View previous topic | View next topic

World War II ending year?

Page 4 of 8
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Sadurian Mike
574897.  Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:01 am Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
TBH, I always thought that the reason we didn't declare war on Russia following the invasion of Poland was because they were on our side.

In September 1939 the Soviets and Germany were officially allies. Distrustful, poles (sorry) apart in ideology, paranoid and both looking to betray the other at the first opportunity, but allies nonetheless.

Only when Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941 did Stalin join the Western Allies.

Neotenic wrote:
Then again, if you'd had Hitler and Stalin batting for the same team, they may well have cancelled each out and we'd have been left with an Axis coalition as benign as the Lib Dems.

There is certainly the possibility that the two leaders would have fallen out or worked against each other, but it is more likely that they would have simply divided the world into spheres of influence and concentrated on expanding into them. Russia had an eye on the Middle East and India, whilst Germany had western Europe to play in.

What would have happened after Britain and France (and possible the US, although they might have sensible stayed at home) had been defeated is anybody's guess but makes an interesting "what if". My conclusion would be a clash over some border region and then war, but by that time the Allies would be a smoking ruin.

 
Sadurian Mike
574952.  Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:35 am Reply with quote

Curious Danny wrote:
e) Hitler was doomed to lose the war as he made too many mistakes - he didn't knock Britian out of the war before concentrating on Russia, he didn't invade Russia quickly, instead advancing slowly on a genocide that saw his troops freeze to death besieging cities, he swapped from destroying the RAF to bombing London and he transferred troops and equipment to support the Holocaust while D-Day was occuring.

There is a good deal of post-war assertion that Hitler didn't know what he was doing. In fact, many of his decisions and plans were perfectly sound and were actually blocked or modified by the General Staff. That's not to say that the man was a strategic genius, but he was a lot more on the ball than he often given credit for. Later in the war, of course, he started to lose his mental grip but this was not completely true for the early years.

The invasion of Britain was doomed once the Battle of Britain failed to gain air superiority. The only way that the Germans could have brought in a large enough invasion fleet would have been to have full control of the skies so as to protect the landing barges from air attack and the Royal Navy. Much of the blame for losing the Battle of Britain can be assigned to Goering, but also a complacency after the easy victories in Poland and France plus a failure to realise the value of radar in the British strategy.

The advance into Russia was swift enough, but it kept being slowed, not by genocide, but by the Russian tenacious defence. Even when surrounded and outnumbered, groups of Russians would organise themselves and attack German supply columns or rear areas. Many German letters back home mentioned that the Russians didn't seem to know when they were beaten. The advance on Moscow was not given priority because Hitler wanted to destroy the Russian army. Napoleon had shown that capturing Moscow could be a hollow victory, and Hitler was more interested in smashing the Soviet military than in capturing prizes. He thought (probably correctly) that a struggle for Moscow would only see months of street fighting and not the collapse of the Soviet government or morale.

Arguably his biggest mistake, and that which led to Germany's defeat, was his meddling in the 6th Army's advance to the Caucasus oil fields and the stripping of army assets to aim for several different goals at the same time, thus ensuring none of the aims were achievable. The end result was the disaster (for Germany) at Stalingrad, the war's major turning point.

The genocide was a somewhat seperate function; each conquered territory was allocated a governor, and they were responsible for keeping law and order and for supplying slave labour. For this they raised special units of political paramilitaries, including SS units (the SS fighting as regular front line soldiers were known as Waffen SS and were a seperate branch). The regular army did not really get involved in the the genocide and Holocaust so it is a little misleading to assign German defeats to these factors, although undoubtedly they led to a greater resistance movement by the occupied people.

 
Curious Danny
574994.  Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:47 am Reply with quote

Yeah, you obviosuly have better info than i have Mike but i do feel that a fanatic like Hitler surrounded by sycophants after the Blomberg-Fritsch affair of 1938 was probably more liable than the allies to big blunders based on ideology instead of pragmatism.
One thing i learned in a Laurence Rees lecture (the guy who did a "The Nazis - a warning from history) was that while we now go "Hitler invaded Russia - what an idiot", at the time of the attack Britain gave Russia 6 weeks before they would fail. Also, why we see France as a wimp, some of Hitler's generals were afraid of a repeat of 1914 and another long trench war instead of the speedy vicotry of blitzkreig. If anything, it shows us that while WII is a major part of history, our knowledge of it is still full of holes.
Arguably, the biggest turning point in the war was when Stalin, ready to flee the german advance, decided to stay and fight. If Stalin had abandoned the western cities at that point, nobody would have stayed to defend them, despite the great bravery of the ordinary russians.
Incidently, couldn't the great bravery shown by the russian soliders be something to do with the barbaric way the soliders were treated? I heard a story about the defence of the caucacus oil fields where Stalin told the general to destroy the oilfields if the germans win or he would be killed. However, if he destoryed them and the germans didn't win, he would be killed.

 
bobwilson
575541.  Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:38 pm Reply with quote

Hang on Mike. You seem to be arguing against yourself.

My point is that Britain declared war on Germany ostensibly because Germany invaded Poland. It didn't declare war on Russia although Russia invaded Poland.

You claim that Russia had a "quasi-legal" excuse for invading Poland and this explains the (political) decision not to declare war on Russia. As evidence for this, you produce information which shows that the USSR believed that a German / Polish armistice was imminent. That kind of makes my point.

I don't disagree that not declaring war on Soviet Russia was a sensible decision. I'm merely pointing out that the fiction that Britain went to war to protect the integrity of Poland is just that - a fiction.

Although, I do think my point is more forcefully made by Curious Danny with his "A Level" understanding. That is exactly the type of rubbish that is passed off as history to modern students and unfortunately sounds entirely plausible (sorry Danny - but it's utter tripe).

 
bobwilson
575542.  Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:17 pm Reply with quote

Curious Danny wrote:
As a A-Level student who has just spent a year studying the runup to the war, i feel my view might help settle this.

a) It is true that Britain didn't want a war, partly due to public pacifism and vast imperial commitments that left Britian vulnerable. This is why appeasement was adopted - short of declaring war, Britain had no other way of controlling events on the continent - France was weak and divided and no counterweight against Germany. It needed British support - we didn't help until the last minute so that was a major failing on our part.
b) Poland was used as justification but this was because by this point Germany was very powerful. Defending Poland was more a symbolic gesture to say "you have gone too far, Hitler". If we were commited to independence of European countries, they would have bothered to have invited a Czech representative to Munich and wouldn't have allowed Poland to be moved miles west after the war and would have declared war on Russia over massacres such as Katyn.
c) Russia had no claims over Polish territory. If anything, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was to make sure Russia didn't intervene in the Polish conquest. Russia would not do anything against the will of Germany, it gained territory because Hitler allowed it.
d) A alliance between Russia and Germany was doomed to fail due to Hitler's fanatical hatred of Russia. Hitler's target was always Russia; indeed, he had spent several years trying to turn Poland into a satellite that could insist in his invasion.
e) Hitler was doomed to lose the war as he made too many mistakes - he didn't knock Britian out of the war before concentrating on Russia, he didn't invade Russia quickly, instead advancing slowly on a genocide that saw his troops freeze to death besieging cities, he swapped from destroying the RAF to bombing London and he transferred troops and equipment to support the Holocaust while D-Day was occuring.

Hope this clears up some of the argument, but i doubt it.


Just to clear up some points:

Quote:
It is true that Britain didn't want a war

implies that somebody other than Britain did want a war. Nobody wanted a war. Germany had ambitions but had every intention of achieving these without war (although being prepared to wage war if necessary).

Quote:
This is why appeasement was adopted - short of declaring war, Britain had no other way of controlling events on the continent


Appeasement wasn't adopted - it was accepted. To say it was "adopted" implies that it was a preferred solution - in fact, it was the only possible course of action. With hindsight it now appears to be true that had there been any forceful response to the re-militirisation of the Rhineland then a completely different history would be in place, but at the time and with the information available, the events after that were inevitable.

Quote:
Poland was used as justification but this was because by this point Germany was very powerful. Defending Poland was more a symbolic gesture to say "you have gone too far, Hitler".


Er no. Poland was the Rubicon. Rather late in the day it became apparent what Germany's plans were - a line needed to be drawn. It was too late to draw the line where it should have been drawn (the remilitarisation of the Rhineland) so an arbitrary line was chosen instead. Britain had no particular reason to defend Poland.

Quote:
If we were commited to independence of European countries, they would have bothered to have invited a Czech representative to Munich and wouldn't have allowed Poland to be moved miles west after the war and would have declared war on Russia over massacres such as Katyn.


Is this the rubbish they teach at A Level these days? My Lai anyone? It's no wonder we've got John Prescott in the cabinet if this is what passes for education.

Quote:
Russia had no claims over Polish territory. If anything, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was to make sure Russia didn't intervene in the Polish conquest. Russia would not do anything against the will of Germany, it gained territory because Hitler allowed it.


Apart from the small error that "Russia had no claims over Polish territory" that's broadly correct. Chalk one up to a modern education.

Quote:
A alliance between Russia and Germany was doomed to fail due to Hitler's fanatical hatred of Russia. Hitler's target was always Russia; indeed, he had spent several years trying to turn Poland into a satellite that could insist in his invasion.


Indeed it was doomed to fail. But it's doubtful that anyone at the time would have realised that as a short term objective. The most probable analysis would have been for a fairly lengthy (10 year +) non-agression pact followed by a costly war.

Quote:
Hitler was doomed to lose the war as he made too many mistakes - he didn't knock Britian out of the war before concentrating on Russia, he didn't invade Russia quickly, instead advancing slowly on a genocide that saw his troops freeze to death besieging cities, he swapped from destroying the RAF to bombing London and he transferred troops and equipment to support the Holocaust while D-Day was occuring.


Straight out of Buster Gonad's Boy's Own Adventure Stories.

Hitler began the war against Russia when it was clear that Britain was defeated. And in the summer of 1941 there was absolutely no doubt that despite the cancellation of SeaLion Britain WAS defeated. I know it's unfashionable but the simple truth is that, invaded or not, Britain was irrelevant in late 1941. Ever wonder why British history glosses over the period after the Battle of Britain and before 1942? Because it's embarrassing - we were defeated.

Despite the heroic stories the truth is that Nazi Germany lost the war because of its own internal contradictions. But hey - why ruin a good yarn with death and glory for a plain truth? Go ahead - write your A Level essay and get an A Plus and go on to peddle the same old lies to a new generation.

 
Sadurian Mike
575561.  Sun Jun 28, 2009 2:38 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
You claim that Russia had a "quasi-legal" excuse for invading Poland and this explains the (political) decision not to declare war on Russia. As evidence for this, you produce information which shows that the USSR believed that a German / Polish armistice was imminent. That kind of makes my point.

The evidence I produced was to show that the Soviets were looking for an excuse to move into Poland that would not show them as naked aggressors (as Germany obviously were). They wanted the excuse of the Polish collapse to justify their actions. When they got wind of a possible German-Polish armistice they panicked because that would have removed their excuse at a stroke, and left them with the decision to either move in anyway and be seen as an invader, or simply to stay put. The fact that they were so concerned about the situation shows that their plan relied heavily on the political deception which would allow them to "legally" invade.

Interestingly, the same idea had been used by the Germans when invading Czechoslovakia. After the initial occupation of the Sudetenland, Hitler put pressure on the Czech leader to call for German help following a wholely ficticious Czech-Slovak internal dispute. Hitler's subsequent move into the rest of Czechoslovakia (and Hungary's opportunistic move into Subcarpathian Ruthenia) led to calls for Britain to declare war, but Chamberlain avoided it by claiming that the Czechoslovakian government had already collapsed. This was, of course, Hitler's plan, and it is interesting that Stalin used exactly the same pretext in Poland.

If that makes your point then so be it. I'm not sure it contradicts anything that I've said, however.

bobwilson wrote:
I don't disagree that not declaring war on Soviet Russia was a sensible decision. I'm merely pointing out that the fiction that Britain went to war to protect the integrity of Poland is just that - a fiction.

It is not fiction, but it is certainly not the whole story (and very few historians would claim it to be the case). The reason Britain (and France) declared war on Germany was because Germany refused to leave Poland and Britain and France had signed an agreement with Poland to go to war to protect her against European invasion (specifically Germany). That was the trigger.

The reasons why the agreement had been signed in the first place have to do with a desire to check Hitler's aggressive military expansionism.

The reasons for the situation in the first place have to do with Hitler's (and Germany's) desire to assert the country's power again after the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty.

The Versaille Treaty was because of WWI.

WWI was because of....

And so on and so forth.

You can take the reasons for the reasons back as far as you like, probably back to the first hominid wanting what the second hominid had and bashing him to get it. At some point, however, it is simpler to draw a line and state that X is the immediate cause of Y.

In the case of WWII, the trigger for Britain and France declaring war was the invasion of Poland.

 
Sadurian Mike
575579.  Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:03 am Reply with quote

Curious Danny wrote:
One thing i learned in a Laurence Rees lecture (the guy who did a "The Nazis - a warning from history) was that while we now go "Hitler invaded Russia - what an idiot", at the time of the attack Britain gave Russia 6 weeks before they would fail.

Absolutely.

Russia was a giant, but one wracked with internal troubles and disputes. She had shown herself to be militarily incompetent against Finland and Japan and it was a reasonable assumption at the time that an invasion by well-trained and experienced troops would defeat her. Indeed, the huge numbers of prisoners taken in the first few weeks seemed to bear out that assumption.

Unfortunately for Germany (and previous invaders), the vast distances and practically unlimited manpower reserves were difficult to comprehend for Western European thinking. German troops used to go mad just driving across the plains; it was likened to being lost at sea with no appreciable landmarks for the eye to focus on.

In addition, all (or, rather, most) of the internal fighting was forgotten in the face of the threat to "Mother Russia". Those Ukrainians who could potentially have been sympathetic to the Germans were soon disabused of this by the attitude and actions of the German soldiers who had long been taught to regard and treat them as subhumans.

Even so, Germany came close to winning by capturing key resources and industrial areas. Many believe that had the Caucasus oil fields fallen, and had so much industry not been shipped East of the Urals, Russia would have been unable to continue the war past 1943.

Curious Danny wrote:
Also, why we see France as a wimp, some of Hitler's generals were afraid of a repeat of 1914 and another long trench war instead of the speedy vicotry of blitzkreig. If anything, it shows us that while WII is a major part of history, our knowledge of it is still full of holes.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The main problem with most wars is that the planning is for the last one. Only recently has this really been addressed, although it is still seen in some conflicts (Iraq, for example).

Interestingly, the German attack on France in 1940 was going to be a repeat of 1914, but the plans were captured when an officer carrying them landed accidentally in Belgium (which was neutral, but was sensible enough to retain the plans). This led to the switch to the Ardennes Offensive which really spelt the end of France as it faced second-line garrison troops, the first-line troops having been sent to counter the German decoy thrust into Holland and Belgium.

Even so, the actions of French units and commanders were poor, with entire sections of the front line running away when rumours were spread of tanks in the area, and French Generals paralysed with indecision and defeatism.

Curious Danny wrote:
Incidently, couldn't the great bravery shown by the russian soliders be something to do with the barbaric way the soliders were treated?

It is more likely the stubborn character of the people, as the Germans had not had time to demonstrate their poor treatment of prisoners by this stage. We are talking about the early stages of Barbarossa when units were cut off and surrounded by swift-moving German panzer divisions. In many cases they had no communications so any news of atrocities couldn't have reached them, yet they still carried on attacking when most nation's personnel would have surrendered.

The tenacity of the average Russian soldier is often contrasted with the poor training, equipment, and leadership, and I believe with good reason. For individuals it is usually disastrous, but for the military as a whole it makes them very difficult to defeat.

 
Sadurian Mike
575606.  Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:24 am Reply with quote

We seem to have wandered heavily into WWII's start date rather than its end.

Anyhow, the famous David Low cartoon of the time sums up most contemporary Briton's attitude to the Soviet story about entering Poland to protect it's inhabitants.

 
Sadurian Mike
575666.  Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:01 am Reply with quote

The German surrender took place twice!

The initial one took place at 0241hrs on the the 7th of May and was signed at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF), at that time in Rheims. The surrender document (below) took effect from 2301hrs CET (Central European Time) the next day.



The surrender was signed by Jodl for the Germans, in his role as military commander and ambassador for the new German head of state, Donitz. It brought to an end the (official) fighting in Europe. Note that the only Western Allied signature is that of the US General Smith, and that the French General Sevez was only called upon to sign as a witness.

The reason for the second "surrender" was that the Soviet representative was General Susloparov, the military liasion officer to SHAEF, whose authority to approve the surrender for Stalin was somewhat uncertain.

The Russians therefore demanded a second document be signed in Berlin under Soviet supervision, and this was duly done just before midnight CET on the 8th of May. This time it was Keitel (Chief of Staff), von Friedeburg (Commander-in-Chief of the navy), and Stumpff (airforce) who signed for the Germans. Notably, although representatives of the USSR, Britain, the US and France signed this second document, the USSR refused to allow the Polish to do so.

An interesting side-effect of the terms was that the surrender was of the German armed forces only, and not the civilian government. This was the reverse of the 1918 surrender which had been of the German civilian government but not the military, and which had been exploited by Hitler.

To get around this, the Allies chose not to recognise Donitz's government (which anyway was very limited in influence) and to instead form Germany's new government themselves by creating the Allied Control Council. This state of affairs was formally imposed on the 5th July 1945, although it had been in effect since May.

So, as to when did the war end? The fighting officially ended 8th May 1945, although various groups carried on armed struggles for political reasons (notably in Greece and Yugoslavia). This is the date most historians view the war in Europe to have ended for the simple reason that, without an enemy you cannot have a war.

 
Curious Danny
576028.  Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:05 am Reply with quote

thank you bob for being so aggressive on my points but i would like to point out that my a - level was up to the point when war was declared so my knowledge of the actual war is a bit sketchy.

However, it is ludicrous to suggest nobody wanted a war in 1939 - Hitler wanted a war, just not a World War. He was infuriated by his failure to invade Czechslovakia, remarking "that fool Chamberlain has spoiled my march into Prague". He was convinced that the allies would not intervene in his conquest of Poland but he was wrong. Hitler became more agressive as time passed, due to the arm race he had started through massive rearmament and his need to use his lead in arms to the fullest and fears of his own impending death.

When i say Appeasement was adopted, i should stress that it was a reactive policy mostly as Britian couldn't intefer militarily, but Chamberlain did actively follow appeasement over Czechslovakia, personally negotiating a settlement with Hitler, which admittedly he subsequently rejected but there you are.
In the same way, when i say Poland was symbolic, Britian was serious in saying it would defend Poland by declaring war on Germany but they couldn't actually help the Polish directly.

And unfortunatly, the UK foreign policy at the time was almost entirely self-interested and was not prepared to defend the sovereignity of Abyssinia or Czechslovakia and helped destroy the Stressa Front, a unified attempt against German rearmament, by signign the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Pact which allowed massive rearmament agianst Versialles by Germany. Granted, Britian helped defend much of Europe from Nazi rule, but it was more about maintaining a favourable balance of power in Europe at the start of the war than anything else, as was shown by Munich.

I still say that Germany would in the long-run lose the war as it commited tactical errors that weakened it considerably. It didn't finish Britain off, as Churchill rejected any compromise peace, allowing us to be a thorn in the dictator's side that allowed Hitler to be defeated (The US would have found it hard to participate without Britian's help). Arguably, our intervention in Greece helped topple Germany by delaying Barbossa by six weeks. Germany's failure to set up a war economy and their declaration of war on the USA were also big blunders that cost Hitler the war.

 
Sadurian Mike
576057.  Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:41 am Reply with quote

A small point to boost the ego of any Poles out there (...); the invasion of Poland caused the Germans so many casualties and losses in equipment that Hitler delayed the invasion of France until May the next year, so it is a myth that she just rolled over and collapsed. It is also a myth that the Polish air force was destroyed on the ground; they had been moved to secure shelters early on and most aircraft were destroyed in air combat (and took a good number of German aircraft with them). What really spelt the end for Poland was the Soviet invasion, but they didn't help themselves by adopting a "defend everywhere" approach against an enemy using Blitzkrieg tactics. This was done, however, to buy time for Britain and (especially) France to attack a very weak Western German border. The French did wander across with a few units but retreated almost immediately. Britain bombed a naval base (with heavy loss) but limited other air activity to dropping leaflets. This pretty much continued through the so-called "Phoney war", the pause between Poland and the invasion of Denmark and Norway.

Britain took advantage of this delay to build up and develop her army and (most importantly) her air force, but France sadly did not. The delay quite likely allowed Britain to win the Battle of Britain by giving her a chance to train pilots and set up factories for mass production of the new Spitfire, as well as amassing numbers of the existing Hurricane.

Talking of delays, the Anglo-French agreement with Poland also disrupted Hitler's invasion of that country, albeit only by a month. Some German units didn't get the updated schedule and a small firefight developed on the border until the new instructions were sent out.

 
dr.bob
576090.  Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:43 am Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
Unfortunately for Germany (and previous invaders), the vast distances and practically unlimited manpower reserves were difficult to comprehend for Western European thinking. German troops used to go mad just driving across the plains; it was likened to being lost at sea with no appreciable landmarks for the eye to focus on.


When I was at school, I was taught that a big component of German success at the start of the war was their tactic of blitzkrieg*, i.e. concentrating forces at one point on the border, pouring troops through the gap you made, and rushing into the country to take over before the enemy troops defending the rest of the borders could react effectively enough. Apparently this didn't work so well in Russia because it was such a bloody huge country you couldn't really rush through and take over quickly.

Though, no doubt, bobwilson or someone will tell me that my history teachers lied to me :)


*Even if "blitzkrieg" was not a Nazi invention, or even a word they used to describe it.

 
Sadurian Mike
576095.  Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:00 am Reply with quote

Blitzkrieg was, indeed, a German invention*. It had its roots in the German late WWI tactic of sending Stormtroopers (the original use of the term) forward to knock out sections of defence lines with a fast and vicious assault using plenty of grenades and flamethrowers. Once a gap was made, regular troops poured through to exploit the breach, and then more moved up to mop up any defence positions still holding out. Once tanks were developed they largely took over the role of the Stormtroopers, albeit with mechanised infantry support.

It did work in Russia to a large extent, but the shock and surprise caused by the tactic was one of the major ways it worked so well. When a suitable defence was used (such as defence in depth) it didn't work as well. In addition, it relied on a large number of tanks, motorised artillery and infantry and supply vehicles. A week or two into Barbarossa the Germans were becoming short of vehicles because of lack of maintenance and supply problems. The distances were so vast that moving supplies forward consumed a goodly percentage of them, so less were available at the front (the Western Allies found the same problems after D-Day, but on a smaller scale).

Also, of course, you cannot dash forwards with tanks and vehicles when the ground becomes impassable, as it did in the Autumn and Spring of 1941.

One more point about the Blitzkrieg tactics in Russia; the idea was that most troops will surrender or become far less effective when surrounded and cut off from their base and supplies. The Russians had a tenacity that made them fight on regardless. Although huge nembers were, indeed, taken prisoner, many carried on attacking the supply columns and rear-echelon units that were following the German spearheads. This slowed down the spearhead support and meant that the panzers became short of ammunition, maintenance and fuel until their support units could disentangle themselves and move forward.


*The idea of independent armoured units was raised in Britain, as was using combined arms for maximum effect, but it was the Germans who put all the pieces together to make the Blitzkrieg. The Ju87 (Stuka) was designed and built specifically to support these tactics.

 
exnihilo
576242.  Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:16 am Reply with quote

I'm glad I've missed this one up until now. If only I'd been allowed to write my thesis without any references whatever and could rely simply on saying that all previous historians were wrong, how much simpler my life would have been. But, if bobwilson is right and I'm actually part of a huge conspiracy to teach a false history, maybe I did just that?

On an unrelated note, the OP makes reference to the Queen in 1951 - is that the wrong year or the wrong monarch? In 1951 Elizabeth II was still just Princess Elizabeth and her mother was the Queen and consort to the King.

 
Sadurian Mike
576283.  Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:24 pm Reply with quote

That's what they want to think, but they're all lying.

 

Page 4 of 8
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group