NationStates Jolt Archive

there were many
but what was the biggest

Japan attacking the US instead of the USSR. By not attacking the USSR, they freed up about 1,000,000 Siberian troops that defeated the Germans at Stalingrad AND they brought the US into the war against Germany.

Japan attacking the US instead of the USSR. By not attacking the USSR, they freed up about 1,000,000 Siberian troops that defeated the Germans at Stalingrad AND they brought the US into the war against Germany.
never thought of that one before

edit to add

the ussr had nonagression pacs with both nazi germany and japan

The nazi's backstabbing of the morality of humanity.

Not really strategic, but treacherous in it's own right.

The Germans started fighting the Finns once the Red Army got kicked out in 1945. Germans tried to destroy Finland.

Japan attacking the US instead of the USSR. By not attacking the USSR, they freed up about 1,000,000 Siberian troops that defeated the Germans at Stalingrad AND they brought the US into the war against Germany.
The USSR wasn't blockading them. I would think it would be Germany invading the USSR after they said they wouldn't. But I'm not really a WWII buff, so...

France's negativity against the US since the end of WW2?

Japan attacking the US instead of the USSR. By not attacking the USSR, they freed up about 1,000,000 Siberian troops that defeated the Germans at Stalingrad AND they brought the US into the war against Germany.
They knew we were going to physcially go in eventually, they just expected it to do enough damage to scare us out of it for a while(bloody our noses). Besides, how much oil was the USSR exporting then?

It might be more of a "shoot self in foot" than a "stab own nation in the back," but I'd say Hitler's transporting weapons on Hospital ships. That led to Hospital Ships being attacked, which led into Rommel investigating and finding out, which led to his state-sponsored suicide, which led to a soft underbelly opening up... wouldn't have turned the tide of the war, but would have made it a lot more bloody, and added a few months at the least.

France's negativity against the US since the end of WW2?
Since it has clearly gone unmatched and it's entirely France who is being the negative ones...



Anyway...I like how Italy ended up completely changing sides before the whole thing was said and done.

They knew we were going to physcially go in eventually, they just expected it to do enough damage to scare us out of it for a while(bloody our noses). Besides, how much oil was the USSR exporting then?

It might be more of a "shoot self in foot" than a "stab own nation in the back," but I'd say Hitler's transporting weapons on Hospital ships. That led to Hospital Ships being attacked, which led into Rommel investigating and finding out, which led to his state-sponsored suicide, which led to a soft underbelly opening up... wouldn't have turned the tide of the war, but would have made it a lot more bloody, and added a few months at the least.

Rommel committed suicide because he was implicated in the plot to kill Hitler. Hitler gave him the choice of that or a public trial and who knows what to his family.

Since it has clearly gone unmatched and it's entirely France who is being the negative ones...

I believe De Gualle set the tone for negative US/French relations before WW2 was even over. As somebody who had two grandparents at the invasion of Normandy, I find it to be the biggest back stab.

The Germans started fighting the Finns once the Red Army got kicked out in 1945. Germans tried to destroy Finland.

Well...
One term in the cease fire argeement between Finland and Soviet Union was that all German troops from the Northern Finland must leave Finland´s areas in two weeks. It was impossible for the German troops leave Lapland, with all their equipments as they wanted to, in demanded time. So, to further complicate things, the Russkies 'urged' the Finns to be more active in Lapland in order the cease fire to hold. Finnish troops then had little choice but to invade coastal towns which were under German rule (because they wanted to take the searoute out).

German troops were surprised and as a revenge of this declaration of war Germans used the tactic of scorched land. They burnt almost every building in Lapland except some buildings in outlying district and they also layed mines to slow down the advance of Finnish troops.

Germans tried to take over some Finnish islands near Leningrad/St. Petersburg too... they attacked via Estonia, but the Finns took some 1200 POWs (can't be arsed to check the number).

I see no backstabbing by the Germans as such... shitty for the population of Lappland what they did... but if you really NEED to find a backstabber here...i think the finns are guilty then. :(

Rommel committed suicide because he was implicated in the plot to kill Hitler. Hitler gave him the choice of that or a public trial and who knows what to his family.
Ah, I see you missed the semi-hidden step.
He was implicated in the plot to kill Hitler because he disagreed with that policy. It's generally agreed, though not entirely accepted, that he wasn't actually involved in the plot.

Anyway...I like how Italy ended up completely changing sides before the whole thing was said and done.

Not as classy as Bulgaria (IIRC) who ended up nominally at war with both the Allies and the Axis at the same time for a period.

I believe De Gualle set the tone for negative US/French relations before WW2 was even over. As somebody who had two grandparents at the invasion of Normandy, I find it to be the biggest back stab.

Hey: the American role in the liberation of France was just them paying back their debt after France's support during the War of Independence...

I believe De Gualle set the tone for negative US/French relations before WW2 was even over. As somebody who had two grandparents at the invasion of Normandy, I find it to be the biggest back stab.
As someone with a lot of French ancestry (including Charlemagne), I find the continuance of American animosity toward the French to be outdated and annoying. What's the point any more? Oh, and by the way, my grandfather, who I get most of my French ancestry from, was a Master Sergeant in the United States Air Force and was on missions over Korea and Vietnam so I don't want to hear an ounce of bullshit about French people hating America. That's just as bad as racism.

It might be more of a "shoot self in foot" than a "stab own nation in the back," but I'd say Hitler's transporting weapons on Hospital ships.


...seeing as how we're talking in the context of warfare here, youa re aware that shooting yourself in the foot was initially a phrase which meant a clever idea - it relates to 'accidentally' shooting off a couple of your own toes so that you don't have to go over the top from the trenches the next time there is a show...

I'd say Hitler breaking the non agression pact with Stalin. I know, it's like a scorpion turning on a wasp, but, man, that was dumb!

...seeing as how we're talking in the context of warfare here, youa re aware that shooting yourself in the foot was initially a phrase which meant a clever idea - it relates to 'accidentally' shooting off a couple of your own toes so that you don't have to go over the top from the trenches the next time there is a show...
Haha...wow...maybe that's what happened to my great-grandpa who was released from the Army in World War I because of foot injury...



Anyway, in response to the Hitler breaking the pact with Russia: You do realize that was his plan all along, right?

As someone with a lot of French ancestry (including Charlemagne), I find the continuance of American animosity toward the French to be outdated and annoying. What's the point any more? Oh, and by the way, my grandfather, who I get most of my French ancestry from, was a Master Sergeant in the United States Air Force and was on missions over Korea and Vietnam so I don't want to hear an ounce of bullshit about French people hating America. That's just as bad as racism.

Um, go read a poll and then tell me about the majority of oppinion of French towards Americans. As far as outdated, pick up a news paper from last year. Disagreeing with our policy on Iraq is one thing....but forming an active coalition against us for their own political gain in the eyes of the EU and the world as the new anti-American political voice was ridiculous.

Haha...wow...maybe that's what happened to my great-grandpa who was released from the Army in World War I because of foot injury...

At the risk of praising his intelligence at the cost of his obedience/bravery, quite possibly, but the possible effects of trenchfoot can't really be ruled out.

Anyway, in response to the Hitler breaking the pact with Russia: You do realize that was his plan all along, right?

That was me, about Hitler and the USSR, not the foot. Yes, everybody agrees that he would have tried to go after the USSR, but he picked a very bad time to do so. I know that he was deperate to get to the oil in the Caucasus, but still.

I wonder why he just didn't go over Turkey to get there? It would have been much easier.

Haha...wow...maybe that's what happened to my great-grandpa who was released from the Army in World War I because of foot injury...



Anyway, in response to the Hitler breaking the pact with Russia: You do realize that was his plan all along, right?

Very good point; and it wasn't like it was a big secret. The USSR wasn't like, "Holy shit, the fascists that we fought against in the Spanish Civil War and had gone to war with if the French had helped us are now invading us!" Doesn't seem like much of a backstab.

Hey: the American role in the liberation of France was just them paying back their debt after France's support during the War of Independence...
good piont but we liberated them twice so they owe us one

the Spanish Civil War

speaking of which, i hear that spanish exiles in france, who were a big part of the resistance there, were a wee bit annoyed that the allies didn't go liberate spain from its fascists while they were running around europe.

speaking of which, i hear that spanish exiles in france, who were a big part of the resistance there, were a wee bit annoyed that the allies didn't go liberate spain from its fascists while they were running around europe.

After Franco won the Spanish Civil War, he implicitly drop Hitler as an ally, and eventually (sucessfuly) attempted to become friends with America.

France's negativity against the US since the end of WW2?

Actually the French treat the veterns quite well.

They tend to be disgusted by the grandchildren and great-grandchildren that think the french owe them.....

At the risk of praising his intelligence at the cost of his obedience/bravery, quite possibly, but the possible effects of trenchfoot can't really be ruled out.
His papers say it was a gunshot wound...or it might not have specified gunshot, but it was a wound. It seemed pretty clear to me that it wasn't trenchfoot, however I don't know how they would indicate trenchfoot...oh well...but yea, and his dad (or maybe grandpa) was taken POW by the Union army while serving as a member of the Alabama Calvalry...

That was me, about Hitler and the USSR, not the foot. Yes, everybody agrees that he would have tried to go after the USSR, but he picked a very bad time to do so. I know that he was deperate to get to the oil in the Caucasus, but still.

I wonder why he just didn't go over Turkey to get there? It would have been much easier.

Many historians think that Hitler just had a crazy obsession with destroying France and Russia (for historical as well as global power reasons). As such, the oil wasn't his only concern; Hitler was obsessed with destroying Russia, and that meant invading it directly.

Um, go read a poll and then tell me about the majority of oppinion of French towards Americans. As far as outdated, pick up a news paper from last year. Disagreeing with our policy on Iraq is one thing....but forming an active coalition against us for their own political gain in the eyes of the EU and the world as the new anti-American political voice was ridiculous.
Yea...well...if the American political ideology of Gee Dub wasn't so anti-rest of the world, the French might not have to voice their opinion so anti-Americanly. It's not like the French are speaking out against America for no reason...Americans will talk shit about France for what ever reason...even if it's just because they don't like those greasy potatoes that are fried and most definitely not French in origin...

good piont but we liberated them twice so they owe us one

Twice?

After Franco won the Spanish Civil War, he implicitly drop Hitler as an ally, and eventually (sucessfuly) attempted to become friends with America.
Actually that wasn't because of Franco. The German head of military intelligence, die Abwehr, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris secretly adviced Franco to keep Spain out of the war and to deny Hitler military acces to get to Gibraltar.

Actually that wasn't because of Franco. The German head of military intelligence, die Abwehr, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris secretly adviced Franco to keep Spain out of the war and to deny Hitler military acces to get to Gibraltar.

Still, Franco was never really "fascist." True, he accepted German and Italian aid, but Franco's ideology wasn't a fascist based one. He just accepted the aid because the Spanish Civil War did not go as well as he thought it would go. Franco's ideology was more of a religion based/ conservative one than fascist ideology; and from historical notes it appears that Franco never had any intention of joining the fascist circle or alliances.

France's negativity against the US since the end of WW2?
America's negativity against the USSR since the end of WW2?

America's negativity against the USSR since the end of WW2?
America post WW2.

Twice?
wwI and II
also didn't viet namstart with the french

Still, Franco was never really "fascist."

true, franco didn't really have much in the way of political ideology other than the idea that he should rule - he even convinced monarchists to go along with this somehow. but the falange were a rather important part of his road to power, as was the help from italy and germany.

wwI and II
also didn't viet namstart with the french

The US did not save France's ass in WWI, we came in far too late, and the Allies would have won the war without US military participation, it was mostly cosmetic.

And Vietnam did not start with the French anymore than Iraq started with the British (in fact, to an even lesser extent), it was a colony of France, and fought to win it's independence against them, and won, in 1953. That's over a decade before the US got involved, and France played little part in seperating the country. I don't know how anyone pins that war on the French, had they done what was necessary to keep it, we would all be screaming about their horrible atrocities. It's not like we fought there to give the nation back to France.

true, franco didn't really have much in the way of political ideology other than the idea that he should rule - he even convinced monarchists to go along with this somehow. but the falange were a rather important part of his road to power, as was the help from italy and germany.

True, but the Falange was a small, extreme group that was not that influential in the Franco circles. Obviously Franco listened to them, but he also listened to the Monarchists, clergy, and other conservatives. The only opinion Franco followed was usually his own. Anyway, I'm just saying that it didn't appear that Franco would go down the fascist road, even though the Italians and Germans basically equipped his army and helped him overcome the Republic.

PS How the hell did we get on the Spanish Civil War?

i didn'tsay it started with them i just thought that they were still in control when it started

i didn'tsay it started with them i just thought that they were still in control when it started

Nope, they left the country in 1953, the North and South were not really at war until later.

there were many
but what was the biggest


Please continue the discussion here:http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357414

(I give you this advise since most NS discussions about WWII are the same and end the same way (the US ungratefull for the creation of it's nation thank's to the French and the US thinking they did WWII on their own, and then the vice versa blabla starts withouth any factual posting)).

Better continue posting there instead of another 4th page here.

Or, since some allready start the biass and bullshit about the French and the US, feel free: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=358265

i would like to stay here this should not turn into bickering i just want some ideas

(I give you this advise since most NS discussions about WWII are the same and end the same way (the US ungratefull for the creation of it's nation thank's to the French and the US thinking they did WWII on their own, and then the vice versa blabla starts withouth any factual posting)).


Yeah, but it works every time, and is so satisfying...

i would like to stay here this should not turn into bickering i just want some ideas

OK, how about the Allied powers sitting back and letting the Japanese take Singapore?

ussr planing on violating thier non agression pac with japan
would have happend if it wernt for the bomb

ussr planing on violating thier non agression pac with japan
would have happend if it wernt for the bomb

???

You do know that they did actually declare war on them - August 8th 1945 - don't you, and that this happened after Hiroshima & Nagasaki were bombed?

...seeing as how we're talking in the context of warfare here, youa re aware that shooting yourself in the foot was initially a phrase which meant a clever idea - it relates to 'accidentally' shooting off a couple of your own toes so that you don't have to go over the top from the trenches the next time there is a show...
While I knew of the strategy itself, I never actually connected the phrase. Fascinating, and useful as far as etmology goes.

But, I'd argue that makes it "clever but shortsighted," since you'd be (at least temporarily) crippled from it. Insinuating a dissenter who just happened to be important tried to kill you is clever, but shortsighted. Ergo, while you caught me with new knowledge, as always, I am perfectly correct.

???

You do know that they did actually declare war on them - August 8th 1945 - don't you, and that this happened after Hiroshima & Nagasaki were bombed?
ok scratch the word planing
but this was a big back stab

But, I'd argue that makes it "clever but shortsighted," since you'd be (at least temporarily) crippled from it.

Your choice is between "(temporarily) crippled" and "most likely lying dead in the shrapnel studded and gas clouded mud of no mans land". You chose.

"most likely"
Name a war involving guns where more than half of soldiers were killed. I'll even leave it open to "later died from wounds" or "were permenantly disabled," as all would be worse than the alternative.
Now, don't make me dig my hole any deeper, or I'll get into semantics and hijack this discussion.

OK, how about the Allied powers sitting back and letting the Japanese take Singapore?

The allies did try to defend Singapore. They just did a crap job of it.

Biggest backstab?

Stalin offering freedom to Soviet Prisoners in exchange for serving in the army, and then sending them back to prison when the war was over.

Name a war involving guns where more than half of soldiers were killed. I'll even leave it open to "later died from wounds" or "were permenantly disabled," as all would be worse than the alternative.
Now, don't make me dig my hole any deeper, or I'll get into semantics and hijack this discussion.

Yes, I'll agree that I was unjustified in claiming "most likely", I'll conced that. However, I'm not talking about the whole of a war, just particular situations within it: say you are in the trenches at the Somme sometime after the first day of the battle - you will be somewhat aware of the carnage which occurred in front of certain positions, and know how horrific the casualty rates were. You now face a choice between 'accidentally' shooting yourself in the foot whilst cleaning your rifle, or leaving you hand poking over the parapets in the hope that a sniper will do the job for you, or just waiting and facing the same slow walk towards the enemy machinegun positions that was demonstrated to have failed so miserably in the past...


In the end it comes down to temporarily (possibly permanently) crippled or possibly (permanently) dead.

The allies did try to defend Singapore. They just did a crap job of it.

Well, Churchill gave the order that they "fight to the last man" and historians have painted a picture of the defeat being the fault of the defenders, but this is ignoring the fact that they had been starved of supplies and material which could have made the capture of Singapore something other than a foregone conclusion.

My favorite "backstab" was the British invasion of Norway. Hmm, the bigest? In terms of size it would have to be Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, but it certainly wasn't a trecherous one, everyone knew it was going to happen. In terms of biggest mess / greatest trechery I would vote for the DeGaulle/Darlan/Churchill/Roosevelt mess.

Stalin offering freedom to Soviet Prisoners in exchange for serving in the army, and then sending them back to prison when the war was over.

Lets not forget his policy of sending to the Gulags those Soviet soldiers who 'allowed' themselves to be captured by the Axis forces.

The biggest backstab was when Rommel wasn't allowed to use the panzers and reserves to fight the allies back to the sea in France.

you guys disgust me. A thread about WWII backstabs and no one has mentioned the failure of the red army to intervene when the Germans were putting down the Warsaw ghetto uprising.

Lets not forget his policy of sending to the Gulags those Soviet soldiers who 'allowed' themselves to be captured by the Axis forces.
or the fact that millions of german pows just disappeared into the soviet camps never to be accounted for.

PS How the hell did we get on the Spanish Civil War?

because i mentioned that a number of spanish refugees that wound up in the french resistance figured that spain was a logical next step, and were sorely disappointed by the fact that yet again they were abandoned to franco.

because i mentioned that a number of spanish refugees that wound up in the french resistance figured that spain was a logical next step, and were sorely disappointed by the fact that yet again they were abandoned to franco.
also the spanish civil war is the prologue to ww2, i think almost all historians would agree on that. it was the first meaning in combat of fascism and communism.

you guys disgust me. A thread about WWII backstabs and no one has mentioned the failure of the red army to intervene when the Germans were putting down the Warsaw ghetto uprising.The Warsaw uprising (of 1944), not to be confused with the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (of 1943), was a backstab - but I have the same problem with it that I have with the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, it should have been expected.

well i confess i didnt know there were two uprisings in warsaw but hey, its not like i'm polish so i hope thats forgiveable. I dont see how the red army standing clsoe by and not intervening while civilians were being massacred is defensible. it served no purpose whatsoever.

well i confess i didnt know there were two uprisings in warsaw but hey, its not like i'm polish so i hope thats forgiveable. I dont see how the red army standing clsoe by and not intervening while civilians were being massacred is defensible. it served no purpose whatsoever.Well most of the "civilians" were from the anti-communist partisan forces (the communist and anti-communist partisans were not as bad as in Yugoslavia, but mostly beacue the anti-communists were so predominant). They died, leaving the communists of Poland in a much better position while weakening the Germans and allowing the Soviet forces to refit and regain strength for a final push into Germany. How can you say it served no purpose, it went a long way towards advancing international communism and providing a stble base for Polish communism. Inhumane and cynical sure, but it served a purpose.

well i confess i didnt know there were two uprisings in warsaw but hey, its not like i'm polish so i hope thats forgiveable. I dont see how the red army standing clsoe by and not intervening while civilians were being massacred is defensible. it served no purpose whatsoever.

It surely served a purpose for the Soviet Union! By allowing the resistance movement to be crushed, they denied the Polish government in exile in London an armed force/representation, and a say in what happens in post-war Poland. It allowed the Soviets to install their own satellite government, which took its orders from Moscow.

Great piece of realpolitik back-stabbing, but not the worse one of WWII.

JiangGuo

Well most of the "civilians" were from the anti-communist partisan forces (the communist and anti-communist partisans were not as bad as in Yugoslavia, but mostly beacue the anti-communists were so predominant). They died, leaving the communists of Poland in a much better position while weakening the Germans and allowing the Soviet forces to refit and regain strength for a final push into Germany. How can you say it served no purpose, it went a long way towards advancing international communism and providing a stble base for Polish communism. Inhumane and cynical sure, but it served a purpose.
just like that massacre of polish officers by the soviets that they blamed on the nazis(damn i can't think of the name of it). destroying the democratic or at least anticommunist officers corps was certainly a logical soviet move and blaming the nazis was also useful if not totally necessary.

Katyn forest massacre?

I'm surprised that no one mentioned Chang Kai-shek, the Nationalist/GMD/KMT 'Generalissmo' in China. Instead of joining with the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and their 8th route army. Chang kept trying to make peace with the Japanese with his concessions, and attack the CCP movement (his own countrymen!) while city after city fell.

A little to his credit though, he joined forces with the CPP eventually when one of his own officers literally had to threaten him with death). That was the Xinjen (sp?) incident.

JiangGuo

i would have to say when hitler started sending the gays
who had brought him to power to the first death camps.

he did this even before he started exterminating jews.

=^^=
.../\...

England and France refusing to allie with Hitler over the Jewish Question

The murder of SAS uniformed soldiers by the Germans.
The murder of many of those (British) captured my the Germans after the great escape.

There were quite a few major backstabs that you really can't differentiate in the search for the "biggest" one...

1) 'Operation Barbarossa' Launched 22nd June, 1941. Hitler went completely against previous treaties with Stalin and invaded, which was really not a good idea, as this only rallied the Soviets (with a little help from Stalinist propaganda ;) ) and forced the USSR into a massive growth spurt in military power. Luckily the invasion was deterred, however the true motivations behind Hitler's invasion are questionable. He could have possibly trying to revive the Schlieffen Plan from WWI in which France would be attacked, and Russia soon after (the plan flopped in WWI)

2) 'Operation Overlord' Launched June 6th, 1944. While it's not a back-stabbing per se, it still quallifies as one of the most ingenous deceptions of all time. The Allies used everything from fake armies (designed to decieve German reconnaissance) to Fake CIA agents (a ship was blown up offshore and an unidentified dead sailor was set adrift with documents detailing a completely false attack attached him in a suitcase, the body was intended to be found by the Germans and confuse the crap out of 'em) to fake Paratroopers ('Rupert' a small manaquin designed to imitate a paratrooper and blow up on landing to remove all evidence, designed to give the Germans the impression there were drops where there were in fact none). When the Allies landed, the Germans were caught off guard, and while they were expecting an attack, they were expecting it at a differen place, a different date, and a different style. Talk about a kick in the teeth!

3) 'The Manhattan Project' Begun September 17, 1942. The US development and subsequent use of the first Atomic Weapons the world had ever seen at Hiroshima (Tall Boy) and Nagasaki (Fat Man). This in essence changed the face of the planet through the birth of the Atomic Age, and began the Cold War. By extension, the US basically stabbed the entire human race in the back, as she invented the most powerful offensive weapon (No matter what anyone says, Nuclear Weapons can NEVER be considered defensive) known to man, and to use such weapons on innocent civilians!?! twice!?! all to prevent Communist occupation! It is no wonder the Japanese still see the dropping of the two bombs as THE atrocity of WWII...

The biggest stab in the back was the bastard rumanians who kept switching sides and in the end attacked went against their allies (the hungarians) and recieved no repricutions while Hungary was again beaten like a dog as it has been repeatidly over the last few centuries!

i would have to say when hitler started sending the gays who had brought him to power to the first death camps.


Explain to me how the gays brought Hitler into power, or are you just talking about the purges of the SA?

3) 'The Manhattan Project' Begun September 17, 1942. The US development and subsequent use of the first Atomic Weapons the world had ever seen at Hiroshima (Tall Boy) and Nagasaki (Fat Man). This in essence changed the face of the planet through the birth of the Atomic Age, and began the Cold War. By extension, the US basically stabbed the entire human race in the back, as she invented the most powerful offensive weapon (No matter what anyone says, Nuclear Weapons can NEVER be considered defensive) known to man, and to use such weapons on innocent civilians!?! twice!?! all to prevent Communist occupation! It is no wonder the Japanese still see the dropping of the two bombs as THE atrocity of WWII...
well i agree that nuclear wepons could have never been a defensive wepon until they were used in wwII knowing that others have the bomb i feel safer knowing that we still have sub out there with it and having been on one of those subs i know that i the time came were we needed to we could knowing that others have bio and chem wepons and knowing we will nuke thier asses if they use them on us

Hhmmm. It's small scale, but still...

Denmark. My own country. The first three years Denmark was collaborating with the Germans. Members of the Danish military were encouraged to join Waffen-SS and fight for the Germans. It was offered as a career oppotunity and they were given a document stating that once service had ended in Waffen-SS they could return to their old position and retain their rank. People who where not military was merely given a pass of free return. Many of these were not Nazis in any form, but due to the German constitution foreigners were not allowed to join the Wehrmacht. Hence all foreigners were enrolled in SS. They went to the Eastern front and was paradropped straight into the Kursk pocket.
When the war was over Denmark had to do something to demonstrate the three black years was a mistake and that they were among the Allies. All survivors were tried in mock trials and shot on the harbor in Copenhagen. The police refused to participate in any way so resistence fighters had to perform the executions.
Now if that isn't backstabbing I don't know what is. It's almost 60 years ago I am still feel the shame is unbearable.

Hhmmm. It's small scale, but still...

Denmark. My own country. The first three years Denmark was collaborating with the Germans. Members of the Danish military were encouraged to join Waffen-SS and fight for the Germans. It was offered as a career oppotunity and they were given a document stating that once service had ended in Waffen-SS they could return to their old position and retain their rank. People who where not military was merely given a pass of free return. Many of these were not Nazis in any form, but due to the German constitution foreigners were not allowed to join the Wehrmacht. Hence all foreigners were enrolled in SS. They went to the Eastern front and was paradropped straight into the Kursk pocket.
When the war was over Denmark had to do something to demonstrate the three black years was a mistake and that they were among the Allies. All survivors were tried in mock trials and shot on the harbor in Copenhagen. The police refused to participate in any way so resistence fighters had to perform the executions.
Now if that isn't backstabbing I don't know what is. It's almost 60 years ago I am still feel the shame is unbearable.
another i have never heard of before

Well, Churchill gave the order that they "fight to the last man" and historians have painted a picture of the defeat being the fault of the defenders, but this is ignoring the fact that they had been starved of supplies and material which could have made the capture of Singapore something other than a foregone conclusion.

Well, even without modern fighters and tanks, they should've done a lot beter job defending Malaya and Singapore. Surrendering Northern Malaya when the Japanese landed at the Kra Isthmus was bad enough, but then leaving behind a lot of equipment, and most vital of all, three intact airfields, that is just unexcusable.

They also could have at least checked the Japanese advance down the peninsula, look at the 2nd Argylls, they extended their flanks into the jungle beyond the roadblocks, ad succeeded in slowing Japanese thrusts, had the rest of the forces done so, the Japanese advance could have been checked. And finally, once pushed out of Malaya, Percival should not have tried to defend every inch of Singapore, he should have had a larger central reserve to counterattack the Japanese.

I'm surprised that no one mentioned Chang Kai-shek, the Nationalist/GMD/KMT 'Generalissmo' in China. Instead of joining with the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and their 8th route army. Chang kept trying to make peace with the Japanese with his concessions, and attack the CCP movement (his own countrymen!) while city after city fell.

A little to his credit though, he joined forces with the CPP eventually when one of his own officers literally had to threaten him with death). That was the Xinjen (sp?) incident.

JiangGuo

China proper was invaded in 1937, the Xian incident was in 1936. And he didn't completely join forces with the Communists, he just stopped attacking them. But you cannot blame him for doing so after the Japanese seizure of Manchuria, he knew the Japanese would go after mainland China next, and China could not afford to stand divided, and an alliance between the KMT and Communists would never be a true alliance. He just failed to accomplish the task in time.

And once the war in China proper started, the Communists did even less than the Nationalists to stop the Japanese advance. The Nationalists attempted to fight in the Yangzte and Yalu river valleys, but the Japanese slaughtered them, and after the effective defeat of the KMT in Central China in 1938, it was the KMT that bore the brunt of the Japanese "rice offensives" and finally the Ichi-Go Offensive.

The murder of SAS uniformed soldiers by the Germans.
The murder of many of those (British) captured my the Germans after the great escape.


considering how the germans and russians treated each others prisoners and how the japanese treated any prisoners they captured, a few brits with german slugs behind their ears is hardly of a scale worth mentioning. considering the millons of german and japanese and russian and chinese civilians slaughtered again those few misused brits hardly seem worth remembering. i bet the japanese did worse to more brits in the pacific.

.... knowing that others have bio and chem wepons and knowing we will nuke thier asses if they use them on us

Yeah, and survive for about 5 minute before the bombs start dropping and the human race goes 'kaput'.

Biggest 'stab in the back' of WW2? Western governments continuing to teach their children to this day the war was all about fighting fascism.

What a load of bovine excrament.

Not as classy as Bulgaria (IIRC) who ended up nominally at war with both the Allies and the Axis at the same time for a period.
So Bulgaria was the John Kerry of WW2?

So Bulgaria was the John Kerry of WW2?

Listen. It's not like there is a shortage of threads related to or directly rambling about the upcoming excuse of an election. (Un)fortunately only Americans really gives a *beeeep* so why don't you pack your Kerry complex and move it to a thread where it belongs.
But to be polite and answer your question; no, Bulgaria was not the Kerry of WWII. Bulgaria never cared about getting their POWs back for instance.