Cameron 'slips up' over World War II history

diable

StevieJ wrote: »

More likely Roosevelt did.

I don't think he denied the Poles to be able to march in the Victory parade, it was the British overnment.

My father was in the Merchant Navy, Invasion of Africa, invasion of Italy, Dunkirk and various other strategic theatres of war, Mother was based in Faldingworth in the PAF and an uncle fought at Monte Casino and another flew Wellingtons in 300 Squadron and still got roggered.

StevieJ

diable wrote: »

I don't think he denied the Poles to be able to march in the Victory parade, it was the British overnment.

My father was in the Merchant Navy, Invasion of Africa, invasion of Italy, Dunkirk and various other strategic theatres of war, Mother was based in Faldingworth in the PAF and an uncle fought at Monte Casino and another flew Wellingtons in 300 Squadron and still got roggered.

Who cares about a victory parade when you are to be occupied by the Soviets for decades, would you expect a man with these views to negotiate rigorously on behalf of Polish liberty at Yalta?

'I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. ... I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace. '

—Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1943

carolt

marklv wrote: »

Getting back to the original focus of this thread, it's pathetic for Cameron to have made such a huge gaffe. So much for the much vaunted independent schooling.

Agreed.

Truly shocking lack of basic historical knowledge.

If you only know a handful of historical dates, you'd have thought Pearl Harbour (Harbor?) would be one of them.

exil

I guess we British don't like to be reminded of the fact, but if it hadn't been for US loans the British government would have had to default by 1941 and would have in all likelihood have had to come to a deal with Hitler (who was also bankrupt but was able to make millions of slave labourers work for the Reich and steal resources from across Europe) at that point.

Admittedly the Americans made sure we paid the money back afterwards so it wasn't entirely an act of charity.

Thrugelmir

carolt wrote: »

Agreed.

Truly shocking lack of basic historical knowledge.

If you only know a handful of historical dates, you'd have thought Pearl Harbour (Harbor?) would be one of them.

To be the misconceptions straight........

Events of 1939

Three years of mounting international tension - encompassing the Spanish Civil War, the Anschluss (union) of Germany and Austria, Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland and the invasion of Czechoslovakia - culminated in the German invasion of Poland on 1 September. Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later. While the USA proclaimed neutrality, it continued to supply Britain with essential supplies, and the critical Battle of the Atlantic between German U-Boats and British naval convoys commenced.

StevieJ

Events of 1939

Three years of mounting international tension - encompassing the Spanish Civil War, the Anschluss (union) of Germany and Austria, Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland and the invasion of Czechoslovakia - culminated in the German invasion of Poland on 1 September. Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later. While the USA proclaimed neutrality, it continued to supply Britain with essential supplies, a nice little earner , and the critical Battle of the Atlantic between German U-Boats and British naval convoys commenced.

I have corrected it for you.

diable

StevieJ wrote: »

Who cares about a victory parade when you are to be occupied by the Soviets for decades, would you expect a man with these views to negotiate rigorously on behalf of Polish liberty at Yalta?

I know what you are saying, Roosevelt was weak and Churchill was just as bad as any other English leader, oh well at least the Poles are now taking what is owed to them out of the country.

Cameron should have more backbone and just pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and just rely on gas from Russian and oil from Florida, sorry meant Mexico ;o))

wymondham

Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?? I'd rather people focused on the future personally....

marklv

exil wrote: »

I guess we British don't like to be reminded of the fact, but if it hadn't been for US loans the British government would have had to default by 1941 and would have in all likelihood have had to come to a deal with Hitler (who was also bankrupt but was able to make millions of slave labourers work for the Reich and steal resources from across Europe) at that point.

Admittedly the Americans made sure we paid the money back afterwards so it wasn't entirely an act of charity.

Actually Germany only went 'officially' bust in 1943. Anyway, slave labour wasn't used as heavily as you might think in the early years of the war. Hitler mainly financed the military spending in the usual way - by taking out huge loans and issuing bonds to cover them. Of course there was looting from Jewish and enemy funds and economic interests, and this added to the pot, but by 1943 the German economy was bankrupt anyway.

PS - we came to a deal with Stalin, who was an even bigger murderer than Hitler, so I'm not clear on your point about the probability that "...would have in all likelihood have had to come to a deal with Hitler". I'm not saying Hitler was any better than Stalin, just playing Devil's advocate.

diable

wymondham wrote: »

Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?? I'd rather people focused on the future personally....

Polish builders/plumbers/electricians/carpenters/child minders/factory workers/any other workers taking over England is the future and the future is red and white ;o)))