| Ukraine 17:42 - Feb 12 with 5446 views | LeoMuff |
Sounds like Russia will take a large part of Ukraine territory, crush any NATO application and Ukraine will lose most USA funding if not all under Trumps “Peace” deal. Nice. Oh and it seems Zelenskyy won’t be invited to the discussions. |  |
| |  |
| Ukraine on 18:18 - Feb 12 with 3374 views | Trequartista |
It's probably the least worst feasible option. |  |
| |
| Ukraine on 18:19 - Feb 12 with 3376 views | GeoffSentence |
Has a whiff of 'Munich' about it. |  |
| |
| Ukraine on 18:31 - Feb 12 with 3312 views | Steve_M |
And then then the rest of Ukraine, and then Estonia, Liuthuania and Latvia.
Hesgeth has basically said NATO is dead and Tulsi Gabbard has been confirmed Director of National Intelligence (sic).
It's a very good day for Putin, rather less good for Ukraine or Europe or probably the US either. [Post edited 12 Feb 18:34]
|  |
| |
| Ukraine on 18:34 - Feb 12 with 3289 views | Churchman |
| Ukraine on 18:18 - Feb 12 by Trequartista |
It's probably the least worst feasible option. |
It isn’t. Have a look at the 1938 Munich agreement, what followed and what happened after that. 55m deaths. History is repeating itself. If Russia is given what they want Ukraine is no longer viable and will be swallowed as sure as Delia will be cracking open the next Sherry bottle before Valentine’s Day.
Dress it up how you want, Ukraine is to be sold down the river to be incorporated lock stock and barrel in return to access for the US to mineral rights. Materially divided up between £ for the US, Russia light Ukraine back to the mother country. Baltics next, maybe Balkans. A new world order. Remember Trumps words which can be paraphrased as might is right.
The EU countries and U.K. can go and f themselves as far as Trump and his new mate Putin is concerned. But what the EU and U.K. do now after the surrender is all important. But we all know there’s neither the physical clout, money and most important political will to stop what comes next. A bunch of nobodies.
Best hope? Poland continues to re-arm. Forget the rest. |  | | |
| Ukraine on 18:36 - Feb 12 with 3267 views | Churchman |
When Czechoslovakia was sold out in 1938, their leader Benes was not allowed in the room. | | | |
| Ukraine on 18:39 - Feb 12 with 3241 views | Trequartista |
| Ukraine on 18:34 - Feb 12 by Churchman |
It isn’t. Have a look at the 1938 Munich agreement, what followed and what happened after that. 55m deaths. History is repeating itself. If Russia is given what they want Ukraine is no longer viable and will be swallowed as sure as Delia will be cracking open the next Sherry bottle before Valentine’s Day.
Dress it up how you want, Ukraine is to be sold down the river to be incorporated lock stock and barrel in return to access for the US to mineral rights. Materially divided up between £ for the US, Russia light Ukraine back to the mother country. Baltics next, maybe Balkans. A new world order. Remember Trumps words which can be paraphrased as might is right.
The EU countries and U.K. can go and f themselves as far as Trump and his new mate Putin is concerned. But what the EU and U.K. do now after the surrender is all important. But we all know there’s neither the physical clout, money and most important political will to stop what comes next. A bunch of nobodies.
Best hope? Poland continues to re-arm. Forget the rest. |
I don't think it's the same situation. They're a nuclear power, they are not going to lose, so the only other option is just more and more death. | |
| |
| Ukraine on 18:40 - Feb 12 with 3228 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Ukraine on 18:36 - Feb 12 by Churchman |
When Czechoslovakia was sold out in 1938, their leader Benes was not allowed in the room. |
Piss poor isn’t it. Invading pays, obviously. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ukraine on 18:44 - Feb 12 with 3193 views | vapour_trail |
| Ukraine on 18:39 - Feb 12 by Trequartista |
I don't think it's the same situation. They're a nuclear power, they are not going to lose, so the only other option is just more and more death. |
Do you expect Putin to sit on his laurels following a ‘peace’ deal? |  |
| |
| Ukraine on 18:46 - Feb 12 with 3154 views | Churchman |
| Ukraine on 18:39 - Feb 12 by Trequartista |
I don't think it's the same situation. They're a nuclear power, they are not going to lose, so the only other option is just more and more death. |
Neither were Germany going to lose against Czechoslovakia. But selling them out led to a world war. Hitler could have been stopped. Putin could be stopped. But he hasn’t been and the risk longer term is far more deaths than you can imagine. That’s the lesson of appeasement and surrender. It always ends badly.
Does anybody think it’ll end here? We have guarantees! Yay! We had guarantees when Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons. That went well. Perhaps it guarantees the guarantees US will give the rump of Ukraine back its ICBMs? Oh, thought not. [Post edited 12 Feb 19:12]
| | | |
| Ukraine on 18:47 - Feb 12 with 3142 views | Trequartista |
| Ukraine on 18:44 - Feb 12 by vapour_trail |
Do you expect Putin to sit on his laurels following a ‘peace’ deal? |
No idea. It hasn't really been the best decision he ever made invading Ukraine whatever the outcome of the peace deal. If he can come out of this with something that he can parade as a win to the Russian people, he's probably saved his Presidency. | |
| |
| Ukraine on 18:48 - Feb 12 with 3126 views | Trequartista |
| Ukraine on 18:46 - Feb 12 by Churchman |
Neither were Germany going to lose against Czechoslovakia. But selling them out led to a world war. Hitler could have been stopped. Putin could be stopped. But he hasn’t been and the risk longer term is far more deaths than you can imagine. That’s the lesson of appeasement and surrender. It always ends badly.
Does anybody think it’ll end here? We have guarantees! Yay! We had guarantees when Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons. That went well. Perhaps it guarantees the guarantees US will give the rump of Ukraine back its ICBMs? Oh, thought not. [Post edited 12 Feb 19:12]
|
I didn't think Ukraine ever had nuclear weapons, i.e. they were physically in the country but couldn't be operated without Moscow. | |
| |
| Ukraine on 18:57 - Feb 12 with 3049 views | BlueBadger |
| Ukraine on 18:18 - Feb 12 by Trequartista |
It's probably the least worst feasible option. |
Christ alive. |  |
| |
| Ukraine on 19:02 - Feb 12 with 3008 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Ukraine on 18:40 - Feb 12 by Swansea_Blue |
Piss poor isn’t it. Invading pays, obviously. |
It certainly paid off in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea while US & UK stood by and let it happen despite the fact both Countries, along with Russia , guaranteed the sovereignty of Ukraine in return for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons. |  |
| |
| Ukraine on 19:09 - Feb 12 with 2961 views | mellowblue |
| Ukraine on 18:36 - Feb 12 by Churchman |
When Czechoslovakia was sold out in 1938, their leader Benes was not allowed in the room. |
Yes we sold the Czechs down the river, knowing that Hitler would not stick to the terms. But it did give us an extra year to re-arm. Unfortunately by giving him what he wanted re the Sudetenland and no checks and balances to secure the security of the rump of Czechoslovakia it emboldened Hitler even more. War was inevitable then, Chamberlain would have known even as he was spouting "Peace in our time". He was not a fool but definitely the wrong p.m at the wrong time.. |  | | |
| Ukraine on 19:32 - Feb 12 with 2800 views | Churchman |
| Ukraine on 19:09 - Feb 12 by mellowblue |
Yes we sold the Czechs down the river, knowing that Hitler would not stick to the terms. But it did give us an extra year to re-arm. Unfortunately by giving him what he wanted re the Sudetenland and no checks and balances to secure the security of the rump of Czechoslovakia it emboldened Hitler even more. War was inevitable then, Chamberlain would have known even as he was spouting "Peace in our time". He was not a fool but definitely the wrong p.m at the wrong time.. |
It really didn’t. Rearmament in the U.K. actually slowed after Munich. Politicians voted against it including most of the Labour Party with the exception of Attlee and a few enlightened people. Chamberlain loathed Hitler but thought the agreement would do the job. He hung like grim death to it. He duped himself supported by appeasers like Halifax who were horrified by the prospect of war.
So who saved Britain? Churchill, inventors of radar, the designers of Hurricane and Spitfire (Camm and Mitchell), Chadwick and some others who saw the future and knew Churchill was right. Even in 38 they were minorities in a sea of appeasement and head burial. In moribund France the stench of fear was even greater. Sniff the air. That stench is there now.
A lot of the German motorised equipment used to invade Poland and France was produced by the Skoda works in Czechoslovakia. The Germans armed themselves far faster and to greater extent than Britain and France in that period. Had Czechoslovakia been allowed to defend themselves, they’d have lost but denuded Germany to such an extent that WW2 in full May never have happened. Even the men in denial would have had to respond.
But they failed. Just as the EU and U.K. will fail now. Russia wins, America wins, but the Ukrainian people who’ve fought so bravely will truly pay with their country and for some their lives. | | | |
| Ukraine on 19:37 - Feb 12 with 2759 views | Kropotkin123 |
| Ukraine on 18:48 - Feb 12 by Trequartista |
I didn't think Ukraine ever had nuclear weapons, i.e. they were physically in the country but couldn't be operated without Moscow. |
You missed the point. It's about 500 miles in the other direction. |  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| Ukraine on 19:52 - Feb 12 with 2665 views | mellowblue |
| Ukraine on 19:32 - Feb 12 by Churchman |
It really didn’t. Rearmament in the U.K. actually slowed after Munich. Politicians voted against it including most of the Labour Party with the exception of Attlee and a few enlightened people. Chamberlain loathed Hitler but thought the agreement would do the job. He hung like grim death to it. He duped himself supported by appeasers like Halifax who were horrified by the prospect of war.
So who saved Britain? Churchill, inventors of radar, the designers of Hurricane and Spitfire (Camm and Mitchell), Chadwick and some others who saw the future and knew Churchill was right. Even in 38 they were minorities in a sea of appeasement and head burial. In moribund France the stench of fear was even greater. Sniff the air. That stench is there now.
A lot of the German motorised equipment used to invade Poland and France was produced by the Skoda works in Czechoslovakia. The Germans armed themselves far faster and to greater extent than Britain and France in that period. Had Czechoslovakia been allowed to defend themselves, they’d have lost but denuded Germany to such an extent that WW2 in full May never have happened. Even the men in denial would have had to respond.
But they failed. Just as the EU and U.K. will fail now. Russia wins, America wins, but the Ukrainian people who’ve fought so bravely will truly pay with their country and for some their lives. |
Churchill's Ten Year rule as chancellor of the exchequer in the early 30's did not help. Re-armament is a slow process, especially when it comes to anything mechanized and we were preparing for war in 1938-9. Full mobilization once war is declared is a much quicker program as it tends to be enisting and training, but the groundwork was being put in. The German border including Austria is long. I believe Czchoslovakia would have been overwhelmed. Once Sudetenland was reincorporated into Germany, Prague really was only 30 miles or so from the border and of course the Czechs had lost their natural and prepared fortifications. | | | |
| Ukraine on 20:39 - Feb 12 with 2516 views | Churchman |
| Ukraine on 19:52 - Feb 12 by mellowblue |
Churchill's Ten Year rule as chancellor of the exchequer in the early 30's did not help. Re-armament is a slow process, especially when it comes to anything mechanized and we were preparing for war in 1938-9. Full mobilization once war is declared is a much quicker program as it tends to be enisting and training, but the groundwork was being put in. The German border including Austria is long. I believe Czchoslovakia would have been overwhelmed. Once Sudetenland was reincorporated into Germany, Prague really was only 30 miles or so from the border and of course the Czechs had lost their natural and prepared fortifications. |
Churchill was Chancellor 1924-1929. He was an awful Chancellor. He was in ‘the wilderness’ in the 30s and after The Dardanelles fiasco in WW1 you can understand why his warnings in the 30s weren't taken seriously
Rearmament was not a slow process for Germany because there was a will to do it, albeit in a chaotic fashion. In the U.K., resistance, change in priorities, lack of any direction led to a shambles.
The Navy who took a large chunk of the budget modernised what it had as well as it could but it was still operating with mostly obsolete ships, tactics and commanders. Many ships needed modernising including HMS Hood (how many died on her?). Naval aviation ranged from shambolic to non existent. Would you have fancied facing the Germans in a Blackburn Skua?
The army had been reduced to tiny and lived on crumbs right up to 1939. We invented the tank but basically ignored the concept despite people like Guderian telling us what you might do with it. Its armoured kit was laughably bad in 1939, which given Britain had decided to wage a technology and industrial war was ludicrous. Fancy being in a riveted tank with little armour and a popgun?
The air force was invested in to a limited extent, but was dominated by Trenchard’s flawed bomber will always get through policies. Dreadful designs like Hampden (my dad’s cousin died in one), Whitley and Battle (deathftrap) dominated. Wallis’ Wellington was a good design though even if early versions were defenceless and caught fire like you wouldn’t believe.
The Spitfire and Hurricane were driven by far thinking men like Mitchell, Camm, Sopwith. The Blenheim was a private venture (obsolete in 1939 but led to Beaufort and Beaufighter) as was Mosquito which Beaverbrook ordered cancelled.
Air defence Chain Home was actually pushed by Chamberlain, as that limp idiot Baldwin’s Chancellor, Dowding and others and that saved this country. We went to war so far behind it was ludicrous. It didn’t have to be.
By the end of 1940 we were out producing the Germans 2-1. They could never win. But had the useless government acted sooner, how many lives would have been saved by avoiding ‘making do’?
Same with Putin, same mealy mouthed head in the sand mumblings from the U.K. who have allowed defence to rot away since the ‘peace dividend’ in 1989. Healey and co? Not interested. Yet another review, a few recommendations and booted into the long grass hoping the nasty man Putin will be nice.
Good luck Sir Kier and don’t forget the expenses and how far to grovel when Putin and Trump click their fingers. | | | |
| Ukraine on 20:59 - Feb 12 with 2403 views | Churchman |
| Ukraine on 18:47 - Feb 12 by Trequartista |
No idea. It hasn't really been the best decision he ever made invading Ukraine whatever the outcome of the peace deal. If he can come out of this with something that he can parade as a win to the Russian people, he's probably saved his Presidency. |
It is a great move on his part. So it’s cost 1000s of lives. Given he doesn’t care about lives, that’s no loss at all. He’s lost kit. Old kit, no loss. He has a war economy that’ll replace that.
In swallowing Ukraine he has raw material riches beyond price, much of which will be sold to the US in a deal. Precious metals? Sorted. Food security: result! Especially after he eats the rest. He’s come out with victory. Not as easy as hoped, but victory all the same.
Assuming Putin can cut a spheres of influence deal with trump it’ll be ‘Europe, make your own arrangements’. Trump is interested in the other side of the world. U.K. and Europe have sucked like parasites off the US for decades. NATO is done. Let’s face it, if you were Putin would you be scared of weak little nobodies like Macron, Starmer and the German bloke? | | | |
| Ukraine on 21:03 - Feb 12 with 2388 views | StokieBlue |
| Ukraine on 18:48 - Feb 12 by Trequartista |
I didn't think Ukraine ever had nuclear weapons, i.e. they were physically in the country but couldn't be operated without Moscow. |
Doesn't really matter, they had 1700 nuclear warheads which can certainly be used in other ways even if you don't control the launch mechanism.
SB |  | | |
| Ukraine on 21:04 - Feb 12 with 2381 views | StokieBlue |
| Ukraine on 18:39 - Feb 12 by Trequartista |
I don't think it's the same situation. They're a nuclear power, they are not going to lose, so the only other option is just more and more death. |
Might is right then?
Nobody is going to use nukes, it's an irrelevance.
However conceding to Putin that land grabs are acceptable is a very slippery slope.
SB | | | |
| Ukraine on 21:10 - Feb 12 with 2334 views | mellowblue |
| Ukraine on 20:39 - Feb 12 by Churchman |
Churchill was Chancellor 1924-1929. He was an awful Chancellor. He was in ‘the wilderness’ in the 30s and after The Dardanelles fiasco in WW1 you can understand why his warnings in the 30s weren't taken seriously
Rearmament was not a slow process for Germany because there was a will to do it, albeit in a chaotic fashion. In the U.K., resistance, change in priorities, lack of any direction led to a shambles.
The Navy who took a large chunk of the budget modernised what it had as well as it could but it was still operating with mostly obsolete ships, tactics and commanders. Many ships needed modernising including HMS Hood (how many died on her?). Naval aviation ranged from shambolic to non existent. Would you have fancied facing the Germans in a Blackburn Skua?
The army had been reduced to tiny and lived on crumbs right up to 1939. We invented the tank but basically ignored the concept despite people like Guderian telling us what you might do with it. Its armoured kit was laughably bad in 1939, which given Britain had decided to wage a technology and industrial war was ludicrous. Fancy being in a riveted tank with little armour and a popgun?
The air force was invested in to a limited extent, but was dominated by Trenchard’s flawed bomber will always get through policies. Dreadful designs like Hampden (my dad’s cousin died in one), Whitley and Battle (deathftrap) dominated. Wallis’ Wellington was a good design though even if early versions were defenceless and caught fire like you wouldn’t believe.
The Spitfire and Hurricane were driven by far thinking men like Mitchell, Camm, Sopwith. The Blenheim was a private venture (obsolete in 1939 but led to Beaufort and Beaufighter) as was Mosquito which Beaverbrook ordered cancelled.
Air defence Chain Home was actually pushed by Chamberlain, as that limp idiot Baldwin’s Chancellor, Dowding and others and that saved this country. We went to war so far behind it was ludicrous. It didn’t have to be.
By the end of 1940 we were out producing the Germans 2-1. They could never win. But had the useless government acted sooner, how many lives would have been saved by avoiding ‘making do’?
Same with Putin, same mealy mouthed head in the sand mumblings from the U.K. who have allowed defence to rot away since the ‘peace dividend’ in 1989. Healey and co? Not interested. Yet another review, a few recommendations and booted into the long grass hoping the nasty man Putin will be nice.
Good luck Sir Kier and don’t forget the expenses and how far to grovel when Putin and Trump click their fingers. |
Thank you for the clarification re Winnie's chancellor dates. He certainly had a checkered career, absolutely the right man for his war-time role as p.m. The Blackburn Skua was as obsolete as the Stuka. I think the role of aircraft carrier has changed from it's aircraft being purely offensive to take out other ships to a mixed defensive/ offensive role, hence the original plane payload of Swordfishes and Skuas. As you say despite the restrictions the Germans were very far advanced in the race to re-arm. Big head start plus the motivation to do so.
The Hood was far from obsolete and was just unlucky, Certainly range finding and gunnery was superior on the German side. Our navy was always about strength in numbers. As in WW1 any pretensions of controlling the seas just was not going to happen for the Germans.
Re Putin, I will never forget the fawning over Putin when he was invited to the Hoiuses of Parliament. It troubled me at the time. Clinton saying he was a man we can do business with. They did not know what they were dealing with.
Your point about our bombers is valid, many were sent to certain deaths just because we had to be retaliatory and show we meant business. The evolution of aircraft from the gloster gladiator to the meteor in just a few years is amazing | | | |
| Ukraine on 21:43 - Feb 12 with 2200 views | Churchman |
| Ukraine on 21:10 - Feb 12 by mellowblue |
Thank you for the clarification re Winnie's chancellor dates. He certainly had a checkered career, absolutely the right man for his war-time role as p.m. The Blackburn Skua was as obsolete as the Stuka. I think the role of aircraft carrier has changed from it's aircraft being purely offensive to take out other ships to a mixed defensive/ offensive role, hence the original plane payload of Swordfishes and Skuas. As you say despite the restrictions the Germans were very far advanced in the race to re-arm. Big head start plus the motivation to do so.
The Hood was far from obsolete and was just unlucky, Certainly range finding and gunnery was superior on the German side. Our navy was always about strength in numbers. As in WW1 any pretensions of controlling the seas just was not going to happen for the Germans.
Re Putin, I will never forget the fawning over Putin when he was invited to the Hoiuses of Parliament. It troubled me at the time. Clinton saying he was a man we can do business with. They did not know what they were dealing with.
Your point about our bombers is valid, many were sent to certain deaths just because we had to be retaliatory and show we meant business. The evolution of aircraft from the gloster gladiator to the meteor in just a few years is amazing |
Winston was a terrible Chancellor but was the right man for the job in 1940.
The Skua and Stuka were different beasts. The Ju87 was designed as a close support bomb truck to replace the Herschel 123. It was superb at it and nothing was designed during that period by anyone to compare with it apart from maybe the Aichi D3A ‘Val’ Japanese naval dive bomber.
The Stuka gets mocked because of its Battle of Britain losses. But it was never designed as a fighter and nobody knew who to defend an aircraft with its flight characteristics. The Germans considered it obsolete in 1940 but had zilch to replace it. Even the truly brilliant Fw190 couldn’t do quite the same job.
The Skua was typical of muddled naval procurement and conflicts in what the wanted. Dowding actually told the navy when it was delivered that they got what they asked for and they did.. They wanted essentially a multi role aeroplane and that’s what it was. And despite bringing down the first German aircraft of WW2 (a Do18) it was hopeless. The turreted version (the Roc) even worse.
The Swordfish was more modern and advanced than it looked and stayed in service until the Grumman Avenger could be bought. The Fulmar was a Fairey Battle derivative that was pretty rubbish, but better than nothing until the Martlet/Wildcat was bought.
The Hood was a WW1 design laid down in 1916. It was meant to be modernised but impending war and budgets ended that. It was a Battlecruiser whose concept was so far out of date it was ridiculous. It was though a symbol and a beautiful one. ‘The mighty Hood’. Shame it was blown to pieces in minutes.
Rangefinding wasn’t too bad in WW2, though German optics were still a little better. Remember it was an early salvo from Prince of Wales, despite a scratch crew, that damaged Bismarck and forced it to run to Brest. German ships suffered from reliance on WW1 design and weaknesses. In Bismarck it was the back end and layout. Early hits from KGV and Rodney knocked out its fire control early and as it did when Duke of York ripped Scharnhorst apart in no time at all.
British design of cruisers and destroyers was excellent as was the creativity in designing the little ships (MGBs, MTBs and MLs).
Re Putin, I felt the same way at the time
Regarding Gladiator to Meteor, it was certainly astonishing. I recommend the book on the creator of the jet engine Frank Whittle called ‘Jet’. The biography on Sidney Camm by John Sweetman is good not least as it goes into how aeroplanes were procured and came about. For Churchill, the Andrew Roberts book is a fascinating read. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
