United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (GBR)
History of our Czechoslovak fighter squadron during World War II
The policy of appeasement is often criticized, either by experts or by public opinion. However, not all the circumstances behind its origin are generally known, and therefore a number of incorrect conclusions are drawn.
1. The British policy of appeasement Appeasement is a policy that recognizes the principles of non-interference and non-influence of the internal affairs of other states. It seeks to find common ground and resolve conflicts in a moderate manner, which sometimes requires material forms of concessions. Opinions on him, however, vary widely. Some people see appeasement as a completely natural phenomenon that accompanies diplomatic relations, because in an effort to reach mutual understanding, it is clear that states sometimes have to compromise on their demands. Others, on the other hand, see it as a sign of weakness and inconsistent foreign policy.
2. Developments after the First World War The First World War had a fundamental impact on the post-war image of Europe. It was officially ended after the signing of the armistice on November 11, 1918, but as the course of events itself showed, peace was just a short break from an even more terrifying conflict. The Great War did not solve the problems that led to its emergence. On the contrary, it brought with it great unemployment, which was caused mainly by soldiers returning home from the war. Shortly after its end, an epidemic of Spanish flu broke out, killing a huge number of people. The map of Europe has changed dramatically, many new states have emerged and, conversely, others have disappeared. The Bolshevik revolution broke out in Russia, and Europe feared that it might spread to neighboring states.
3. Development of appeasement in the 1930s Ramsay MacDonald formed the second Labor government in 1929, but it was not very successful. Its hopes for smooth operation were dashed by the collapse of the New York Stock Exchange in the same year, which brought with it many problems that the government had to deal with. Before the stock market crash, Britain exported much of its production to the United States, but demand has now been severely shaken and declined, or in some markets even disappeared altogether. MacDonald's cabinet finally fell in 1931 because he was unable to agree on how to deal with the consequences of the crisis and what items to reduce the budget.
4. British foreign policy and the crisis of appeasement The United Kingdom was forced to solve a number of foreign policy problems in the 1930s. Britain found itself on the brink of war with Italy after occupying the free state of Abyssinia and Japan, which occupied part of China's territory. For her concessions, especially to Italy, she was often criticized, but Germany was seen as a potentially greater threat and therefore could not antagonize the two states.
Conclusion The choice of appeasement policy was influenced by a number of factors. Whether it was the not very happily concluded Treaty of Versailles with Germany, or the lack of potential allies with whom Britain could form an effective alliance against Nazi Germany. Britain saw the priority in dealing with internal affairs and in good relations within its Empire. The British dominions sought to gain more and more independence, either in the area of free trade and their growing domestic markets, or in the area of greater decision-making powers. Dominia has made it clear that they will not allow themselves to be drawn into a war due to a small European state. For Britain, the empire was a large market for its products and served as a source of raw materials, so it had to take her opinion into account. Another role was played by public opinion, which wanted to avoid war at all costs and therefore encouraged the government to maintain good relations with Germany.
Introduction The policy of appeasement is often criticized, either by experts or by public opinion. However, not all the circumstances behind its origin are generally known, and therefore a number of incorrect conclusions are drawn.
The Battle of Britain is the first purely air battle in the history of war. Its entire course took place only in the air, where it was also decided on the result. As it is named today, it was called Winston Churchill, who after the defeat of France declared: "The battle for France is over. I expect the battle for Britain to begin. " And history proved him right, indeed less than a month after the signing of the armistice between France and Germany, the RAF and the Luftwaffe fought in British skies.
Luftwaffe Between September 1939 and the summer of 1940, the German war machine rolled over much of Europe, and its blitzkrieg can certainly be considered effective. The Luftwaffe played an undeniable role in these victories. However, she always fought as part of the German war units. As in Poland and the Western campaign, it was faced with the task of gaining air superiority, but it is very important to realize that this happened at the same time as the Wehrmacht's advance. The Battle of Britain was to be different. The Luftwaffe first had to fight for air superiority on its own, and then it was Wermacht's turn.
In any battle, the outcome depends not only on good military leadership, but also on the technical capabilities of the weapons. It was in the Battle of Britain that it became clear how small technical differences could play a big role. Therefore, let us now look at what the Luftwaffe had at the time of the battle.
The task of the RAF was to resist the German attack and at the same time retain sufficient strength to defend in the event of an invasion of the British Isles. On her side stood tenacity, the desire to defend the homeland or fight the hated Luftwaffe, and the desire to persevere to a victorious end. The Battle of Britain was one of the decisive battles of World War II. St. v. and in the event of the defeat of Britain in this encounter, it is very likely that the face of Europe would look quite different today. Many of those who fought in this battle were well aware of this. Today, we can only look with admiration and respect at the men who made several combat sorties a day and often returned to their troops the same day after being shot down to take to the skies again to fight the Nazi threat.
In addition to the aforementioned Supermarine Spitfire Mk I and Hawker Hurricane Mk I, the RAF Fighter Command also used the Boulton Paul Defiant Mk I and the Bristol Blenheim MkI modified as a heavy (mostly night) fighter to defend the islands. The Spitfire and Hurricane make up the vast majority of all fighters, with the Hurricanes dominating the majority. Both types were justifiably very popular with British pilots.
The battle began on July 10 and ended on October 31, 1940, culminating on September 15. In various sources we can meet the dating of the battle mostly from July to October 1940, but sometimes also from August to October or December 1940.
Contents The Battle of Britain is the first purely air battle in the history of war. Its entire course took place only in the air, where it was also decided on the result. As it is named today, it was called Winston Churchill, who after the defeat of France declared: "The battle for France is over. I expect the battle for Britain to begin. " And history proved him right, indeed less than a month after the signing of the armistice between France and Germany, the RAF and the Luftwaffe fought in British skies.
The turning point that separates Phase 1 from Phase 2 is the Adler Tag. The German command set this day as the day when the RAF was to be brought to its knees and completely paralyzed in the next few days. The optimism prevailing among the German leaders was mainly due to a lack of information about the strength of the opponent.
A massive attack is planned for the first day. The weather has been very good since the morning, promising a challenging day for both parties.
Perhaps one of the readers is wondering why it is necessary to talk about a fourth phase, when it was already clear at the beginning of October that there would be no invasion.
In this battle, the RAF became the winner, even though the Luftwaffe had a noticeable advantage. With the exception of a few raids on landing units and Berlin, the British defended themselves exclusively, and it must be admitted that the tenacity of pilots, mechanics and other personnel not only at airports, but radar operators, ground observers, is admirable.
At the end of the 17th century, the question of succession to the childless Charles II came to the attention of European rulers. The confiscation of the Spanish heritage would upset the balance on the European continent ...
He defended his homeland! He did not wait for his doom and, rather than work at home for Hitler's 'Third Reich', he fled across the border and joined the Royal Air Force, knowing that this was the only way to fight Nazi terror.
Summer in Britain is really unusually hot this year (2011). Following the wiretapping scandal of the tabloid newspaper media mogul Robert Murdoch, News of the World , which is unparalleled in British history in its scope and depth, comes another shock for British society. The biggest, most destructive and worst riots in decades, which engulfed Britain's most important metropolises for five nights.
This article briefly describes the conflict between England and France lasting several centuries - from the conquest of England in 1066 by the Norman Duke William, who connected England with Normandy, and thus inevitably led it to conflict with France, until the end of the 15th century, when France gained about today's territorial area - focusing on the period referred to as the Hundred Years' War, but also the internal development in England and France at that time.
The jealousy and growing divisions between feudal England and France reached such a level in the first half of the 14th century that there was an open clash between these countries, the so-called Hundred Years' War. The roots of this war go deep into the past, in fact until the early Middle Ages, when the famous Anglo-French antagonism arose.
The immediate pretext for this conflict was the dispute between the two countries over supremacy in rich Flanders. Before the beginning of the Hundred Years' War, the French had the upper hand and, at the instigation of King Philip VI of France. In 1336, Count Ludvík of Flanders had all the English living in Flanders arrested. This was followed by retaliation by England against all Flemish traders on the island, and a ban on the export of English wool to Flanders and the import of Flemish products into England.
Dauphin Charles ascended the French throne as Charles V called the Wise, and in a few years the French resumed fighting. Now, however, they had changed tactics and, under the leadership of the capable Brittany soldier Bertrand de Guescelin, were waging a petty war, defending the cities and avoiding major battles.
Henry ruled all of Normandy, and in 1420 he made a treaty in Troyes with Queen Isabella of France and Philip the Good Duke of Burgundy. According to her, Jindřich was to marry the daughter of Charles VI. Catherine and after his father-in-law's death sit on the French throne. At that time, the English also found a powerful ally in the Duke of Burgundy.
After the expulsion of the English, the whole revival of France began. Charles VII he chose counselors from among the petty nobility and burghers, with the help of which he rid the country of marauding gangs of former mercenaries. He built a permanent army, a powerful weapon against the nobility and the external enemy. Towards the end of his reign he had to contend with the revolt of his masters, on whose side was also his son dauphin Ludvík , who after his father's death in 1461 ascended the throne as Louis XI .
Overview of significant events of the Hundred Years' War.
The story of a soldier who did not want to accept defeat. Journey through Poland and France to England to the deployment at Dunkirk
The text of the oath taken by Czechoslovak pilots during World War II in Great Britain.
Many authors have already dealt with economic, political or diplomatic events between the Soviet Union and Great Britain. We are talking about a topic that has fundamentally shaped the development of history continuously for almost the entire last century. Efforts to capture and point out the main differences between the two world powers during their historical development have therefore also been described and summarized in a number of scholarly books or case studies and texts.
2 The period 1930 - 1933 For the clarity of the development of assumptions important for building mutual relations between Great Britain and the Soviet Union during the 1930s, the thesis individually deals with the political, economic and diplomatic field. The division and a more detailed overview then focus on their summary at the end of each chapter, which then serves at the end of the thesis to answer the fundamental questions of the analysis of the thesis.
3 The period 1934 - 1937 For the sake of clarity in the development of assumptions important for building mutual relations between Great Britain and the Soviet Union during the 1930s, the diploma thesis deals individually with political, economic and diplomatic areas. The division and a more detailed overview then focus on their summary at the end of each chapter, which then serves at the end of the thesis to answer the fundamental questions of the analysis of the thesis.
4 The period 1938 - 1939 For the clarity of the development of assumptions important for building mutual relations between Great Britain and the Soviet Union during the 1930s, the thesis individually deals with the political, economic and diplomatic field. The division and a more detailed overview then focus on their summary at the end of each chapter, which then serves at the end of the thesis to answer the fundamental questions of the analysis of the thesis.
5 Analytical analysis For the comparison of the theory presented and described in the diploma thesis with the own analytical analysis, it is essential to define the fundamental institutes in both analyzed countries. A mutual comparison of their importance in individual time periods for both the Soviet Union and Great Britain, using the method of multi-criteria analysis, should clarify from the point of view of institutional economics the interconnectedness of political, economic and diplomatic relations between the analyzed countries during the 1930s.
6 Conclusion The theoretical part, together with the results of the analytical section of the thesis clarified the mutual Soviet - British economic, political and diplomatic relations from 1930 - 1939. Their interaction in the historical period of the last century developed throughout to a certain extent, positively, but mainly also negatively, they contributed to the final state at the end of the 1930s.
7 Sources used and literature
1 Introduction A number of authors have dealt with economic, political or diplomatic events between the Soviet Union and Great Britain. We are talking about a topic that has fundamentally shaped the development of history continuously for almost the entire last century. Efforts to capture and point out the main differences between the two world powers during their historical development have therefore also been described and summarized in a number of scholarly books or case studies and texts.
The work aims to get acquainted with the situation in Northern Ireland. It maps the historical causes of the conflict and its development through the key events of the 20th century to the present. Each chapter looks at the conflict from a different perspective, whether political, diplomatic or cultural, which is important for understanding the conflict itself.
Chapters devoted to culture and society deal with the response to the conflict at the level of the average citizen and his ability to participate in the peace process through his own efforts.
In the last part, which deals with recent developments, the work provides information on outbreaks of disputes, which are repeated every year and summarizes the various points that need special attention in the future.
Northern Ireland has been the scene of many battles and wars for over 800 years. We can characterize it as a multicultural society, where the citizens of the Catholic and Protestant faiths predominate. Until the declaration of independence of the southern part of the island, the Republic of Ireland, after the Easter Rising of 1921, the situation was relatively calm.
Ireland and the United Kingdom - two islands whose northern parts have always inevitably affected each other and caused many misunderstandings. The origins of the conflict in Northern Ireland date back to the 12th century, when England was conquered by the Normans and, at the request of the ruler of the Kingdom of Ireland in Leinster Murchad, in 1167, landed on the Irish coast, disrupting millennial Celtic development. Although their population grew throughout Ireland, they controlled only a small part of Dublin, at the time called "The Pale". In the following centuries, settlers from Normandy and neighboring England came to Ireland. Some quickly assimilated into Irish culture, others still turned to England, where they saw security and safety.
To understand the situation in Northern Ireland, it is important to familiarize yourself with the facts that preceded or are a direct part of the conflict. The conflict in Northern Ireland is considered to be an ethnic conflict mainly because of the different religious societies living here and their different cultures and orientations, but even this designation is ambiguous.
The last straw and at the same time a significant turn in the history of the conflict in Northern Ireland was marked by the 1970s, when the era of the "bloody decade" called "The Troubles" came. These years did not only mean violent attacks and bombings, but also the years of the first attempts in a series of negotiations and efforts to calm and peacefully resolve the situation. The final interim solution - the Belfast Agreement - was preceded by almost 30 years of fighting and failed peace attempts. In those 30 years, 3,636 people have been killed and another 36,000 have been injured by the spread of the conflict beyond Ireland's borders to British soil and beyond.
In essence, the Irish conflict was a dispute over 150 years of history. As early as 1860, there were intricate political networks of Irish Republicans leading to Ireland, Britain, Australia and the United States. Assistance from other states has therefore gone through the whole conflict, to a greater or lesser extent. In addition to the occasional arms smuggling for the IRA from the Middle East, Europe and the United States, the United States in particular has joined the peace process, and later, from a political and economic point of view, the European Union.
The three colors on the flag of the Republic of Ireland, designed to mirror the country's political realities, also express the will of the people and political effort. Orange represents Irish Protestants, green Catholics, and the white stripe between them symbolizes the hope for peace that may one day be fully achieved.
Overview of sources and literature
In today's Northern Ireland, great progress is being made in getting to know each other's cultures, but the situation still requires a great deal of patience, diplomacy, concessions and mutual respect. Distrust, fear of the unknown and the different cultural and political orientations of the two groups need to be overcome.
The first part of a series devoted to the impact of Lend-Lease aid on the USSR's war effort, which seeks to answer the basic question - "How beneficial was this aid to the USSR?" According to most, the Soviet Union would have defeated Germany without this help. Is it probably clear that this information flows mainly from the ranks of communist historians, however, what is the reality?
Part 10 of a series on the impact of Lend-Lease aid on the USSR's war effort. "The Soviet Union would not be able to do without a supply of Allied aircraft in a critical situation!" "Aircraft deliveries accounted for only 2% of all machines for the Soviet Union."
These are just two of the overall views on the issue of aircraft supply within Lend Lease. But what are the real data and dates for 1941 and 1942?
Part 11 of a series on the impact of Lend-Lease aid on the USSR's war effort.
"The Soviet Union would not be able to do without a supply of Allied aircraft in a critical situation!" "Aircraft deliveries accounted for only 2% of all machines for the Soviet Union."
These are just two of the overall views on the issue of aircraft supply within Lend Lease. But what are the real data and dates for 1941 and 1942?
The twelfth part of a series on the impact of Lend-Lease aid on the USSR's war effort, trying to uncover the fundamental question - "How beneficial was the USSR's anti-aircraft systems assistance?"
The thirteenth part of a series on the impact of Lend-Lease's aid on the USSR's war effort, trying to uncover the fundamental question - what effects did LL and beyond have ever had on the state budget, and did the Soviets ever pay for massive supplies from the Allies? To this day, both issues are interpreted very creatively by lay people ( eg political commentators ), politicians and historians.
The second part of a series devoted to the impact of Lend-Lease's aid on the USSR's war effort to answer the basic question - "What was the mood among the population?" Was the population in favor of the ruling regime, and in 1941 and 1942 everyone fought "fiercely" for the Motherland, or was the mood much more complicated by the plurality of opinions?
The third part of a series devoted to the impact of Lend-Lease aid on the USSR's war effort, which seeks to answer the fundamental question - "How critical was food aid to the USSR?" According to most, the Soviet Union would have defeated Germany without this help. It is probably clear that this information flows mainly from the ranks of communist historians, but what is the reality?
The fourth part of a series devoted to the impact of Lend-Lease aid on the USSR's war effort, which seeks to answer the basic question: "How critical was technological aid to the USSR?" Very little mentioned part of Lend-Lease help, which in my opinion was one of the very important, but still not very visible parts of the program!
The fifth part of a series on the impact of Lend-Lease aid on the USSR's war effort, which seeks to answer the fundamental question: " How critical was technological aid to the USSR? “A very little mentioned part of Lend-Lease's help, which in my opinion was one of the very important, but still not very visible parts of the program!
... To be continued ...
The sixth part of a series devoted to the impact of Lend-Lease's aid on the USSR's war effort, which seeks to answer the basic question: "How critical was aid to logistics for the USSR?" Very often analyzed chapter especially with regard to the supply of trucks, but slightly neglected in the section devoted to railways and overall railway infrastructure.
The seventh part of a series on the impact of Lend-Lease aid on the USSR's war effort to answer the basic question: "How critical was aid to logistics for the USSR?" railway and overall railway infrastructure.
The eighth part of a series devoted to the impact of Lend-Lease aid on the USSR's war effort, which seeks to answer the basic question: "How critical was aid to logistics for the USSR?" This part is mainly devoted to railways and general railway infrastructure.
Part 9 of the series on the impact of Lend-Lease aid on the USSR's war effort to answer the basic question: "How critical was it in tank aid (especially from Britain) for the USSR in 1941 and 1942?" aid (tanks and aircraft) Lend-Lease greatly underestimated and neglected. Only research from 2006 brought new light to this issue.
The last part lists only the sources from which I drew during the writing of this article.
Commentary on the approaching 30th anniversary of the Falklands War.
Message from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Winston S. Churchill to the Czechs and Slovaks on the occasion of the second anniversary of the Munich Agreement (September 29, 1940)
On the first day of July 1940, with the entry of German troops on British soil, a four-year occupation of the British Isles began. However, it was not, as Hitler wished, the occupation of Great Britain itself, but only the occupation of the archipelago of the British Channel Islands.
The war for the Falklands could be called a war between the naive and over-nationalist government of the military junta on the one hand and the country defending its colonial territory at a time when colony ownership was no longer a vital interest. It is quite strange that the British Government was willing to go to war because of the islands, which are thousands of miles from the British Isles, especially when there is nothing on these islands other than sheep that is of any particular strategic importance. So why did the government risk this campaign, which could have done more harm than good? It is actually one of the few conflicts of the second half of the 20th century that was waged by two countries from the Western camp and was not waged between East and West, as was common in the Cold War.
The War of the Roses is one of the most interesting and at the same time the most complicated conflicts in medieval Europe. The thirty-year struggle for the English throne between the Lancaster and York factions was characterized by bloody clashes, intrigues, and the intricacies of relations between important English aristocratic families. At first glance, the whole conflict is a great chaos, in which some Edwardians and Richards constantly appear. In a series of articles on this war, we will try to introduce the various phases of the conflict and explain the nature and course of the entire conflict.
In this part of the series on the War of the Roses, we will recall the serious events that took place in the final phase of the Centennial War and influenced the emergence of the dynastic conflict in England. At the same time, we will gradually imagine the first important personalities who intervened in the conflict. the main motive, however, is the presentation of the first period of the reign of the weak King Henry VI, who played a large part in the outbreak of the War of the Roses.
Failures in the war and the incompetent government of Henry VI. and his advisers constantly deteriorated the state of society in England. It has not been a month before further evidence of incompetence and corruption appears at the royal court. Someone had to take an endless chain of failures. In this section, we will notice the root causes of the unhappy state of the Kingdom of England, just before the Rose War.
After the fall of one of the privileged men of the royal court, the situation worsened even more. Under King Henrich's incompetent leadership, the country rushed toward anarchy. The desperate state of the kingdom constantly provoked York to action, knowing that the King's favorite incompetent Duke of Somerset was to blame. The conflict between York and Somerset culminated.
The long-running conflict between King Edward IV. and his cousin the Prince of Warwick had been in crisis for a long time. Edward IV he did not allow himself to be controlled by his older cousin, which undermined Warwick's ambitions. Mutual disputes soon escalated into open rebellion. Prince Warwick planned to overthrow King Edward IV.
After a short but intense clash at St. Albans, the royal army disintegrated. The winner, the Duke of York, also fell under King Henry VI. The fate of the English throne was in his hands.
In 1460, the Duke of York lost patience and seized power. For years he tried to be a faithful servant of the throne, and his reward was only insults and debts. But even his followers were surprised by York's demands. His friends assumed that the aim of the uprising was to gain control of King Henry VI. and not deprive him of the throne. However, York uncompromisingly established his claim to the royal throne.
The Battle of Towton marked one of the major turning points in the conflict known as the War of the Roses. On the battlefield, Edward triumphed the prince of March and opened the way to the throne. The article describes the first years of his reign and deals with the problematic relationship between the king and his first nobleman, who went from a sincere friendship to an irreconcilable hatred.
To King Edward IV. managed to obtain in Burgundy the financial support he needed for his return to England. He diligently gathered his strength and managed to land successfully in England, where he soon formed a new army. He was ready and determined to defeat all the rebels and, in particular, to definitively deal with the Duke of Warwick.
After the defeat of the internal enemies, Edward IV. focused on foreign policy. He carried out a military campaign in France, which ended in a peace settlement between England and France. By the time he thrived on the thorn, the Duke of Clarence began to be angry again.
King Edward's last years were marked by peaceful rule, but also by health problems. It was clear that if the king died, Richard, of the Duke of Gloucester, would rule England in his son's age. However, there was a group in the court that thought differently.
After the death of King Edward IV. a ruthless power struggle broke out. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, played a major role in this fight. After the end of the conflicts of power, he ascended the throne as King Richard III. His accession to the throne, however, was accompanied by a number of crimes that completely ruined his reputation.
King Richard's reign was neither long nor peaceful. From the beginning, the monarch pitted many people against himself, and the unfortunate circumstances associated with his accession to the throne weakened his position. This rescued him at a time when he had to face Henrich Tudor's attempt to gain the throne.
I have been dedicated to history since I was 10 years old. While studying the history of World War II, I came across a personality who was making history at the time. It was Winston Churchill - the biggest star of the British Empire. Many books have been described about this man and it will be described and he has many pages on the net, just enter his name on Altavista and you will get to many less or more high-quality pages. Not only should all historians study it, but his life and work have an essential function for the study of political science, and we must not forget Churchill as a great writer and a decent painter.
Chapter 2 - The Young Soldier
Chapter 3 - Political Beginnings
Chapter 4 - Liberal politician
Chapter 5 - Depression and initiative in the First World War
Chapter 6 - Winston and Bolshevism
Chapter 7. - Return to the Conservatives
Chapter 8 - The German Threat
Chapter 9 - His greatest hour
There is an inexhaustible amount of literature about Winston Churchill, and it seems that as a historian does a different interpretation, sometimes it goes ad absurdum. Well, it simply follows from the fact that we are each different and each of us evaluates things differently. Neither those who glorify Churchill indefinitely nor those who insult him are right. In the end, however, we will all have to acknowledge the greatness of Winston Churchill, perhaps it would be good to paraphrase Jára Cimrman: “We can argue about that, we can disagree, but that's about all we can do about it. "