Answers and Replies (2 Viewers)

The Russians were paranoid that the Brits would negotiate a separate peace with the Germans. So the Brits kept Hess as far out of sight as possible. My understanding is that the British files on Hess are due to be opened in 2016! Some posssibility that he was tricked into making his trip by the Brits, but probably no great conspiracy here. No way Hitler sent him or the British govt was attempting to negotiate with him in my opinion.
 
The Russians were paranoid that the Brits would negotiate a separate peace with the Germans. So the Brits kept Hess as far out of sight as possible. My understanding is that the British files on Hess are due to be opened in 2016! Some posssibility that he was tricked into making his trip by the Brits, but probably no great conspiracy here. No way Hitler sent him or the British govt was attempting to negotiate with him in my opinion.


Sneeky Brits - huh - hmmmmmmmmmmmmm :D
 
Was there any problem with the Bogart figure that came with the Lee tank?
 
Was there any problem with the Bogart figure that came with the Lee tank?

Yeah, not enough and retired before I could get the set:p The prices on ebay are a bit high:rolleyes:

But seriously, was there a problem, I have not heard of one on this one.
 
Two things probably forstalled any problems. K&C did not use Humphrey's name in the set description, and K&C was not as well known as it is now.:)
 
Soooo, I wonder if K&C could get away with a re-release of the same tanker who might or might not have commanded a certain tank which may or may not be named after a certain General which appeared in a film, or other type of visual entertainment medium, in a certain desert?

Yep, think I'm pretty safe there.:D

And yep, the original Bogart figure is superb (***mit!)
 
Pictures? Steven will probably beat me to it but I'll give it a go too. Soo close to Disneyland....... Pictures of Mickey? Anyone ?
 
Can't wait to see who all the personalities are.I am totally useless at putting pics up on the forum but i hope some of you going to the westcoaster can?.

Rob

Yes, Westcoasters - please take photos!
If Andy lets me into his room Thursday (3/1) evening, I will post reports and photos of the new stuff -- and ask about Arnhem, planned Napoleonic retirements, and Gordon's newest creation.:)
 
Thanks Steven that would be great for us over the ponders!

Rob
 
I sometimes wonder wherether there is any evidence that Churchill had prewarning of Pearl Harbour but kept it back, knowing that it would bring America into the war and teun the tide in the long run. Are the Bletchley park records available for public scrutiny yet?
 
I think maybe you should SHOW evidence before you make suggestions like that.Its a fairly unpleasant thing to say if you have no evidence.

Rob
 
He did say to his son. I will drag them in. There is evidence that there was a party trying to turn Geramny against Russia in 1939 that is why Stalin was so keen on the non aggression pact. Politics is a dirty game mate and Winston was the eternal pragmatist.
 
Fair points of course.However to let those brave people die at pearl harbour when you know you could do something about it is a serious charge.Not saying it couldn't/didn't happen,but to smear someone like that with no evidence is unfair.

Rob
 
I am not trying to smear Winston Churchill. He was a great human being but he had many flaws. You should read Gilberts book Churchill and America which details his life long relationship with the Great Democracy. He knew Britain and the empire could never hope to prevail against the might of Nazi Germany. He really courted Roosevelt and the Americna people during teh dark days of 1940. Bletchely park knew about Barbarossa and Kusrk. I an not sure whether they had broken the Japanese codes by that time.

Remeber Churchill was quite capable of swapping from the Conservatives to the Liberals and back again as needed. He is often acused of being responsible for the disasters in Crete and Singapore. After teh war he was instrumental in toppling the democratic government in Iraq which was trying to nationalize the oil fields

His fame rests on the fact that he loved the empire but he sacrificed it to defeat the Nazis. If he had sought peace with Hitler he could have come to some arrangement where the UK kept the empire and teh Nazis Europe. This is what many right wing historians say should have happened. But Winston inatley knew what was fair and right and we have to thank him for that.
 
Fair points of course.However to let those brave people die at pearl harbour when you know you could do something about it is a serious charge. Not saying it couldn't/didn't happen, but to smear someone like that with no evidence is unfair. Rob

I agree. Evidence is necessary to prove a charge. However, in the political climate of the modern world (post WWI), evidence is often altered or even disappeared. Our current president's military record is one filled with gaps and voids of information. We still don't know if he was missing from duty or not. I would like to believe he is an honorable man and the confusion is a result of others interferring with politics, both parties and the family.

One would like to, want to, and has to believe that politicians are working for our best interests, espcially someone like Chuchill. But look at what others have done. Johnson and the Tonkin Gulf incident, Nixon and the missing 22 minutes on the tape, the current Iraq war, on and on and on.

I think the real lesson of history is don't trust those in charge and hold them to account when the evidence is found or honor them if the evidence is found
 
Well its nice to hear reasoned debate on this forum again.You are of course right about Churchill he had many flaws of course.In fact when he first inspected the 'Churchill' tank he said "this tank has more faults than i do".He was of course a hugely famous/infamous person,his role in the Dardenelles fiasco in WW1 is evidence of this.You made some very good and fair points in your post.What i liked about Churchill was his absolute devotion to the destruction of Hitler and his regime.And there is no doubt his contaigous courage,pride and defiance helped my country rise to the challenge and kick Hitlers arse in the Battle of Britain.For all his faults thank god for him.

Rob
 
We should have leaders who know things the general public should not know. And these leaders should act on that information, as long as their actions are in their country's best interest and not because of some distorted political view of history or events.

I believe this was the case with Churchill, FDR, and Truman. Churchill was not the only leader who knew that the US would eventually decide the war, FDR knew it as well. He had to contend with the isolationists and the other political issues that wanted to prevent war. They (Churchill, FDR and Truman) knew information that the public did not and they made decisions that proved to be correct. It was vital for our national defense and survival when you consider the alternative that was presented.

The problem is that often some leaders make the wrong decisions, with all the good intentions for their national defense, while keeping their secret information secret. I think that the disclosure laws are good because eventually historians will be able to read and understand the true facts surrounding political decisions involving war and other threats to national defense. The problem is that period in between action and disclosure and levels of trust.

Trust is an issue with politicians. They often have to use what is called in today's world a "spin." Well if you spin often and long enough, ya get dizzy and lose track of which way is up and which way is which.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top