O bother you seem to be very poor at English IvanOh brother. Declaring war within a couple of days is imediately. The whole point of all of this was to suggest the world did not know a big war was breaking out in Europe when Germany invaded Poland. Obviously it did since war was declared right away by the two other major European powers.
Bs he isnt making sense. If the term used was nearly immediately or quickly we wouldn't be having this inane conversationYou're finally making some sense, so congrats. Make enough vacuous posts and one will strike gold eh.
The period September 1939 when the Nazis conquered Poland to April 1940 when no serious fighting occurred was called the "Phony War."
The Phoney War
In French drole de guerre
“Sitzkrieg” in German
The Phoney War took place between September 1939 to April 1940 and was the English term used for the 6 months prior to the start of the war. This was following the Blitzkrieg attack on Poland which is claimed to have started World War 2. It was a conflict ultimately run by civil servants as opposed to the troops of Britain and France. The period was seen as a confusing one for those who lived in Britain as they expected a war at any time.
By the Spring of 1940 it is estimated that millions of people decided that the war wasn’t going to happen and they began walking the streets without gas masks. The fear of the impending war began to subside. This however was short lived when suddenly on 9th April 1940 the war began again. On 10 May 1940, eight months after Britain and France had declared war on Germany, German troops marched into Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, marking the end of the Phoney War.
German General officer opinions about the Phoney War
April 9th 1940 Germany invaded Norway for its oil and stuff so the British sent troops they soon withdrew because the Germans outnumbered 'em -- by a lot. There were some Naval skirmishes too, to include a small battle with RN that the Kriegsmarine pulled out of before it was too late for 'em. Wehrmacht also invaded Denmark for its ports.
There's also this:
The invasion of Poland led half a dozen countries to declare war on Germany -- Australia, Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand were all too far away to have an immediate impact. Only Britain and France were in a position to have an impact on the fighting. Despite their previous reassurances they didn’t leap to defend Poland. They had no troops in the area at the time and hadn’t yet mustered the political will or military capacity to begin sending any. The Poles pleaded with the British to bomb German air bases, but the British refused. They feared that if they bombed the Germans before the Germans bombed them, they might alienate the Americans. Though they weren’t ready to bomb the Germans, the British government did send its planes. Over the course of September, British bombers dropped over 18 million propaganda leaflets across Germany, in what former army officer and Conservative MP Edward Spears mockingly labeled a “confetti war.”
I myself wouldn't say Ukraine today is Poland then but NATO seems to be thinking about upscaling its force strength and readiness. NATO air forces are already in the skies over member states bordering Russia, both intelligence and fighter aircraft 24/7. So neither is NATO Britain and France back then. Then again I wouldn't necessarily say Putin is Hitler but I wouldn't deny it either. All indications are not good though.
So true
does that diminish their reportage? when we were itching to bomb Qadaffi (2011) there were all kinds of "atrocities" reportedAmnesty has lost senior people who were against the report. AI ****ed up
This is what I am reacting to. This false premise that Europe did not know a multi country war had started when Germany invaded Poland.Last 2 started in Europe/Asia
No, but the lack of facts and account of circumstances are.does that diminish their reportage?
The most important paragraph in the article is though:
"To the contrary, as Russian propagandists now celebrate and add another excuse for targeting civilians to their ever-growing list, allegations such as these may well lead to less protection, not more."
looks more like editorializing is what bothers you. I expect that from LW humanitarianistsNo, but the lack of facts and account of circumstances are.
As a sidenote:
Here is an old but good article with analyse of problems due to set up within those organisations.
Who is watching the human rights watchers? - ABC Religion & Ethics
NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have an important role to play in our world, but financial scandals and ideological agendas have diminished their credibility and effectiveness. In order for their reputations to be restored, they should be subjected to robust oversight...www.abc.net.au
From the article:
". Instead of focusing on the horrific violations of dictatorships and terrorist regimes, or the daily harassment in Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China, human rights groups tend to devote major resources to investigating Western democracies. This is, admittedly, easier for the investigators — they are not going to get poisoned, shot, arrested or expelled — and generates higher levels of visibility through media coverage, but avoids the most serious violations and war crimes in our world today. The misplaced priorities also reflect a political ideology known as post-colonialism, which tends to hold the West as primarily responsible for most of our global ills."
And it even mention the person who is very much topical in relation to the Ukraine report:
Agnes Callamard, incoming head of Amnesty and formerly special rapporteur for the UN Human Rights Council, called the killing of Soleimani, who was responsible for thousands of deaths in Syria, and for attacks on Israel, “arbitrary”.
As a sidenote, she has also accused Shimon Perres for ordering the murder of Yasser Arafat. By al accounts Arafat died from natural circumstances and was not murdered.
And as I said in my initial post on the subject: It is al about publicity and rendering more funds for the organisation.
Ammo for HIMARS is 1 of the main issues.While better than nothing, its really the same old story with the Biden administration. For three months Ukraine supporters have waited for an opportunity to push the Russians out, to turn the war distinctly in their favor. For almost as many months military observers and intelligence agencies have predicted aa moment to strike, when Russian forces are battered and exhausted, before they can replenish their substantial losses. And yet, when that moment arrived once more the administration pulls back and saves Putin from being severely punished.
When most needed to exploit Russia's weakness, the talk of more HIMARS or M270s or anything else suddenly dies. The administration has admitted that it could easily supply up to 16 more without consideration of its effect on inventory, and with over a 1000 M270s produced there isn't close to a shortage of those yet...yet...another untimely obstruction by the Biden cadre.
When I first noticed this behavior, a friend of mine was certain this could only be explained by Biden's festering hostility over Hunter's troubles and/or by his desire to save his failing negotiations with Iran by not alienating Putin so much as to scuttle them.
That seemed to be a rather cynical view to me, and I told him that one should not attribute to malice that which may be more easily explained as a case of political stupidity. For many weeks I held out the prospect that these inexplicable and timely sabotages of Ukraine by the administration were more of a product of Biden's growing senility and lack of grasp, or bad advisors, than anything else.
Yet, now one can almost believe that Biden and/or his staff are more than useful idiots, more like Putin's agents of influence to cripple and slow decisive aide to Ukraine. From the outset many of them have publicly roared like lions, only to secretly decide as a 'no we can't to that' lobby. How is it they constantly finding reasons not to facilitate the transfer of planes (which has proceeded without them by other allies), resisted sending heavy weapons, and refused strategic missiles to eliminate Russian supply hubs and rail lines?
This can no longer be excused or explained by innocent dumbness. The can be no excuse for a nation with 550 HIMARS and over 1000 M270s that a paltry 16 launchers is our "best effort". That is shameful bull excrement.
This is not the result of some innocent act of incompetence, its an unspoken administration policy designed to keep Ukraine bleeding. It's goal is now clear: Putin and Russia cannot have its ego damaged, Putin and Russia shouldn't suffer as Ukraine has suffered, Putin and Russia must be given some major territorial gifts and we must provide a fragile peace that Putin may exploit later.
Thankfully, those of us who support Ukraine are catching on:
The Hill
"Mr. President, take the winning shot in Ukraine alreadyOpinion by Jonathan Sweet and Mark Toth, Opinion Contributor - WednesdayRussian President Vladimir Putin and his military forces in Donbas and Kherson are running on empty, and the Biden administration once again has entangled itself in escalation paralysis, unwilling to seize the initiative needed to deliver a knockout blow to Russian troops in Ukraine. Seemingly fearful of forcing the Kremlin into a decisive endgame, President Biden is playing for a European football-style of a tie: win if you can, but primarily focus on not losing. That kind of “wait and see” approach can work in a soccer match given a hard time limit; however, in Ukraine where there is no clock, it could be a recipe for turning the conflict into a “forever war.”
Indeed, Julian Assange Syndicate with Amnesty International.No, but the lack of facts and account of circumstances are.
As a sidenote:
Here is an old but good article with analyse of problems due to set up within those organisations.
Who is watching the human rights watchers? - ABC Religion & Ethics
NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have an important role to play in our world, but financial scandals and ideological agendas have diminished their credibility and effectiveness. In order for their reputations to be restored, they should be subjected to robust oversight...www.abc.net.au
From the article:
". Instead of focusing on the horrific violations of dictatorships and terrorist regimes, or the daily harassment in Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China, human rights groups tend to devote major resources to investigating Western democracies. This is, admittedly, easier for the investigators — they are not going to get poisoned, shot, arrested or expelled — and generates higher levels of visibility through media coverage, but avoids the most serious violations and war crimes in our world today. The misplaced priorities also reflect a political ideology known as post-colonialism, which tends to hold the West as primarily responsible for most of our global ills."
And it even mention the person who is very much topical in relation to the Ukraine report:
Agnes Callamard, incoming head of Amnesty and formerly special rapporteur for the UN Human Rights Council, called the killing of Soleimani, who was responsible for thousands of deaths in Syria, and for attacks on Israel, “arbitrary”.
As a sidenote, she has also accused Shimon Perres for ordering the murder of Yasser Arafat. By al accounts Arafat died from natural circumstances and was not murdered.
And as I said in my initial post on the subject: It is al about publicity and rendering more funds for the organisation.
Well I don't agree with you when it comes to whistleblowers like Snowden and for that matter Assange. I think they are a very important part of our society and if we didn't have them the risk of state agencies and services turned into a self runed dictatorship within the government together with the corruption would be much bigger. The risk for civil citizens being persecuted would sky rocket. Planted evidence of crimes towards politicians that don’t support the leadership of said agency? Children being taken from parents for insufficient reasons? Elderly not receiving care they are entitled to?Indeed, Julian Assange Syndicate with Amnesty International.
Assange criticized democracies almost exclusively and almost always the United States. Assange said blatantly and always with a smirk democracies are easier to criticize because we're wide open in contrast to dictatorships.
Assange was rewarded by his BFF Putin with an antiAmerican talk show on Moscow tv that was broadcast nationally. When the traitor Snowden defected to Hong Kong, Beijing with the moderate Hu JinTao as leader told Snowden to get out for fear of the United States....Wikileaks flew in to take Snowden to Moscow where he remains on a perpetual visa ordered up by Putin himself.
Neither Assange nor Putin nor Amnesty International are getting all this and more past anyone over here.
Turkey is already sending drones to the Ukraine army and the company that makes them wants to build a factory in Ukraine too.Today Erdogan is meeting Putin Sochi.
Erdogan and Putin to Meet in Sochi for 2nd Time in a Month
Ukraine grain deal and Turkish Syria ops expected to top agendawww.voanews.com
They say that they should talk further about the recently signed grain agreement. But there are also other issues that Erdogan wants to raise, among other things it is about Turkey wanting to do another military operation against the kurds that worked with US in northern Syria and for that they need Russia's approval. The energy issue may also possibly be discussed. Turkey is dependent on Russian natural gas and earlier this year there was supposed to be a stop in the supply. I am writing this because there is a wildcard that may come up. Russia may inquire for Turkish drones (rumours) .
Wikileaks is an arm of the Russian spy agency and only release material that is beneficial to Russia. You might find that "important" but that is because you are a Putin fanboy.Well I don't agree with you when it comes to whistleblowers like Snowden and for that matter Assange. I think they are a very important part of our society and if we didn't have them the risk of state agencies and services turned into a self runed dictatorship within the government together with the corruption would be much bigger. The risk for civil citizens being persecuted would sky rocket. Planted evidence of crimes towards politicians that don’t support the leadership of said agency? Children being taken from parents for insufficient reasons? Elderly not receiving care they are entitled to?
Any and al democracies need them.
Wikileaks is an arm of the Russian spy agency and only release material that is beneficial to Russia. You might find that "important" but that is because you are a Putin fanboy.
Ammo for HIMARS is 1 of the main issues.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?