VE Day - Rush

Mortal Mindy's picture

It was 70 years ago this week that the Nazi's surrended.  From RT (Russia Today)  a rather excellent report: erm ok :

Geopoliticals buzzing and the possibility that history is being re-written, it is perhaps worth remembering that it was the Soviet's who paid the highest price.

On a less severe note, especially for pirates ;- ) the then secret missions of the Arctic Convoys gold runs (Russian gold for American Weapons) and details of these are slowly emerging:

Bit of background:

 "It's deplorable the way history is being falsified so casually. Not only the Soviets kept thanking the Americans on an official level for the lend-lease program, they actually PAID for all that cargo that sunk to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. As they paid fully for everything that was SOLD to them by the US during WWII. Yes, I said it right – tanks, fighters and bombers were not given to the USSR in a friendly gesture, that was in reality a commercial transaction. I guess there's a fundamental cultural difference at play here. When you are in the States, you dial a phone number and hear: 'How can I help you?', which in reality is a euphemism for 'What can I sell you?' Was it what the author meant? The Russians didn't say thank you after they paid for what they bought? Isn't a payment 'thank you' enough? Just for the record The Soviet Union never used US made tanks and bombers and the number of fighters was around 3000. Overall, according to Averell Harriman, US Ambassador to the USSR the US 'help' amounted to only 4% of the Soviet military industrial output from 1941-1945. So of course the Soviets were mad, 24 ships – 2/3 of the convoy sunk due to a cowardly decision to disband the military escort and they had to pay for it in gold!"

Old hat, but with the rise of UKIP,  and the certainty of the SNP's policies on Trident its mebbe worth a look at what future threat, if any, the Russian's pose:


May the fight against fascism continue ...

Now, about that Pirate Party ....



1 Comment

Capt. 'Bob''s picture

Scarbados, Nowt's Changed

For the short changed ;-)

Sept 1915 -  by Dr Jack Binns

Sept 2015 - Ed Asquith

Does the SN need an editor?

"Editor’s Comment:

Who would become a councillor? Not many of us, so we should be grateful to those who do.

Some of them relish the role for the status and need for ego, some because they are thoroughly selfless and community-minded, others because they have spare time on their hands.

But apart from the range of motivation, there is also the issue about quantity ... we have a lot of councillors. Too many, as others have already pointed out. But what has been done about it? Nothing.

Councillors who enjoy their hats are hardly likely to want to vote out their seats in the Town Hall.

But there is a greater issue than their own sensitivities ... next week when there is a meeting to discuss yet more savings on the budget, there cannot be any cuts unless the number of councillors is on the agenda. Fifty is far too many, and every organisation, every agency, every company has had to trim its budget accordingly. So should the borough council, by at least a third. The savings on expenses, allowances, laptops, broadband, iPads etc won’t amount to £9million but there cannot be talk of cuts when the number of councillors is absurd.

Ed Asquith, Editor"