Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 12:00:37 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
For ww1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

United Kingdom population 45.4 military deaths 702,917 to 888,246


France poulation 39.61, military deaths 1,357,000 to 1,397,800


For ww2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties


United Kingdom population 47,760,000 military deaths 383,800 civilian 67,100



France population 41,700,000 military deaths military200,000 civilian 350,000

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 12:27:13 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Try reading some facts!

France was historically Europe's most populous nation. During the Middle Ages, more than one quarter of Europe's total population was French; by the 17th century, this had decreased slightly to one fifth. By the beginning of the 20th century, some of France's neighbors, such as Germany and Russia, had caught up with and overtaken it. However, the country's population sharply increased with the baby boom following World War II.

France had a much bigger population than just about anywhere else in Europe right up to the beginning of the 20th century. Even these days france has 3 million more people than we do.

Yeah, they lost more people than we did - but not by a huge margin.
And with a higher population, you'd expect a higher death rate wouldn't you?? Simple logic.


C'est donc une différence de 5% de la population de l'Europe - intéressant, mais pas une statistique stupéfiante. Pour commencer, nous aurions besoin de considérer que ce qui constitue «la France» et «l'Europe» était en flux considérable du Moyen Age au 20e siècle. Et en second lieu, l'article de Wikipedia à partir de laquelle vous avez copié ce mot pour mot statistique n'a pas de citation de ces données - qui est ce que je voulais vérifier. C'est donc un chiffre discutable. Ensuite, il ya la domination de Charlemagne par l'Empire carolinienne. . . essentiellement «faire» une large part de l'Europe ce qui allait devenir «la France.»

En bref, il ya tellement de variables il qu'une différence de seulement 5% n'a pas vraiment nous montre pas beaucoup, même si ce chiffre est supportable, finalement.

Donc, je ne suis pas vraiment obtenir votre point (ou l'intention) ici.

Accordée, le stupide «la tour française et exécuté» connerie est une vanité américaine récente.



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 5/11/2014 12:29:53 PM >

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 12:49:48 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
C'est donc une différence de 5% de la population de l'Europe - intéressant, mais pas une statistique stupéfiante. Pour commencer, nous aurions besoin de considérer que ce qui constitue «la France» et «l'Europe» était en flux considérable du Moyen Age au 20e siècle. Et en second lieu, l'article de Wikipedia à partir de laquelle vous avez copié ce mot pour mot statistique n'a pas de citation de ces données - qui est ce que je voulais vérifier. C'est donc un chiffre discutable. Ensuite, il ya la domination de Charlemagne par l'Empire carolinienne. . . essentiellement «faire» une large part de l'Europe ce qui allait devenir «la France.»

En bref, il ya tellement de variables il qu'une différence de seulement 5% n'a pas vraiment nous montre pas beaucoup, même si ce chiffre est supportable, finalement.

Donc, je ne suis pas vraiment obtenir votre point (ou l'intention) ici.

Accordée, le stupide «la tour française et exécuté» connerie est une vanité américaine récente.

Essentiellement, mon ami, ces chiffres ont été cités à partir du 1914 les frontières internationales.
Tommy cité dans le même article, mais à partir des tableaux de la même page. Il a affirmé que la France avait une population moindre mais a perdu plus de gens. Mon argument était que, historiquement, les Français étaient à peu près tout le monde autour d'eux par une assez longue marge et ils toujours plus nombreuses que nous autres Britanniques aujourd'hui.

Et merci pour la leçon de français.


_____________________________

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 12:57:56 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Pas de soucis. Et merci pour la clarification.

Il est assez difficile de comprendre ce qui se passe même * avec * la fonction de citation.

Vous avez maintenant. Merci.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 12:59:53 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1




Try reading some facts!

France was historically Europe's most populous nation. During the Middle Ages, more than one quarter of Europe's total population was French; by the 17th century, this had decreased slightly to one fifth. By the beginning of the 20th century, some of France's neighbors, such as Germany and Russia, had caught up with and overtaken it. However, the country's population sharply increased with the baby boom following World War II.

France had a much bigger population than just about anywhere else in Europe right up to the beginning of the 20th century. Even these days france has 3 million more people than we do.

Yeah, they lost more people than we did - but not by a huge margin.
And with a higher population, you'd expect a higher death rate wouldn't you?? Simple logic.




quote:

Donc, je ne suis pas vraiment obtenir votre point (ou l'intention) ici.


Ni moi non plus

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 1:05:40 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
Essentiellement, mon ami, ces chiffres ont été cités à partir du 1914 les frontières internationales.
Tommy cité dans le même article, mais à partir des tableaux de la même page. Il a affirmé que la France avait une population moindre mais a perdu plus de gens. Mon argument était que, historiquement, les Français étaient à peu près tout le monde autour d'eux par une assez longue marge et ils toujours plus nombreuses que nous autres Britanniques aujourd'hui.

We were discussing the losses during the two world wars, so previous populations are hardly relevent.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 1:11:14 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
OK, regardez. . . . .

Pour démarrer une citation, tapez: [ quote ] <--- mais sans les espaces
Pour mettre fin à une citation, tapez: [ / quote ] <--- sans espaces.

quote:

comme ceci


Compris?

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 1:16:03 PM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Much of the blame clearly falls on Hitler, justifiably so, but the rest of the blame seems to rest on those who either "should have known better" or "should have done something to stop Hitler sooner."

Is it possible that there were people who did not want hitler stopped?


Oh yes, Hitler definitely had a fan club back in those days, so there were plenty who didn't want him stopped. But it seems that the criticisms of the kind leveled by the OP against Chamberlain seems like a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking.

It's been the same here in the United States, for the most part, as a lot of blame is put on the isolationists, insinuating that America joined the war "late" and could have saved more lives if we had gotten in sooner and could have stopped Hitler before he got started. It's a lot of 20/20 hindsight and a lot of "what if" speculation, which is how such questions (as the OP) get asked.

quote:


A lot of blame might also fall on Stalin for making the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler which cleared the way for the invasion and partition of Poland.

Lets look at that: Russia had a treaty with france to attack germany if germany were to attack france. Why would churchill (without portfolio)go to poland to try to convince them not to let russia cross their country to fulfill their treaty obligation with france?


I can't explain Churchill's motivations, but it seems pretty clear that, from the Polish viewpoint, they wouldn't want their former enemies and occupiers to return. Tsarist Russia ruled Poland for well over a century, and even after the Tsar fell and they got independence, they still had good reason to be wary. For their own defense, it might have been wiser if the Poles had appealed to Russia rather than Britain, since Russia would have been in a much better position to help defend Poland if it were attacked by Germany. But Poland was in kind of a bad situation, stuck between two countries that they didn't like very much and who didn't like each other.

But that was the problem when France and Britain tried to forge an arrangement with the USSR, which fell through due to the issue of moving troops through Poland. But I don't think they were expecting Stalin to make an agreement with Hitler to divide up Poland.

I think that's the main criticism leveled at Chamberlain in this thread, that no one should have trusted Hitler at all, because nothing he signed was ever worth the paper it was written on. Hitler broke the agreement he made with Stalin, too. It eventually got to the point where no peace offer from Hitler was acceptable; the Allies would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender.

But in those earlier years, before people truly realized just how treacherous he was, there were those who may have thought they could have made a deal with Hitler.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 1:35:12 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Essentiellement, mon ami, ces chiffres ont été cités à partir du 1914 les frontières internationales.
Tommy cité dans le même article, mais à partir des tableaux de la même page. Il a affirmé que la France avait une population moindre mais a perdu plus de gens. Mon argument était que, historiquement, les Français étaient à peu près tout le monde autour d'eux par une assez longue marge et ils toujours plus nombreuses que nous autres Britanniques aujourd'hui.

We were discussing the losses during the two world wars, so previous populations are hardly relevent.

So you think previous population count isn't relevant right up to the date of said losses? I would.
And, interestingly, the topic is "Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II", not the losses of both wars.

As for turncoats (excerpt from Yahoo Answers) -
In May 1940, the forces of the Third Reich stormed over the French border. The French fought with courage and ferocity, but the forces of the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS are much too powerful, and under the onslaught of Blitzkrieg, they conquer France.
Paris declared itself an Open City, in the hope that it would be spare the slaughter which laid Rotterdam to ruins. Paris thus fell without a shot being fired.
On June 22nd, 1940, General Huntzinger signs the armistice in Compiégne forest, a site undoubtedly chosen to humiliate France, since this was the very spot in which Germany surrendered to Maréchal Foch in 1918.
By surrendering, France, under the leadership of Maréchal Philippe Pétain, the hero who had saved France during the Great War, launches into collaboration.
Petain himself declared during a radio transmission on 30th October 1940:
"I enter today the way of collaboration".
His government, wiht the directorship of Prime Minister Pierre Laval, thus collaborates for the four years of German occupation, going so far as to adopt their racialist politics, targetting in particular the Jews, of which there were 330,000 in France.
Laval was staunchly proud of serving his masters in Berlin; during a 1942 speech he expressed his "hope for a German victory".

Less than a month after the capitulation, in July 1940, the Vichy government begins to persecute the Jews, and to help the Nazis to locate and take action against them, through the process of stripping them of the French citizenships.

The Conseil des Ministres passed the first Jewish Statute in October 1940, denying them the right of employment as civil servants, teachers, or members of the armed forces, and which forbade them the right to work as "managers, directors, newspaper editors".
It also put in place a "numerus clausus", limiting the number of Jews in university studies to 3%.

The German powers asked André Tulard, a police inspector, to do a comprehensive census of all Jews located in the northern Occuped zone of France, and in November 1940, he created a central database of all Jews which had identified themselves as such, and passed the data to the Gestapo.
This database became a key tool for Theodor Dannecker, the man who became the mastermind behind the genocide of French Jews.

Though there is much blame to be laid at the feet of those in power, it is important to remember that the genocide of French Jews would have been much harder without the power held by ordinary people; the populace, and those who reinforced the racist ideas and laws.

One shining example of how ordinary Frenchmen provided more than a helping hand shows in the Milice Francaise.
The Milice was a paramilitary organisation, founded under Nazi ideals, and which was therefore comprised almost exclusively of Fascist sympathisers, some of which had fought with the Nazis and Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War.
The Milice's own 21 point programme shows its dedication to Nazi and racialist ideals:
"Against Bolshevism, for Nationalism"
"Against the Jewish leprosy, for French purity"

Their viciousness is seen when we consider that of 90,000 Jews deported from France, the Milice were responsible for 25,000.
The reason the Milice were so efficient in their dealings, despite there being 30,000 in France, was the very fact that they were French, and very often local, which gave them an edge in that they were already aware of the Jews and Communists in small French villages and communes, and they could also spy much more easily on their fellow citizens.
It would surprise few then that con cequent to the liberation, many of them were victims of reprisals ranging from summary murders to technically ex-judicial public firing squads (the latter whic, bu all accounts, were very well attended by the public).

The Gendarmerie Nationale also had blood on its hands, but what made the Gendarmerie's collaboration so much more damaging was while the Milice and the Germans never really held much authority in terms of respect, the Gendarmerie was a fundemental pillar of the Third French Republic.
It is pretty incontestible that the Gendarmerie was a big cog in the mechanism of genocide; what is are the numbers of the guilty.
The force was responsible for up to 80% of all the interceptions and arrests of "undesirables" in France, and not just Jews.
In fact, on many occasions, the Germans were never even involved in the persecution, save on a political level.

The Rafle du Vel'd'Hiv (the Winter Velodrome Purge) is a glaring example.
For the Nazi operation "Vent Printanier" (Spring Breeze), a purge of all European Jews, thousands of policemen and Gendarmes were mobilised to do the dirty work, of which 9,000 in Paris alone....



_____________________________

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 2:38:47 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
can't explain Churchill's motivations,

Use churchill's book ww2 to track down his involvement in "the intervention" You will find reference to it in his foot notes.

but it seems pretty clear that, from the Polish viewpoint, they wouldn't want their former enemies and occupiers to return.

What evidence do you have that the poles and the soviet union were enemies?

But that was the problem when France and Britain tried to forge an arrangement with the USSR, which fell through due to the issue of moving troops through Poland.

That failed because of churchill.


But I don't think they were expecting Stalin to make an agreement with Hitler to divide up Poland.

When stalin saw that he could not help france he took the steps necessary to defend himself. He had obviously read hitlers book in which hitler mentioned the murder of the russian people and keeping a few of the hotter ones for breeding stock.

I think that's the main criticism leveled at Chamberlain in this thread, that no one should have trusted Hitler at all, because nothing he signed was ever worth the paper it was written on.

How many u.s. treaties with the native americans have ever been honored?

Hitler broke the agreement he made with Stalin, too.

Are you speaking of a morning in june of 41?


It eventually got to the point where no peace offer from Hitler was acceptable; the Allies would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender.

When did hitler ever sign a "peace treaty"

But in those earlier years, before people truly realized just how treacherous he was, there were those who may have thought they could have made a deal with Hitler.

No one in europe or the u.s. had any doubts as to what hitler was up to. The hope was that he would attack russia and the two of them would destroy each other. To everyones surprise russia spanked hitlers ass purple.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 5/11/2014 2:40:31 PM >

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 2:48:06 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
We were discussing the losses during the two world wars, so previous populations are hardly relevent.

So you think previous population count isn't relevant right up to the date of said losses? I would.

You are wrong...so what is new?

And, interestingly, the topic is "Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II", not the losses of both wars.

Quite true the topic is "Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II", and we were discussing the loses durring the two world wars and you were shown to be in error as to how many and what the proportions were.
The rest of your cut and paste is irrelivent



(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 3:26:22 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
It was part of what we were discussing.

Remember this bit?
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Throughout medieval history the french were always known as and referred to as turncoats.

At least by the english.

In WWI and WWII, apart from the resistance, the french basically rolled over for the Germans because they didn't want to fight.

So I provided evidence to support my statement... so it is relevant.

_____________________________

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 3:58:22 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

It was part of what we were discussing.

Remember this bit?
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Throughout medieval history the french were always known as and referred to as turncoats.

At least by the english.

In WWI and WWII, apart from the resistance, the french basically rolled over for the Germans because they didn't want to fight.

So I provided evidence to support my statement... so it is relevant.



No you haven't and no it isn't

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/11/2014 9:35:53 PM   
ForgetToRemember


Posts: 48
Joined: 5/6/2012
Status: offline
The Treaty of Versailles was the single most important reason WWII happened.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/12/2014 6:04:44 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
What evidence do you have that the poles and the soviet union were enemies?


Just the history between the two countries and an enmity which went back centuries, at least to the Time of Troubles when Polish nobles tried to install a pretender on the Russian throne when there was no clear heir at the time. There was also the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, as well as resentment over Polish/Lithuanian rule over parts of Orthodox Russia. The Russians took over Poland as a result of the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and held that territory until WW1, after which the Poles gained independence - although there was a still a brief dispute with Russia in 1920-21 over where the border would actually be.

So, there was definitely a lot of history and bad blood between the two countries.

quote:


When stalin saw that he could not help france he took the steps necessary to defend himself. He had obviously read hitlers book in which hitler mentioned the murder of the russian people and keeping a few of the hotter ones for breeding stock.


That sounds more like a reason for not making a deal with Hitler. If he already knew that Hitler planned to murder his people, why would Stalin make a deal with him? What was he expecting Hitler to do, keep his word?

quote:


How many u.s. treaties with the native americans have ever been honored?


I can't recall any offhand. But what does this have to do with Allied perceptions of Hitler's reliability and promises to keep his word?

quote:


Are you speaking of a morning in june of 41?


Yes.

quote:


When did hitler ever sign a "peace treaty"


He didn't. He made offers, though.

quote:


No one in europe or the u.s. had any doubts as to what hitler was up to. The hope was that he would attack russia and the two of them would destroy each other. To everyones surprise russia spanked hitlers ass purple.


I used to consider that a possibility, although if that was true, then the British guarantee to Poland makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It would have been far better for Britain and France to stand by and not interfere with Hitler's campaigns in the east, since it would have been more likely that he would have gotten into a war with Russia (which is what happened anyway). Moreover, with Hitler bogged down in the east, it would have meant that the west would have been left alone. The results might have likely been the same, except without the Fall of France or the Battle of Britain.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/12/2014 6:20:17 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
Just the history between the two countries and an enmity which went back centuries, at least to the Time of Troubles when Polish nobles tried to install a pretender on the Russian throne when there was no clear heir at the time. There was also the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, as well as resentment over Polish/Lithuanian rule over parts of Orthodox Russia. The Russians took over Poland as a result of the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and held that territory until WW1, after which the Poles gained independence - although there was a still a brief dispute with Russia in 1920-21 over where the border would actually be.

So, there was definitely a lot of history and bad blood between the two countries.

No: There was bad blood between tsarist russia and poland. The jump from monachy to socialism is huge and to equate tsarist russia with the soviet union is rediculous.
It was because of the fall of the tsar that poland became independent...look into the actual realtionship between the soviet russia and poland from 1928(end of civil war) forward. It was churchill's "intervention" that soured the poridge.

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/12/2014 6:26:19 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline



When stalin saw that he could not help france he took the steps necessary to defend himself. He had obviously read hitlers book in which hitler mentioned the murder of the russian people and keeping a few of the hotter ones for breeding stock.

That sounds more like a reason for not making a deal with Hitler. If he already knew that Hitler planned to murder his people, why would Stalin make a deal with him? What was he expecting Hitler to do, keep his word?

In your readings of stalin where have you noticed him to be guillible?
Stalin knew that the longer he kept hitler at bey the more t34 tanks(and other armaments) he could produce.
Up until the moment of invasion there were freight trains of commodities crossing the boarder from russia into germanh.

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/12/2014 6:42:01 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:


No one in europe or the u.s. had any doubts as to what hitler was up to. The hope was that he would attack russia and the two of them would destroy each other. To everyones surprise russia spanked hitlers ass purple.


I used to consider that a possibility, although if that was true, then the British guarantee to Poland makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Churchill getting poland to depend on g.b instead of russia seperates russia as an ally of france, (g.b. traditional enemy france.) Germany knows that g.b. does not have the military capacity on the ground to do shit in poland.


It would have been far better for Britain and France to stand by and not interfere with Hitler's campaigns in the east,
since it would have been more likely that he would have gotten into a war with Russia (which is what happened anyway).

Except that hitler was not about to leave two powerful enemies at his back when he takes on the bear. They needed to be neutralized first.


Moreover, with Hitler bogged down in the east, it would have meant that the west would have been left alone. The results might have likely been the same, except without the Fall of France or the Battle of Britain.

As I said hitler (or no militarist) would have left his back unprotedted. If I remember correctly germany lost about a third of its airforce and about half of it's armor in the polish campagn. Germany had not mobilized industry and it took a bit of time to rebuild their stocks. Note the time lag from poland to the campagn against france and g.b. Then again the time lag to june of 41.
Stalin was well aware of hitlers intentions to attack even down to the hour and minute and which formations etc.
Stalin had pavlov,zhuchov and tomishinko war game the invasion. Pavlov favoring defense at the "polish line" zhuchov favoring echelon defense to moscow for a winter offensive against an extended supply line. Zhuchov proved his position in the sand tray...and that is the one that stalin chose.

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II - 5/12/2014 6:47:11 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:


How many u.s. treaties with the native americans have ever been honored?

I can't recall any offhand. But what does this have to do with Allied perceptions of Hitler's reliability and promises to keep his word?

When you cite hitlers propensity to break treaties I was just pointing out that the u.s has a pretty poor track record of keeping our word....kinda a pot>>>kettle>>>>black sort of thing.

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 99
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Was Chamberlain responsible for World War II Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094