• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

World War II history appreciation thread - you insensitive clod

felix said:
Churchill wasn't PM in 1920. And it was only "alleged", and it was "only" tear gas...
Click to expand...

To pick at this scab a bit more:
By Giles Milton

September 02, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "The Guardian" �
�Britain's imperial general staff knew there would be outrage if it became known that the government was intending to use its secret stockpile of chemical weapons. But Winston Churchill, then secretary of state for war, brushed aside their concerns. As a long-term advocate of chemical warfare, he was determined to use them against the Russian Bolsheviks. In the summer of 1919, 94 years before the devastating strike in Syria, Churchill planned and executed a sustained chemical attack on northern Russia.

The British were no strangers to the use of chemical weapons. During the third battle of Gaza in 1917, General Edmund Allenby had fired 10,000 cans of asphyxiating gas at enemy positions, to limited effect. But in the final months of the first world war, scientists at the governmental laboratories at Porton in Wiltshire developed a far more devastating weapon: the top secret "M Device", an exploding shell containing a highly toxic gas called diphenylaminechloroarsine. The man in charge of developing it, Major General Charles Foulkes, called it "the most effective chemical weapon ever devised".

Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price, was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. "If you got home only once with the gas you would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda."The cabinet was hostile to the use of such weapons, much to Churchill's irritation. He also wanted to use M Devices against the rebellious tribes of northern India. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he declared in one secret memorandum�

A staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919, targeting the village of Emtsa, 120 miles south of Archangel. Bolshevik soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious.

The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages: Chunova, Vikhtova, Pocha, Chorga, Tavoigor and Zapolki. But the weapons proved less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then stopped. Two weeks later the remaining weapons were dumped in the White Sea. They remain on the seabed to this day in 40 fathoms of water.
Diphenylchloroarsine (DA) is the organoarsenic compound with the formula (C6H5)2AsCl. It is a low-melting solid. It is highly toxic and was once used in chemical warfare. It is also an intermediate in the preparation of other organoarsenic compounds.
Click to expand...
 
Well well now. My quote above was referring to an "alleged" gassing in Mesopotamia (as I'm sure you know).

But you've shown me an area of history that I know fuck all about. The British were attacking and gassing the Bolsheviks, in Russia, in 1919??? What the fuck?

So much to learn. Thanks.
 
That's one of the least well known wars - basically the 'free' (capitalist) west all ganged up (teamed up with the 'white russians') to try and crush the soviets before they started - probably making the regime get even more dictatorial than they would have naturally (just like the french revolution). In britain and across europe, there were loads of mutinies and people refusing to fight the soviets (another less-known incident) - partly because they'd just had ww1, but also because the common man were quite favourable to the idea of a workers republic (and it hadn't gone bad by then)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, just as pointed out by Vurtual, some of the most surprising, nasty, and widely unheard of stuff happened during the interwar period. The things that didn't happen in western Europe don't get given as much attention (probably because it's none too 'gloroious'). There were lots of little nuances that could have greatly altered the rest of the century.

I wonder, if so much assistance wasn't given to White Russia by allied nations, even if it did end in failure, then the new Soviet government could have been in a much stronger position to help foster revolutionary movements in other countries - especially Germany. I mean, the Russian people had just come out of a disastrous war against the Central Powers and now they were caught up in a bloody civil war which was going to last for five years. Communism/socialism had a quite a lot of support in Germany after the war.

If we'd had a Communist Germany, even if it wasn't fully aligned with the Soviet Union, I can only imagine how different things could have been. If they were fully aligned with the Soviet Union, that is a real scary thought for what could have been. It certainly would have helped removed two of Germany's problems during WW2; they could have had oil from the Caucuses and there would have been no disastrous Barbarossa.
 
The Russian Revolution is something I know very little about. :|

And aye, there are an infinite amount of "what ifs" in history, Don. But they are fun to ponder.

I'd imagine the Americans would have been a bit quicker into WW2 if half of Europe was Communist. Or WW2 would have started a lot sooner. And you can see my WW2 obsession creeping out. :D
 
It's the same 'what if' as the french revolution - are we sure that either revolution, which both started out good natured, would have got quite so nasty if they weren't immediately attacked by all the reactionaries and infiltrated with spies? Would there even be space for a stalin to take over if they'd have been left alone? (probably, but maybe not...)

The real threat of communism/socialism (eg rosa luxemborg and the spartacists) in germany was arguably the reason hitler got so much support from western elites and from germany's own military elite (who he was spying for initially). Churchill was all for that sort of facsism to bash the bolshies and spoke admiringly of mussolini after visting him for this reason. Churchill's real argument against germany as far as i can tell was nothing to do with nazism in itself - he was 'nazi' long before hitler eg he sponsored the world's first eugenic law in 1908 ("the feeble-minded persons' control order" it didn't get through parliament); rather he was more interested in defending the empire and stopping the german industrial powerhouse catching up with the imperialism of the british - he failed in his own terms because he basically had to hand over the reins of the empire to the us for the price of the weapons he needed (we only finished paying those loans a decade ago).

EDIT: Felix if you're into WW2 stuff and you don't mind complicated/boring strategy games, have you tried Hearts of Iron III? It's amazingly detailed and allows to try out all sort of 'what ifs' in ww2 (these types of 'grand strategy' games aren't for everyone though) - i just bought it yesterday from steam for £1.50! (it may have been a sale)
 
Last edited:
Vurtual, I didn't get into HOI III, but I have clocked up at least 5,000 hours on various HOI2 mods.

I'm sad, but I just loves alternative history games.

I definitely recommend Darkest Hour: A HOI2 Mod. The best of HOI that I've tried so far.
 
I haven't done HOI before, but did lots on Crusader Kings II and EU IV (more my favourite era really) - i like the idea of Victoria, but think i'll wait for the next version. Still in the reading the manual phase of HOI III now (but already see it's similar to EUIV) - it was £1.50, or £7.50 for all the mods (so i got all the mods) - i love the detail in paradox games (if that makes me sad, i'm happy to be sad ;))
 
felix said:
It's a WW2 thread.
Click to expand...

well if you dont understand WWI then how can you possibly begin to have any real understanding of WWII? germany got fucked so hard after WWI thats why it created an atmosphere for a hitler to gain power, and why no one really knew the extent he was building up the german war machine because they all assumed he was following the treat of versille.... its all relevant and why after WWII american didnt just leave germany a bombed out shell

AND after japan watched the german high command get tried for war crimes they tried their best to surrender in a way that wouldnt leave them open to the same sort of trials... because the japs did just as bad if not worse things during the war... and it helped lead to the popular belief that the atom bomb won the war in the pacific, but america had already destroyed something like 90+% of all jap citites and they had an understanding of what atomic weapons could do and to them it was like so what if they destroyed another two cities? we already lost all the major ones... but when russia invaded manchuria they surrendered within 24 hours because the USSR had a pact with japan to not invade and when they broke it they knew there was no way they could hold off the USSR from the north and america from the south... so they played along and appeased the US and said the bomb won the war and susprise susprise no jap war crime trials (theres alot more to the story but thats a real basic run down)... in the end it just rubs me the wrong way when ppl say we had to nuke em or a million americans would have died instead of saying we just spent years and millions and millions of dollars developing this weapon so we were sure as fuck gona show the world it... truman started out saying there would have 20K casualities (wounded and dead) then the number kept growing and ten years later its at a million americans would have been killed... honestly when i see pictures of truman i always think he just looks like a pompus little asshole who is playing a game with the fate of the world... he just looks like someone i would despise as a person...

anyways theres my WWII rant
 
felix said:
The Russian Revolution is something I know very little about. :|

And aye, there are an infinite amount of "what ifs" in history, Don. But they are fun to ponder.

I'd imagine the Americans would have been a bit quicker into WW2 if half of Europe was Communist. Or WW2 would have started a lot sooner. And you can see my WW2 obsession creeping out. :D
Click to expand...

also your wrong... america took its time because in our eyes this was another european war and it had been 15-20 years after WWI so it was still fresh in ppls minds and we thought it yalls turn to fight their own war... in the end it was nevil that tried to appease hitle and let him have poland like he was gona stop after that.... do you not remember nevil comming back to britian waving his treaty sayin peace in our time?
 
Vurtual said:
I haven't done HOI before, but did lots on Crusader Kings II and EU IV (more my favourite era really) - i like the idea of Victoria, but think i'll wait for the next version. Still in the reading the manual phase of HOI III now (but already see it's similar to EUIV) - it was £1.50, or £7.50 for all the mods (so i got all the mods) - i love the detail in paradox games (if that makes me sad, i'm happy to be sad ;))
Click to expand...

HOI3 is a bit more complex than the previous ones and apparently you need all of the expansions to make the game really good. I downloaded EU IV just before Christmas and played a campaign as Tyrone ( I used loads of cheats, just to get a feel for the game the first run through. It was great to see the New World conquered by a wee Ulster clan haha) and it was rather good. I just haven't got a chance to go back and play it. It's my first time with an EU IV game.

pill_billy said:
also your wrong... america took its time because in our eyes this was another european war and it had been 15-20 years after WWI so it was still fresh in ppls minds and we thought it yalls turn to fight their own war... in the end it was nevil that tried to appease hitle and let him have poland like he was gona stop after that.... do you not remember nevil comming back to britian waving his treaty sayin peace in our time?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the majority of the US was against joining another European conflict. However, many politicians (most definitely including FDR) wanted to find a way of turning the public in favour of intervention. Although not officially joining the conflict until December 1941, they were by no means neutral before this; Lend-lease, sharing intelligence, and the escorting of British convoys halfway across the Atlantic and a slew of propaganda.

I do agree that you can't fully understand WW2 without knowledge of WW1 (however, this could keep going back ad infinitum). I think one of the most telling quotes was from Marshal Ferdinand Foch:

"This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.''
1919, after the treaty of Versailles.
 
Don Luigi said:
HOI3 is a bit more complex than the previous ones and apparently you need all of the expansions to make the game really good. I downloaded EU IV just before Christmas and played a campaign as Tyrone ( I used loads of cheats, just to get a feel for the game the first run through. It was great to see the New World conquered by a wee Ulster clan haha) and it was rather good. I just haven't got a chance to go back and play it. It's my first time with an EU IV game...
Click to expand...

I've played EUIV quite a bit and love it (especially after the trading expansion), but i think i got into Crusader Kings II more, which was the first one i tried (previously liked civilisation, but not since i tried paradox) - i think CKII is more personal being about the family dynasties you could keep going with marriages and assassinations, and how a dynasty could fall down to just a couple of provinces and then worm your way back up. Time is the problem with these games though - my last burst of EUIV was last summer.

(and i was about to type roughly the same response to pill_billy's post)
 
Don Luigi said:
Yeah, the majority of the US was against joining another European conflict. However, many politicians (most definitely including FDR) wanted to find a way of turning the public in favour of intervention. Although not officially joining the conflict until December 1941, they were by no means neutral before this; Lend-lease, sharing intelligence, and the escorting of British convoys halfway across the Atlantic and a slew of propaganda.

I do agree that you can't fully understand WW2 without knowledge of WW1 (however, this could keep going back ad infinitum). I think one of the most telling quotes was from Marshal Ferdinand Foch:

"This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.''
1919, after the treaty of Versailles.
Click to expand...

yea your right... this was just a real short generalzation of it...

i think FDR also said it was fine to supply the british with guns and ammo and expect them to pay us back later just as if your neghibors house was on fire you would worry about putting it out before asking them to pay for the bucket... or something like that but that was the jist of it
 
pill_billy said:
well if you dont understand WWI then how can you possibly begin to have any real understanding of WWII? germany got fucked so hard after WWI thats why it created an atmosphere for a hitler to gain power, and why no one really knew the extent he was building up the german war machine because they all assumed he was following the treat of versille.... its all relevant and why after WWII american didnt just leave germany a bombed out shell
Click to expand...

Ermm... who says I don't understand WW1? I am far from an expert on it but I am fully aware of the origins of the second world war, which go far beyond the treatment of the Germans at Versailles.

pill_billy said:
also your wrong... america took its time because in our eyes this was another european war and it had been 15-20 years after WWI so it was still fresh in ppls minds and we thought it yalls turn to fight their own war... in the end it was nevil that tried to appease hitle and let him have poland like he was gona stop after that.... do you not remember nevil comming back to britian waving his treaty sayin peace in our time?
Click to expand...

LOL. I'm wrong about what, exactly? I was making a comment about a historical "what-if", so how could I be wrong? :D

Chamberlain certainly did NOT "let" Hitler have Poland, I think you've got your dates wrong. Britain declared war on Germany at the point that they invaded Poland, which was a year after the Munich Agreement you speak of. Chamberlain is not remembered as one of the good guys in Britain; merely as a naive and old-fashioned fool who couldn't see what was happening despite the warnings of others.


But thanks for turning up. Eventually. ;)
 
Felix - have you done much reading on any of the early commando raids? Specifically the raid on the dock at St. Nazaire? (operation chariot)

One of the most interesting actions of the war IMO the bravery and sheer audacity were something else.... And at at time in the war when we were doing pretty abysmally on just about every front.... What made me think about it was the user of the destroyer Cambletown which was actually a US WW1 destroyer we got from the yanks as part of lend lease....

If you can find a decent book on the subject on the library is well worth a read...

Edit - lol! I think pill _billy might want to re read some history....we may have appeased hitler over Tha sudatenland, rhineland and the annexation of Austria but the invasion of Poland was the REASON we went to war in the first place....

Churchill.....you can always trust the Americans to make the right decision.....after first trying everything else.
 
Last edited:
Nope, not familiar with that either. :D

I'll have a look.

btw it's CAMPBELTOWN, get your Scottish place names right. ;)
 
Ah, 55 tons of beast :D

The profile of that thing is as defining as the stahlhelm for me, when it comes to the Wehrmacht.
 
What about:

9739002_1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top