Bananas
Endangered Species
So not to completely hijack the other thread.
------
Im not sure what history books you are reading but the French were very much on the side of the Allies.
Also the Soviets may of been weakened but they were still considerably stronger than the Allies, as the western Allies struggled its way across the low countries and the Alps, Russia steamrollered its way to Berlin where it proceeded to unleash hell as it waited for the Allies to join the party.
BTW,
Operation Unthinkable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_UnthinkableFor me, I think yes. The French gave in to Germany in only days without much of a fight at all, THEN used its military and people to fight as Nazi's while Estonia put up a much better fight even though it as depleted from fighting Russia and THEN unlike the French refused Hitlers demands to become Nazi's and fight for its cause after it was defeated.
I understand this, and I understand if the USA had come to Estonia it would be put between the Nazi's AND the Russians. This strategy would not have been so good and to this I can agree.
I think what bothers most here is the EU Navy crews and ships that escaped to England fought for England and the US to help defeat Germany, then after the war with Germany Estonia was just left to be given to Russia, when it was the allies mission to "liberate" Europe. Russia was no better than the Nazi's only they happened to be fighting the Nazi's for land they to invaded. What made the Russians any better than Germany to the Allies? After the fall of Germany, Russia to was weaken, would it not be an opportune time to push Russia back as well where they belong?
Also after Germany fell Russia and the allies made deals with European countries like they were trading cards as to who got what. Even half of Germany was saved by the allies, but countries like Estonia who fought both Russia and Germany were passed over to Russia without a blink of an eye.
My point exactly, so why stop with only Hitler and not continue to stop Stalin as well? I call this "selective liberation".
By wars end Russia was very depleted in both soldiers and equipment, perfect opportunity for the allies to push them back to Russia if liberation was in fact the point of WW2. The fact was, Russia was no threat to England so to bad for all the other countries who are not England.
------
Estonia and Russia were not allies. Estonia before WW2 already had tensions with Russia and protected its borders from Russian invasion, then ultimately going to war with Russia, twice, and then Germany. The entire time of Russian rule when Russia just took any resources it wanted after WW2 Estonians fought anything Russian and I like to think helped to drain the Russian economy with civil war. Very soon after Estonia was free from Russian rule we destroyed every Russian monument in Estonia. Even today there is tension with Russia here.
Russians are to Estonians what Israelis are to Palestinians.
------
There were over a quarter million French, British and Belgium casualties in the weeks of May/June 1940.For me, I think yes. The French gave in to Germany in only days without much of a fight at all, THEN used its military and people to fight as Nazi's while Estonia put up a much better fight even though it as depleted from fighting Russia and THEN unlike the French refused Hitlers demands to become Nazi's and fight for its cause after it was defeated.
Im not sure what history books you are reading but the French were very much on the side of the Allies.
They were the enemy of the enemy. That is what made them better.Ilus_Unistus; said:What made the Russians any better than Germany to the Allies?
Who? ..the Pacific conflict was still in progress and this was the US's priority, had the US attacked the Russians, Russia would ally with Japan. Meanwhile Britain was bankrupt and war weary and also still had an ongoing war in Asia. France had to reorganise its own borders before advancing into others and was in no position to take on the Soviets.Ilus_Unistus; said:After the fall of Germany, Russia to was weaken, would it not be an opportune time to push Russia back as well where they belong?
Also the Soviets may of been weakened but they were still considerably stronger than the Allies, as the western Allies struggled its way across the low countries and the Alps, Russia steamrollered its way to Berlin where it proceeded to unleash hell as it waited for the Allies to join the party.
One of the deals of the Yalta conference was that all countries would have free and democratically elections to determine their own future. The problem being the Soviets did not fulfil this part of the deal, yoiu should be blaming them and not the western Allies.Ilus_Unistus; said:Also after Germany fell Russia and the allies made deals with European countries like they were trading cards as to who got what. Even half of Germany was saved by the allies, but countries like Estonia who fought both Russia and Germany were passed over to Russia without a blink of an eye.
Because they were not prepared to enter a war they would most likely loose.Ilus_Unistus; said:My point exactly, so why stop with only Hitler and not continue to stop Stalin as well? I call this "selective liberation".
The western Allies were equally battered and bruised.Ilus_Unistus; said:By wars end Russia was very depleted in both soldiers and equipment, perfect opportunity for the allies to push them back to Russia if liberation was in fact the point of WW2.
Liberation from Nazi/Japanese occupation. The bold part is very important.Ilus_Unistus; said:...if liberation was in fact the point of WW2.
Russia was a huge threat, such a big threat that it was their action to make a compromise and retain peace, the product of which would become a cold war.Ilus_Unistus; said:The fact was, Russia as no threat to England so to bad for all the other countries who are not England.
BTW,
Operation Unthinkable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited: