BeaverFever BeaverFever:
shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:
As for PublicDomain posting that Communism destroyed Nazis, there's some revision of history right there and it is one far too often repeated without exploring the history. Who do you think was providing oil and resources to the German war effort!?!? Without Russias resources Germany would have been years behind in their aggression plans against Europe.
Look up the Germany/Russia Nonaggression (neutrality) Pact. If not for Germany attacking Russia, they would have idly sat back and given them all the oil they pleased and watched them decimate Europe. Communist Russia was gladly sponsoring the global terror by the Nazis and they agreed to not attack Germany in exchange for oil and other resources.
Furthermore, if not for America, that great beacon of hope, shining city on the hill, who attacked Japan during the German invasion of Russia, Japan would have attacked Russia from the East and almost certainly Russia would have fallen. You can imagine that then the world would have had really big problems with full access to all of those resources for these two warring nations.
Talks about revisionism! Remember the US was "neutral" for the first 2 years of the war, traded with Nazi Germany and provided them provided material support including fuel and military vehicles.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-his ... is/5439236http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/na ... cars30.htmMany prominent Americans openly admired Hitlers's economic reforms and anti-communism. Among them, George W Bush's grandfather and Charles Lindburgh.
Were it not for THEM being attacked, the US would not have entered the war. Stop being such a disgraceful American ass-licker.
Let's not do this please, this is about Castro. However, off the top of my head...
The British lead Canadian soldiers to their demise and considered Canadian soldier deaths as acceptable sacrifices to ensure the "home" country wouldn't lose morale with high body counts. Furthermore, almost every dangerous mission which was lead by British military leaders who were responsible for Canadian soldiers had a far larger contingent of Canadian soldiers, including operations by the OSS for which the British received great glory, but Canadians were the ones on the ground, on a false flag mission in some cases which was only revealed to them recently. Canadians were fodder for the cause while good ol' British lads were populating the back lines.
The British soldiers on Dday expected a cup of tea and a cigarette break simply for landing on the beach in Normandy! A union attitude that was not shared by American or Canadian soldiers; British soldiers only felt obligated to do "their job", relegating further lifting to others. In defense of London the British were unmatched in fierce bulldog attitude, on offense, they were less than enthusiastic.
Hell you could go further and blame Chamberlain for not seeing Hitler for what he was when many others did when he had the opportunity to deny Germany any momentum, including NOT stopping Germany when they were much weaker and vulnerable when they attacked Poland. There is historic references that German soldiers were specifically told to fully and immediately retreat from the attack on Poland if ANY British intervened. Ten soldiers and an aged British tank could have prevented the full scale invasion. To German generals and their crazy leader, this initial attack was the most intense moment of the long, horrific war, and it probably would have nipped in the bud the future years of millions lost if they had been stood down.
Do these above facts take away from British sacrifices? That's for you to decide. I would guess not, because it's different when one is the non-aggressor who isn't supporting war to one who is a non-aggressor but who IS supporting the aggressors, as Russia was. Iran today sponsors terror, does this mean if one day ISIS turns on them and is destroyed by Iran that somehow Iran is the hero?
The bottom line is that politics isn't perfect, especially in times of war. America didn't want to get involved because they had finally recovered from the depression years and considered the war in Europe "their war", not Americas war. They had an opinion that Europe were constantly at war and Americans didn't want to risk their lives fighting these savages who couldn't make peace with one another. Not too different from the way we view the Middle East today quite frankly.
As is well known, it wasn't until Pearl Harbor that Americans were all on board the effort. America had been providing far more military supplies and resources to Allies for years before they officially entered in 1941, including the Japanese embargo, which in fact lead to Pearl Harbor. You might suggest a neutral position, but this was primarily because of a lack of interest by America to fight others wars, America was definitely involved in assisting the allies. It was a much bigger world then, what impacted one nation didn't have to impact you.
To bring up Bush is sad on your part, his father nearly died in WW2, let's stop with the tinfoil hat stuff.
CKA Uber 
CKA Uber 
CKA Moderator 
