry not the support troops, a 3-4 month tour was often considered to be an experience not to be missed in the same way the volunteers at the outbreak of WWI looked forward to a "jolly uplifting and fun experience".
Quote by Rogue_Trader SS battalions from IFS???? Comical to say the least.
Sorry I don't understand what you mean by IFS ? unless you are referring to my mention of Irish volunteers who served in the SS Germany simply did not have enough soldiers,Himmler was allowed to create his new formations, but they were to be commanded by German officers and NCOs. Beginnin in 1942-43, several new formations were built up. A large contingent of Irishmen signed up to the SS and fought on the Russian Front. (can't really blame them for not siding with the United Kingdom really though throughout our history the majority of Irishmen from Eire as well as the North have always stood by our side during times of war) SS recruits also came from England and other European Countries though not in the same kind of numbers as volunteered from Eastern Europe where the alternative was Russian (Stalins) leadership/Dictatorship, France did have 9000 soldiers serving in the 33rd SS Panzer Division Belgium 12000 in the 5th SS Division and 27th Division (these were Flemish soldiers but also from Belgium were a further 15000 soldiers of the 5th and 28th SS Divisions who were Belgian Walloons. Denmark supplied 8000 SS troops in the 11th SS Division, India 2500 soldiers in the Indisshes Freiwilligen Infantrie Regiment 950 (Indian Freewilling Infantry Regiment TIGER LEGION), 25000 Dutchmen served in the 23rd and 34th SS Divisions, 3000 Spaniards in the Spanische-Freiwilligen-Kompanie der SS 101 and SS 102. 800 Swiss, 500 Swedish. Most did come from Eastern Europe as I said and that includes 30,000 Estonians in the 20th SS Division, 40,000 Hungarians in the 25th SS Div., 26th SS Div. and 33rd SS Div. 15,000 Belarussians, 20,000 Cossacks in the 1st Cossack Division, 20,000 Croations in the 7th SS Div, 13th Handschar SS Division. 20,000 Ukrainians in the 14th SS Division who committed so many atrocities the end of the war saw them brought back to the UK because if they had been sent home to the Ukraine or to Russia they would have been killed immediately, almost every Ukranian living in the UK today is descended from an SS soldier of the 14th Division or was a member of the Division. There were many others from many other Nations, some of course were our neighbours and allies but as small % of their subjects chose to take the German side. SO STILL THINK IT COMICAL that the SS recruited willing Irishmen to serve them ?
I dare say a lot of Nazi sympathizers enlisted with the enemy, but don't make out that battalions of SS were crewed by the Irish. You made out that the Irish were providing support to the Nazi war machine! IFS is the Irish Free State, you might know it as the Republic. It was a neutral country in the War having elected to stay out of it. Though it did support the allies by allowing flight across its airspace and it also helped the Atlantic convoys.
If I recall correctly the number of Irish volunteers that joined the German forces during WW2 was in the region of 70-80. That hardly sounds like enough men to form several battalions of Waffen SS. Unless they've been on the Guinness of course
Quote by Trevaunance If I recall correctly the number of Irish volunteers that joined the German forces during WW2 was in the region of 70-80. That hardly sounds like enough men to form several battalions of Waffen SS. Unless they've been on the Guinness of course
A darn sight less than were fifth columnists over here...
Quote by Rogue_Trader I dare say a lot of Nazi sympathizers enlisted with the enemy, but don't make out that battalions of SS were crewed by the Irish. You made out that the Irish were providing support to the Nazi war machine! IFS is the Irish Free State, you might know it as the Republic. It was a neutral country in the War having elected to stay out of it. Though it did support the allies by allowing flight across its airspace and it also helped the Atlantic convoys.
Actually Eire did not help the Atlantic Convoys at all. Prior to WW2 the Royal Navy had use of two Irish ports (I forget which, but they were on the Altantic side of Eire), also prior to the war, as a cost cutting measure and because of pressure from the Eire Gov these bases were closed. Come WW2 and because the British Destroyers & Frigates had to sail from Home ports which were further from America they did not have enough fuel to cover the whole crossing, which lead to the so-called "destroyer gap" where the convoys had no destoryer screen and hence were at more risk from U-boats. The Eire Gov at no time considered reopening these ports for the use of the Royal Navy. John
Quote by MidsCouple24 Russia would have fallen to the German Blitzkreig had it not been for two important factors. Adolf Hitler made catestrophic mistakes in his tactics. Attacking too late in the Summer of 1941 which meant that his troops were in danger of having to fight a campaign in the coldest areas of Russia during the winter, he did believe it would be all over before the winter and his successes in Poland and France gave credit to that thinking. When operation Barbarossa started the German army advanced in stifling hot temperatures. Adolf Hitler then made two more big mistakes, his decision to win Leningrad by seige instead of taking the City as they could have in 1941 meant that troops were again tied up instead of moving forward on Moscow, although 1.5 million soviets died in Leningrad the Germans could not afford the delay. the same happened in Stalingrad, Hitler had stopped using the excellent and at that time unstoppable tactics of Blitzkreig which could have had Russia beaten within a month or two. And secondly Britain was still fighting, resources much needed in the East were being deployed on the Atlantic Wall and in Africa, the African campaign swallowed up vast amounts of men, munitions, armour and more importantly fuel, something Germany had too little of. In Norway the threat of a British attack kept hundreds of thousands of German soldiers and equipment tied up for almost all the war. The danger of a British Invasion of Scicilly and Italy threatening the German rear meant another waste of valuable men and equipment as well as hampering the supply chain to the Africa Korps. Because of the British the Germans were fighting on 3 fronts (Britain, Africa and Russia) whislt having to maintain a huge occupation force in France, Holland, Belgium, Norway and Poland. Alone we could not have defeated the Germans and thier allies (Finland, Italy, SS Battalions from Ireland, Ukrane and Yugoslavia we did provide the means for the rest of the world to unite to defeat them. Our fight in the far east, mainly Burma also assisted the Americans in what they believe was their own war against Japan.
Trying to consider all the mistakes and "what ifs" which happened to both sides during any war is probably any infinite exercise, but I could add about Hitlers Russia Campaign; If he had ordered leaflet drops to split the Ukraine population from the Russian, by promising giving back the land which had been collectivised by Stalin. If he had let his Generals make decisions based on operational requirements instead of interfering all the time. If the Germans had concentrated on capturing the Russian oilfields, (no T34 runs without fuel). If the Germans had produced long range heavy bombers to reach to the Russian factories east of the Urals. The list could go on and on. If anybody likes books, I'd recommend; What If?: The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been by Robert Cowley There is also a second book, strangely enough called "What if2" by the same guy. They go though "what ifs" from before the Romans to the present day, riviting stuff. John
Quote by Geordiecpl2001 Actually Eire did not help the Atlantic Convoys at all. Prior to WW2 the Royal Navy had use of two Irish ports (I forget which, but they were on the Altantic side of Eire), also prior to the war, as a cost cutting measure and because of pressure from the Eire Gov these bases were closed. Come WW2 and because the British Destroyers & Frigates had to sail from Home ports which were further from America they did not have enough fuel to cover the whole crossing, which lead to the so-called "destroyer gap" where the convoys had no destoryer screen and hence were at more risk from U-boats. The Eire Gov at no time considered reopening these ports for the use of the Royal Navy. John
Sorry John never meant that they allowed use of their ports but they provided weather reports for the Atlantic also they allowed use of the Donegal corridor for patrolling aircraft. These were in direct contravention to their neutral status. they even helped with the long range forecasts for D-Day.
Quote by Rogue_Trader I dare say a lot of Nazi sympathizers enlisted with the enemy, but don't make out that battalions of SS were crewed by the Irish. You made out that the Irish were providing support to the Nazi war machine! IFS is the Irish Free State, you might know it as the Republic. It was a neutral country in the War having elected to stay out of it. Though it did support the allies by allowing flight across its airspace and it also helped the Atlantic convoys.
I made no such allegation, I stated that an SS battalion of Irish fought for Germany on the Eastern Front, that is undisputable fact, it was you who thought the very idea that the existance of such a Battalion was comical, Who is laughing now Read other posts of mine and you will find that I have always praised the Irish from the Republic of Ireland for fighting alongside Britain in every conflict we have ever taken part in.
The British Free Corps were mostly Englishmen recruited from Prisoner of War Camps and apart from good propaganda were pretty inaffective, they spent most of their time in the SS living in luxury as part of the propaganda machine to encourage others to switch side. The Irish Battalion I refer to were recruited directly from Ireland and though I don't know the actual numbers or service history I do remember watching a documentary about them on the Military Channel, there are also documentaries on there about the British Free Corps and the Yugoslavian and Ukranian SS Battalions. I would never imply that Ireland as a Nation suported the German cause though few could blame them for NOT taking the side of Britain in any conflict, as a Nation they have always supported us but the fact remains there WAS an Irish Battalion of SS. Perhaps like many I was shocked today when I found out the actual numbers of non-German SS numbers who served on the Russian Front, I had seen the documentaries about the Irish British, Ukranians and Yugoslavians only, I was not aware of the 9000 French or 40,000 Dutch and all the others.
I've been searching the net for an Irish SS Battalion but I'm only able to find sources that suggest there were no Irish SS. I'm surprised that if there were enough to form a Battalion that that information isn't more readily found. There is a suggestion that a handful of Irish POWs joined the BFC but it seems there were never more than 27 British and Commonwealth members at any one time and the total number of members was less than 100. Certainly there were very many non-German Waffen SS from the occupied countries of western and eastern Europe but Irish seem to be in short supply. I know it's Wikipedia but this link gives the nationalities, numbers and units of foreign SS.
I'm interested because I had never heard of an Irish Battalion in the SS although I'm well aware of the number of Irish that fought and died fighting Hitler.
Quote by MidsCouple24 I stated that an SS battalion of Irish fought for Germany on the Eastern Front, that is undisputable fact, it was you who thought the very idea that the existance of such a Battalion was comical, Who is laughing now
It may take some time and research but I know what I saw on the Discovery channel, I was never too surprised by the eastern europeans who chose Hitler over Stalin, the few British that took the offer of SS instead of POW didn't surprise me much and nor did the report of the Irish Battalion because there is no doubt that we have given cause for some to hate us during our history.
Please don't get me wrong in my mention of the Irish SS troops, I mentioned them only in part of my showing that it was not just Germans we fought the Axis too consisted of many Nations not just the allies, anyone who has read my past posts will know that I am a supporter of a free and total Ireland where Britain does not own, control or rule the North. One fact I do know for sure is that Ireland was neutral during WWII, they decided as a Nation not to take part, well the Government did, 150,000 Irishmen signed up to fight with and for Britain and 10,000 died doing so.
A battalion at the time of WW2 was around 300-1200 men, dependent on role. Artillery had the lowest number (300), followed by Cavalry, (400), armoured (500), mechanised (750), motorised (900) and infantry (1200) battalions with the highest. The SS never raised artillery battalions. There is evidence of around four dozen Irish men, who had volunteered to fight in the British forces, being approached for recruitment after becoming PW's. They were subjected to propaganda and indoctrination. Eventually 5 men agreed to join the German forces, although 4 of these had already agreed with their chain of command to do so, and had been given a 'sleeping brief'. One of these men was called James Brady, I can't remember the others. They were subsequently joined by no more than thirty men who were recruited by the same means, or had willingly joined the fight against communism or the British rule (Take your pick, they were a mixed bag!). One man was released from the cells in the Channel Islands on condition of joining, and another was an Irish student with German heritage detained at the start of the war. It's worth remembering that the number of men that actually joined this unit was only slightly more than joined the British Free Korps. The BFC totalled 59 men, some only for a few days, and never managed a single day with more than 27 members. There is certainly no evidence of a couple of whole battalions of SS. Please feel free to provide some.
Quote by MidsCouple24 One fact I do know for sure is that Ireland was neutral during WWII, they decided as a Nation not to take part, well the Government did, 150,000 Irishmen signed up to fight with and for Britain and 10,000 died doing so.
Not to mention the 20,000 Irish merchantmen who were illegally killed at sea.
It would appear that the documentary I watched was inacurate on the numbers or the whole part about the involvement of Irish nationals joining the SS, but the main point is still the same, the German army did consist of hundreds of thousands of other nationalities and as we all know allied to other nations such as Italy. The documentary will be repeated and as I watch almost every programme they do about WWII I will endevour to get the programme details in the future. The Irish have shown evidence that 1 irishman (and I did find one) fighting for you is the equivalent of a Battalion
Quote by MidsCouple24 It would appear that the documentary I watched was inacurate on the numbers or the whole part about the involvement of Irish nationals joining the SS
Or is it at all possible that the show was right and you just misheard what was said? These kinds of shows are usually damn accurate with their research and their numbers. But of course Mids you heard it correctly you will still say. Who is laughing now did you say?
Swinging Heaven features sexually explicit material. To access this site you must be of the legal age to engage with the material of an adult site.
By entering Swinging Heaven you agree to the following;
I am deemed an adult where I live, and I am at least 18 years old
I am allowed to access & view sexually explicit material
0 likes
