Fascist Jörg Haider dies in car accident

[Jarvitä]

Any particular quote, or the one Jarvita brought up?

N.

Well, there's also the issue of his betraying Poland and the royal Yugoslav forces (that is, letting the stalinists murder them) after WWII, in exchange for the said stalinists ceding Yugoslavian territory to Italy and Austria.

 

[simonpro]

Any particular quote, or the one Jarvita brought up?

N.

No, I don't mind that quote.
It's the one that pattersoncr came up with that gets me. Sounds like rudeness for the sake of rudeness.

 

[Jarvitä]

No, I don't mind that quote.
It's the one that pattersoncr came up with that gets me. Sounds like rudeness for the sake of rudeness.

That's really not saying much, since he was drunk, as he himself admitted.

 

[Notebook]

Well, there's also the issue of his betraying Poland and the royal Yugoslav forces (that is, letting the stalinists murder them) after WWII, in exchange for the said stalinists ceding Yugoslavian territory to Italy and Austria.

I think most folk could argue about betraying Poland. France and GB declared war on Germany when it invaded that country.

N.

 

[Jarvitä]

I think most folk could argue about betraying Poland. France and GB declared war on Germany when it invaded that country.

N.

I was actually talking about letting Stalin occupy them pretty much just like the Germans did, with a different excuse. And letting USSR gobble up a third of Poland's territories after war using historical excuses, then "awarding" Poland German territories (far smaller) that were historically never Polish. All in all causing massive, forced, violent migrations and expulsions everywhere (also, the expulsion of German civilians from most of the eastern Europe and refusing to recognise them as a minority until the 70s) that amounted to ethnic cleansing.

 

[Notebook]

Are you refering to Churchill's attitude toward the Balkans during WWII? Toward Tito?

N.

 

[Jarvitä]

Are you refering to Churchill's attitude toward the Balkans during WWII? Toward Tito?

N.

Actually, I was talking about Poland, but the repatriation of Yugoslav anti-communist troops and other dissidents into Yugoslavia (where hundreds of thousands of them were summarily executed) after the war is also an issue that doesn't paint him in a favourable light. It was basically an exchange of people everyone knew would be executed, in return for Yugoslavia ceding Yugoslav territories they re-took from the axis powers, back to Italy and Austria.

 

[GregBurch]

I was actually talking about letting Stalin occupy them pretty much just like the Germans did, with a different excuse. And letting USSR gobble up a third of Poland's territories after war using historical excuses, then "awarding" Poland German territories (far smaller) that were historically never Polish. All in all causing massive, forced, violent migrations and expulsions everywhere (also, the expulsion of German civilians from most of the eastern Europe and refusing to recognise them as a minority until the 70s) that amounted to ethnic cleansing.

I'm not by any means arguing with you here, but I wonder if you think there was a realistic possibility of opposing Soviet occupation of Poland after the war. After all, Poland was covered in Soviet troops at the time, and Stalin doesn't seem like kind of fellow who would have accommodated a polite request to vacate the territory.

 

[Jarvitä]

I'm not by any means arguing with you here, but I wonder if you think there was a realistic possibility of opposing Soviet occupation of Poland after the war. After all, Poland was covered in Soviet troops at the time, and Stalin doesn't seem like kind of fellow who would have accommodated a polite request to vacate the territory.

If you put it that way, the USA did still have a monopoly on nuclear weapons at that time.

 

[Urwumpe]

If you put it that way, the USA did still have a monopoly on nuclear weapons at that time.

Yes, but that does not matter. The monopoly dropped in 1949 and the USA had only very few bombs, not enough for a massive attack against Russia.

On the other hand, Russia only had to occupy in Europe, the USA on two sides of Earth.

The situation was simple: Nobody would have liked an open war between Russia and the USA. Not even Russia.

 

[Jarvitä]

The situation was simple: Nobody would have liked an open war between Russia and the USA. Not even Russia.

Actually, a lot of people in eastern Europe were expecting the Americans to save them from USSR "any time now" after Germany surrendered. It was a widespread rumour, propagated mainly by American military advisors that were para dropped in during the war to help both the anti-fascist and anti-communist rebels in those countries.

 

[Andy44]

If you put it that way, the USA did still have a monopoly on nuclear weapons at that time.

Churchill was not an American. Churchill had no nuclear weapons. Despite our longtime relationship with the UK, the US and the UK are still different countries.

Besides, using nukes "just beacuse we can" is considered pretty dumb.

 

[Jarvitä]

Besides, using nukes "just beacuse we can" is considered pretty dumb.

It's the same situation as Japan really, using nuclear weapons would probably achieve the same goal as a conventional invasion faster and with far less casualties on both sides.

 

[Notebook]

Not really the same situation, America was at war with Japan, it wasn't at war with the USSR, or Poland. Defeating Germany was the priority.
I don't know if nuclear weapons were ever considered in Europe? Not till the Cold War started I think.

N.

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't know if nuclear weapons were ever considered in Europe? Not till the Cold War started I think.

I think they had been considered, but many scientists inside the Manhattan project had been former Germans and disliked the idea.

Difference is the tactical situation in Europe and Japan, when the bomb was ready. A second D-Day in Japan would have been likely as bloody as the first. And I doubt anybody on this planet believes, the invasion of the Normandy was an easy walk. The massive strategic bombing raids on Germany did not make the invasion easier, it made it possible.

It is also a question if the second nuclear bomb on Japan was really needed. The first one was a clear political message (We can wipe out your cities with a single plane), the second was more some sort of live weapon test.

 

[Notebook]

Second bomb was a different design I think, certainly politics played a major part in dropping it. Quite a message to Stalin, though he was getting other messages from the USA

Tactital nukes were deployed in Europe, don't know if they still are?

I do like the chicken-powered nuclear landmine:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3588465.stm

as much as you can like a landmine.

N.

 

[Urwumpe]

Tactital nukes were deployed in Europe, don't know if they still are?

Not that I know. There are still some strategical nukes around, even in West Germany.

 

[cjp]

Not that I know. There are still some strategical nukes around, even in West Germany.

Officially, there are no nuclear weapons in the Netherlands. But even the word "officially" can be stretched. While the dutch government still denies their existence, American citizens (e.g. American journalists paid by dutch media) can ask their government for de-classified documents that clearly prove their existence. So, in the US it is not a secret anymore, but here it still is.

This year, a Belgian minister told in an interview about the presence of nukes in Belgium and the Netherlands. After the interview he was seriously criticized within his own government, and now he has taken back what he told about nuclear weapons.

The location in the Netherlands is Volkel Air Base (easily recognizable in Google maps as it's one of the few blurred locations here). During the cold war, there were B43 bombs, and now there are 22 B61 bombs, according to Wikipedia. As far as Wikipedia can explain to me, both are tactical nuclear weapons. They belong to the United States, but they can be used by the NATO. I think it would be quite easy for the Dutch government to gain control over these weapons if they wanted to.


BTW, interesting how the topic of a thread can change, isn't it?

 

[Urwumpe]

cjp: B61 bombs are strategical bombs, not tactical. Tactical nuclear bombs are low-yield weapons, for tactical use, for example nuclear artillery shells or nuclear mines.

 

[David]

Tactical nuclear bombs are low-yield weapons, for tactical use, for example nuclear artillery shells or nuclear mines.

For what purpose would a nuclear mine be useful/necessary?