Churchill's Alliance with the Genodical Murderer, Stalin

[Aspherical123]

There is no evidence to suggest that was the case at all. In fact, in the war between Germany and France, France struck first - France entered German territory (Lower Saarland) before the Germans even acted.

Hitler had stated he intented to take back all land taken after WW1 that included parts of France, he also stated he wanted a Greater Germany Empire in Europe. He had beaten the war drum for years.

[eoghanacht]

Theres a wonderful theory abot the American, British and the Nazi's but thats just for conspriacy nuts

Start with IGFarben and Standard oil go on.

Leave your bagage at the door though you never know you might learn something

[Aspherical123]

The USSR dwarfed not only Germany but all European Nations combined. They output more tanks in 1 month, in 1 factory, than Germany did in a year. This crass revisionism is disgusting.

The USSR did not pose the same geographical threat to the UK like Germany did brainiac. At the start of WW2 their military was obsolete.

[Mushroom]

Phew it's great to finally find out what was going on during WW2. And there was I thinking that it was all about that Terry Hitler fellow nabbing other peoples' sunbeds around the swimming pool in Sudentenland.

Sincere thanks to the OP for clearing it all up for me - I'll much sleep better tonight knowing what really happened.

PS - wasn't that Churchill feller raised in Ratra House in the Phoenix Park? They're a devious shower of buggers those Dublin Northsiders.

[cry freedom]

Hypocrisy exposed. Just to highlight it: They declared war over the occupation of 50% of Poland. By the wars end, Poland was under 100% occupation by the USSR. Not only did they do nothing about it, they facilitated it. This exposes the agenda of not the protection of Poland but the destruction of Germany.

Its simple, Britain, and to a lesser extent, France - got sour grapes over an emerging Continental competitor.

And I suppose when Britain and France had exposed themselves to a war in two fronts you and your altruistic mates would have waded in to help?

[The Elephant]

Stalin, one of recorded history's worst mass murderers, was part of the alliance that defeated Nazi Germany and the other Axis powers.

It has been claimed that WWII began in order to defeat tyranny and, more specifically, to defend the freedom of Poland after its invasion in 1939.

However, Poland was invaded by two powers in 1939 - Germany and the Soviet Union.

The leaders of those states, Hitler and Stalin, had formed an alliance, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in which they agreed to divide Poland.

Since Polish freedom was one of the stated reasons for France and the UK declaring war on Germany, then why didn't they also declare war on the other state that invaded Poland in 1939, the Soviet Union?

Since the fight against tyranny was one of the stated reasons for going to war against the Nazis, then why did the western Allies form an alliance with Stalin, one of the greatest tyrants of his age?

Why did the western Allies, Churchill in particular, agree to the carve-up of Europe, why did they allow a tyrannical régime to take control over much of Eastern and Central Europe (including Poland) and why did they send Soviet POWS back to the Soviet Union to be murdered by Stalin?

Are claims that the western Allies fought for the freedom of Poland and against tyranny merely shallow rhetoric to disguise the fact that they fought for their own interests?

And what does Churchill's good personal relationship with Stalin (both pictured below) say about his personal character and the nature of the state he led during WWII?

I think that then, as now, wars were against selected tyrranies or types of tyrranies.

"We have an enormous stake in ensuring that Egypt and Tunisia provide models for the kind of democracy that we want to see,". etc

[sondagefaux]

d'uh!

This is the real world. Things are seldom black and white. It's sad but true.

I'm fully aware of that. I think you need to read this thread, which discusses de Valera's policy during WWII, to make sense of my motivations in starting a new thread on this topic.

In the real world, de Valera made an assessment of Ireland's best interests and followed a policy of outward military neutrality during WWII.

There are a few faux naif posters on the de Valera thread who profess to think that realpolitik, as practised by de Valera, was a betrayal of freedom and a refusal to confront tyranny.

The western allies involvement with Stalin, which also led to the betrayal of freedom and a refusal to confront tyranny, demonstrates that their arguments are hollow, and most probably motivated by their own, frequently anti-Irish nationalist, viewpoints.

[Midulster]

Hitler had stated he intented to take back all land taken after WW1 that included parts of France, he also stated he wanted a Greater Germany Empire in Europe. He had beaten the war drum for years.

Taking back German territory does not Constitute a strategy to 'Invade Western Europe'. The occupation of Paris was never planned, this is proven by the fact that logistics for the move on Paris were all largely happened upon.

The USSR did not pose the same geographical threat to the UK like Germany did brainiac.

Yes it did, braniac. Given that it had the power to do it, the planes, the men, the naval power, we can deduce by your logic that they didn't because they were too big-hearted.

At the start of WW2 their military was obsolete.

So why, then, did it have more amphibious tanks than France had tanks? Why, 'braniac', was its most obsolete tank superior to Germany most advanced tank? What sort of 'peasant army' is equipped with 24,000 state of the art tanks?

Western liberals just erase these facts from history because they're inconvenient and expose their Communist collaboration. The above is an example, they make up straight-lies that the USSR was ill-quipped, despite the fact for example in 1941 the USSR had attack planes with armor rivalling Geman tanks!

[eoghanacht]

So it was not a war on tyranny or for the freedom of Poland, but a war to protect Britain's interests?

Britain has a history of waging wars against the prominent continental power of the day whether it was Spain, France or Germany. It did that to maintain it's own supremacy.

I think it's a widely held belief that Hitler admired the British and wanted to emulate them. There were plenty of nazi "sneaking regarders" in British power circles too. Hitler hoped he could work with them.

He allowed the BEF flee Dunkerque in the hope that they could reach peaceful terms.

WWII was no more about defending allies like Poland than WWI was about the freedom of small nations or that some serb killed an Archduke.

[edifice.]

Because Britain had to keep the USSR sweet, if it had declared war on both Germany and Russia it would have been destroyed brainiac.

Your allies are not always your friends. Britains biggest threat at the time was from Germany.

That wont serve you well in the future.