itsimpossible: well...it is said that Stalin killed 60 million Soviet Citizens - so the Germans were not their greatest concern...
15million is closer the real figure. There is another few million associated with aggravated effects such as collectivisation... famine caused by Rural upheaval etc. These are sometimes attributed directly to him.
Poles 80-85% Russians 50-60% to be physically eliminated and another 15% to be sent to Western Siberia. Belarusians 75% Ukrainians 65% Lithuanians 85% Latvians 50% Estonians 50% Czechs 50% Latgalians 100%
MADDOG69: 15million is closer the real figure. There is another few million associated with aggravated effects such as collectivisation... famine caused by Rural upheaval etc. These are sometimes attributed directly to him.
nobody knows the real figure - it was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who stated 60 million..I won't argue with him.
"Research into the people who were killed or imprisoned during the Stalinist purges of the 1930s is possible using records of the NKVD and its successor organization, the KGB. (NKVD stands for Narodnii Kommissariat Vnutrennykh Del , or People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs; KGB stands for Komitet Gosudarstvennoi Bezopasnosti , or Committee of State Security.)"
tomcatwarneOcean City, Plumouth, Devon, England UK17,106 posts
Over the past five years, Germany has become very powerful. Since Britain’s (hopefully temporary) economic difficulties, the German economy has emerged not only as the largest – but by far the largest – in the European Union. Consequentially, some have asked whether we are now entering a period of German hegemony, a kind of German ‘unipolar moment’. Yesterday, however, the British strategist, Julian Lindley-French, explained that this is impossible – Germany will not become a European hegemon. Why? Because – as he puts it – ‘Britain will never accept German leadership.’ He argues that any attempt made by Berlin to ‘shackle’ London will fail, for three key reasons:
Britain’s economic power – even after the Financial Crisis – is still too great and too different (being heavily financial and increasingly globalised) to allow Germany to apply the same kind of pressure on it than it has on places like Greece, Italy, Spain and France.
Britain is a political counter-weight to Germany, for historical and political reasons. The United Kingdom is ‘not-Germany’, which means other European Union Member States will flock to it when German power becomes too overbearing. Britain will capitalise on this, particularly in the European peripheries.
Britain’s military power remains robust, while Germany’s is pitifully weak. Of all the European Union’s Member States, none can mount the kind of expeditionary operations the British can; no country has battle-hardened regular forces like those of the United Kingdom. The British military has fought battles or has seen tours of duty all over the world for decades; it also retains a global geopolitical footprint, with military stations reaching into the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic. Lindley-French counsels that London should consolidate its European position by building coalitions to further maximise its power. Again, he is right. As I argued with Luis Simón in The RUSI Journal in 2010 and 2011, Britain needs to carefully construct closer military relations with France, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, as well as, and particularly, the Nordic and Baltic states – something we described as London’s ‘Nordic drive’. The Baltic zone is critical to Britain’s geopolitical objectives: along with the Low Countries and the Mediterranean axis from Gibraltar to Cyprus, the Baltic is one of the three main anchors of British power. If London allows another country – like Russia – to gain control over the Baltic basin, the North Sea and Britain’s maritime routes would come under immediate and acute threat.
Importantly, the long-term indicators – geopolitical, economic and cultural – suggest that the future is on Britain’s side: by 2050, it will be the European Union’s most populous and wealthy society (unless the Scottish Nationalist Party succeeds in tearing the British union apart, rendering Scotland a de-facto English colony),
In short: since the end of the Second World War, Britain and the United States, along with France, have been, and will remain, the ‘grand anchors’ of Western civilisation. Their military and financial power – sustained by their ideals, i.e. the rule of law and constitutional government – has continued to undergird the current European and world orders. Initially, to uphold this system, they had to focus their power into the heart of Europe to rehabilitate Germany and prevent Soviet Russia from moving in; today, however, as the world’s geopolitical heart is tilting towards an axis running from India, through China, and on to Japan, it is essential that both London and Washington divide their areas of concentration.
itsimpossible: oh right, the NKVD - they always tell the truth like the CIA, they never lie..
When their archives were never made for public consumption in the first place, but answerable ONLY to their own internal bosses... you would find their records are meticulous.
MADDOG69: When their archives were never made for public consumption in the first place, but answerable ONLY to their own internal bosses... you would find their records are meticulous.
you can never trust any information from any Intelligence organization, even if intended for their "bosses" only, they are not credible sources of information...
tomcatwarne: Heh Heh ok, but tell me what did Eire do in WW2, and how are your armed forces shaping up, tell me I could use a laugh too
De Valera:
""It is indeed fortunate that Britain's necessity did not reach the point when Mr. Churchill would have acted. All credit to him that he successfully resisted the temptation which, I have not doubt, may times assailed him in his difficulties and to which I freely admit many leaders might have easily succumbed. It is indeed; hard for the strong to be just to the weak, but acting justly always has its rewards.
By resisting his temptation in this instance, Mr. Churchill, instead of adding another horrid chapter to the already bloodstained record of the relations between England and this country, has advanced the cause of international morality an important step-one of the most important, indeed, that can be taken on the road to the establishment of any sure basis for peace.
As far as the peoples of these two islands are concerned, it may, perhaps, mark a fresh beginning towards the realisation of that mutual comprehension to which Mr. Churchill has referred for which, I hope, he will not merely pray but work also, as did his predecessor who will yet, I believe, find the honoured place in British history which is due to him, as certainly he will find it in any fair record of the relations between Britain and ourselves.
That Mr. Churchill should be irritated when our neutrality stood in the way of what he thought he vitally needed, I understand, but that he or any thinking person in Britain or elsewhere should fail to see the reason for our neutrality, I find it hard to conceive.
I would like to put a hypothetical question-it is a question I have put to many Englishmen since the last war. Suppose Germany had won the war, had invaded and occupied England, and that after a long lapse of time and many bitter struggles, she was finally brought to acquiesce in admitting England's right to freedom, and let England go, but not the whole of England, all but, let us say, the six southern counties.
These six southern counties, those, let us suppose, commanding the entrance to the narrow seas, Germany had singled out and insisted on holding herself with a view to weakening England as a whole, and maintaining the securing of her own communications through the Straits of Dover.
Let us suppose further, that after all this had happened, Germany was engaged in a great war in which she could show that she was on the side of freedom of a number of small nations, would Mr. Churchill as an Englishman who believed that his own nation had as good a right to freedom as any other, not freedom for a part merely, but freedom for the whole-would he, whilst Germany still maintained the partition of his country and occupied six counties of it, would he lead this partitioned England to join with Germany in a crusade? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.
As for the armed forces... I'm pretty sure they are <9,000 at the moment. And as I often joked before, that puts us in a reverse arms race with New Zealand.
tomcatwarneOcean City, Plumouth, Devon, England UK17,106 posts
MADDOG69: I'm pretty sure The Free State although officially Neutral, gave indirect assistance to the Allies. Which I for one would have been against. No need to help them in some Big Boys war where the only gain was body count.
bungallow55: Who got who; Moron...I have the book and I know about the autor country, but My idea was to make you look by yourself, so the joke was on you, commie
Ya knew nothing, you weirdo. You saw his name and thought it looked Russian. Andrew being a typical Russian name...
Garbage ! have you ever met him during the Last War ? my parents did ! so please talk of your Puertoricain if you ever like it but don't spit on one of the biggest heroes of the Planet !!!!!!!! and what a writter, what a great man with a very simple, humble life ... he had a girl mongolian and has written so beautiful things about her, you def should read him!
justjim63port macquarie, New South Wales Australia2,592 posts
Conrad73: Bull,it was Italy goofing big in Greece! Ethiopia was over five years then!
Italy was committed heavily to the North African campaign in 1940-41, they copped a flogging in Libya along with the Afrika Corps then had to withdraw to the Italian mainland and Sicily. That's a rough version as I'm pissed and it's very late at night here.
lovemedofr: Garbage ! have you ever met him during the Last War ? my parents did ! so please talk of your Puertoricain if you ever like it but don't spit on one of the biggest heroes of the Planet !!!!!!!! and what a writter, what a great man with a very simple, humble life ... he had a girl mongolian and has written so beautiful things about her, you def should read him!
The Ignorance of The French: Did you know that Puerto Ricans soldier spilled their blood at Omaha beach to liberate your country?
About 3 years ago a poll from France showed that today's French people like to say, we French pushed out of France the German.
Why is it hard for you people to recognized that without the allies today you would be speaking German not French...French arrogance.
justjim63: Italy was committed heavily to the North African campaign in 1940-41, they copped a flogging in Libya along with the Afrika Corps then had to withdraw to the Italian mainland and Sicily. That's a rough version as I'm pissed and it's very late at night here.
so,Mussolini must have thought that the Greeks were easy pickings!
your laughter showed your ignorance, we Puerto Ricans we are U.S. citizen, which mean any war America gets involved there we go as any u.s. citizen, so now laugh louder, including WW1, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
15million is closer the real figure. There is another few million associated with aggravated effects such as collectivisation... famine caused by Rural upheaval etc. These are sometimes attributed directly to him.