NationStates Jolt Archive

I watched a BBC documentary the other day (D-Day to Berlin) and the last one detailed the Russian advance on Berlin and the way in which the Americans actually believed Stalin when he promised to set up democracies in the nations he had freed.

So before victory:

Most of Europe was under the control of one state
People were being massacred for political, religious and physical reasons
People were sentenced without trial
All native governments were puppet governments (see Vichy France)
The regime was run by a fundamentalist dictator
Propaganda was common place and the media was state controlled
The state functioned via the method of cult
War and invasion was a constant threat to those who remained free

So after victory:

Most of Europe was under the control of one state
People were being massacred for political and ethnic reasons
People were sentenced without trial
All native governments were puppet governments (see Poland)
The regime was run by a fundamentalist dictator
Propaganda was common place and the media was state controlled
The state functioned via the method of cult
War and invasion was a constant threat to those who remained free

The unfortunate reason that the Soviets were allowed to get so much land from allies is ultimately because of Roosevelt's susceptabiltiy to the charm of Stalin. Churchill (who, prior to 1941, had been the Communist Anti Christ) was much more sceptical about the nature of Stalin's regime and indeed Stalin's plans. He famously said to justify his alliance with the Communists:

If Hitler invaded Hell then I would at least make favourable consultations with the Devil

This is why Churchill (and Montgomery, the master mind of the D-Day operations) pushed Eisenhower and Roosevelt into capturing as much of Europe as possible to save it from the hands of Stalin.

Of course Roosevelt cannot be too heavly blamed. By the time of the Yalta agreement, he was an old man whose health was rapidly deterioating. But it is due to his naiviety in trusting Stalin's promise to grant democracy to those nations he liberated which led to half of Europe being imprisoned in tyranny until the 1990s.

Marginalising the Eastern theatre somewhat, no?

It helped the American and Soviet economies, gave us nuclear power, and (unfortunately) gave us the UN. :headbang:

Marginalising the Eastern theatre somewhat, no?

Well its fair to say that the Allies could have at least got to Berlin and Vienna before the Russians had the American generals realised that Stalin was not to be trusted.

Oh and if you referring to Japan, that simply achieved America's dominance in the Pacific and the end of British power in South East Asia.

I guess this sums it all up neatly.

It helped the American and Soviet economies, gave us nuclear power, and (unfortunately) gave us the UN. :headbang:

The UN isnt a new thing - since 1815 and the Concert of Europe, there have been attempts at mass diplomatic organisations to keep the peace. So far all have failed as the UN has - afterall it couldn't stop America declaring war on Iraq could it?

I have a sneaking suspicion that Roosevelt knew exactly what he was doing when he handed Eastern Europe to Stalin.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Roosevelt knew exactly what he was doing when he handed Eastern Europe to Stalin.

So he gave Eastern Europe to a power that America would end up fighting for the next 50 years?

World War II made the world even worse off. We never should have fought that war in the first place. We should have let the Soviets and Nazis wipe each other out, and then finished off the winner.

World War II made the world even worse off. We never should have fought that war in the first place. We should have let the Soviets and Nazis wipe each other out, and then finished off the winner.


The Nazis were sinking a lot of our ships. They were also lumping up a few of our friends. I think we did the right thing.

It helped the American and Soviet economies

I would debate that since the Soviet economy was virtually destroyed by the war, despite the movement of industry to east of the Urals. European Russia where most of the industry lay was laid waste by the Wehrmacht.
Russia was economically devastated by the war, it still has yet to recover, even after 60 years....

I have a sneaking suspicion that Roosevelt knew exactly what he was doing when he handed Eastern Europe to Stalin.

He did. Read all about it in I Saw Poland Betrayed, by U.S. ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane.

World War II made the world even worse off. We never should have fought that war in the first place. We should have let the Soviets and Nazis wipe each other out, and then finished off the winner.

Unlikley considering Hitler and Stalin had signed a secret pact that Stalin had no intention of breaking.

The Nazis were sinking a lot of our ships. They were also lumping up a few of our friends. I think we did the right thing.

We never should have teamed up with the Soviets.

So he gave Eastern Europe to a power that America would end up fighting for the next 50 years?

We never "fought" the Soviet Union. The U.S. had a paradoxical foreign policy. While spending untold billions of dollars "fighting" communism, U.S. trade kept the U.S.S.R. and its subsidiary nations alive for many decades and helped them prosper.

I believe the last push by the germans, battle of the bulge, had more to do with the Soviets beating the allies into Berlin.

The UN isnt a new thing - since 1815 and the Concert of Europe, there have been attempts at mass diplomatic organisations to keep the peace. So far all have failed as the UN has - afterall it couldn't stop America declaring war on Iraq could it?

Wow. A thread went 6 posts without someone saying "Iraq". :rolleyes:

We never should have teamed up with the Soviets.


We had a common enemy at the time. and they wre still pretty strong.
Didnt MacArthur want to go after them at one point? I dont recall enough of that to be sure.

It achieved me living in a free country and not being forced to be a threat to you, among other things.

Wow. A thread went 6 posts without someone saying "Iraq". :rolleyes:


Damn you!!

(no one has blamed the US yet either. Or proclaimed we really didnt do anything)

We had a common enemy at the time. and they wre still pretty strong.
Didnt MacArthur want to go after them at one point? I dont recall enough of that to be sure.

Dunno about MacArthur, but Patton wanted to finish them off once the Nazis were beaten.

We never "fought" the Soviet Union. The U.S. had a paradoxical foreign policy. While spending untold billions of dollars "fighting" communism, U.S. trade kept the U.S.S.R. and its subsidiary nations alive for many decades and helped them prosper.

:confused:

What gives you that idea? US-Soviet trade was minimal, at best!
*The U.S. led a policy of embargo and sanctions towards the Soviet Union beginning in 1948. From 1948-about 1970, the trade between the two nations was just about nil.

* The embargo was in place until the Nixon-Brezhnev Summit of 1972, when trade haltingly started.
Even in 1975 (the height of US/Soviet "detente"), trade between the two was a mere $550 million USD.
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,917753,00.html

* With the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, the embargo CAME BACK, with both the Carter & Reagan administrations behind it. Following the Soviet imposition of martial law in Poland in December 1981, former president Reagan initiated trade sanctions to block the sale of equipment to build the Yamal pipeline, which would carry gas from Western Siberia to Western Europe. Such negative sanctions, which were eventually lifted, nonetheless resulted in a suppression of U.S.-Soviet trade until the early 1990s.

Even in 1985 (Gorby in office, relations warming), trade was only $3.85 billion a year, which (given the size of the world economy) was a drop in the bucket.

If Hitler had won, Western Europe would never be free and we would all have to be German-speaking blonde Aryans.

It helped the American and Soviet economies, gave us nuclear power, and (unfortunately) gave us the UN. :headbang:
Think before speaking. Without the UN we may have had a World War III.

:confused:

What gives you that idea? US-Soviet trade was minimal, at best!

U.S. trade with the Soviets thrived throughout the Cold War. It went through various name changes, though. It was called "building bridges," under Johnson, "detente," under Nixon/Ford/Kissinger, etc.

U.S. trade helped make the Afghanistan genocide possible. "Deaf mute blindmen" businessmen (Lenin's term) supplied the Russians with trucks which helped carry out the genocide (the Kama Truck Plant was built by Americans). The Russians reached Kabul via a massive highway that was built with massive U.S. assistance under LBJ's "Great Society."

In the 1980s, the Chevron Gulf Corporation helped keep Marxist Angola alive. In yet another paradox, while the U.S. extensively supported UNITA rebels, a major U.S. oil corporation saved the Angolan economy from collapse.

and maybe I'm wrong, but victory in WWII may have achieved the prevention of the extermination of another 6 million or so Jews. I dont think the Nazis had yet completed their final solution. I think they were just warming up.

World War II made the world even worse off. We never should have fought that war in the first place. We should have let the Soviets and Nazis wipe each other out, and then finished off the winner.
So you think it's acceptable that likely 200 million more innocent Europeans would have died in the process?

I think that America was right to fight WWII.

So you think it's acceptable that likely 200 million more innocent Europeans would have died in the process?

I think that America was right to fight WWII.

I think we should have sponsored a coup d'etat against Hitler, rather than get involved militarily.

The UN isnt a new thing - since 1815 and the Concert of Europe, there have been attempts at mass diplomatic organisations to keep the peace. So far all have failed as the UN has - afterall it couldn't stop America declaring war on Iraq could it?That was the League of Nations, a very different matter. The UN's authority comes from its near-universal memebership, as opposed to the old-boy's club.
I think we should have sponsored a coup d'etat against Hitler, rather than get involved militarily.How naive. The war was underway. It would have been lost without the Americans.

That was the League of Nations, a very different matter. The UN's authority comes from its near-universal memebership, as opposed to the old-boy's club.
How naive. The war was underway. It would have been lost without the Americans.

Ever heard of the anti-Hitler resistance?

U.S. trade with the Soviets thrived throughout the Cold War. It went through various name changes, though. It was called "building bridges," under Johnson, "detente," under Nixon/Ford/Kissinger, etc.

Can you provide dollar amounts?

How naive. The war was underway. It would have been lost without the Americans.

Dont be so sure, Hitler got his ass kicked in Russia without the U.S before the U.S had really commited itself militarily to the war in Europe. Ever heard of Stalingrad? The red army butchered Von Paulus's 6th army (i think it was the 6th) without any help from the U.S.

Can you provide dollar amounts?

In all honesty, I can't. I can, however, provide examples of the things that were traded. Read Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Antony Sutton (when I get home, I can give you a list of the footnotes and bibliographies) and Survival is not Enough by Prof. Richard Pipes. Unfortunately, none of these books are in print, and I only have copies of National Suicide and The Best Enemy Money Can Buy. www.amazon.com, Barnes and Noble's Used and Out of Print section (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/oopbooks/oopsearch.asp?userid=2y0fuzQBBo), and http://www.abebooks.com/ are all great places to look.

Dont be so sure, Hitler would have got his ass kicked without the U.S getting invloved. Ever heard of Stalingrad? The red army butchered Von Paulus's 6th army (i think it was the 6th) without any help from the U.S.

Without the bombing of the German cities, Stalingrad would have gone the other way. It was not a blowout.

In all honesty, I can't. I can, however, provide examples of the things that were traded. Read Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Antony Sutton (when I get home, I can give you a list of the footnotes and bibliographies) and Survival is not Enough by Prof. Richard Pipes. Unfortunately, none of these books are in print, and I only have copies of National Suicide and The Best Enemy Money Can Buy. www.amazon.com, Barnes and Noble's Used and Out of Print section (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/oopbooks/oopsearch.asp?userid=2y0fuzQBBo), and http://www.abebooks.com/ are all great places to look.

The reason I ask is becase everything I'm finding on the net shows a very minimal trade value amount until the 70s.

The reason I ask is becase everything I'm finding on the net shows a very minimal trade value amount until the 70s.

Trade increased massively during the Vietnam War. LBJ removed over 400 items from the "strategic" list (which listed items that could not be traded with the Soviets). In fact, the more the war escalated, the more trade stepped up. The ironic thing was that the North Vietnamese received 80-85% of their supplies from the Soviets and Eastern Europe, and LBJ not only drastically stepped up trade with them, but he removed over 400 items (some of which had serious military potential), and even wanted to extend "Most Favored Nation" status to the Soviet bloc.

Dont be so sure, Hitler would have got his ass kicked without the U.S getting invloved. Ever heard of Stalingrad? The red army butchered Von Paulus's 6th army (i think it was the 6th) without any help from the U.S.I have heard of stalingrad. It wasn't an 'ass-kicking' at all. It was a prolonged stalemate, and the Russians happened to have more young boys to use up. They took even more casualties as the Germans in that battle.

Anyway, if the Americans hadn't entered the war, and Russia did firght right across Europe, there would have been an unstopable soviet bloc, no EU, no Marshall plan. So I stand by my position.

World War 2 bought civilization time if nothing else...

it rid the world of a nation state that practiced insitutionalized murder as an instrument of state policy and specifically was willing to not only enslave, but cold bloodedly butcher tens of millions in the name of living space (Nazi Germany)... although Stalinist Soviet Union wasn't a lot better, it was better enough.

It rid Japan and Italy of militarism.

It rid Italy of an incompetent dictator who dragged his people into a hopeless war that it was in no way equipped to fight and secured democracy in that country.

It rid Japan of its illusions of racial superiority (well somewhat) and permanently ensured that the United States controlled the Pacific Ocean and ensured the safety of Australia, New Zealand and the small island states from outright genocide (in some cases by the Japanese) and potential conquest by the same. At no point in the Cold War was Australisia even remotely threatened, and now New Zealand and Australia are about as safe from the worlds problems as they can be. Although economically Japan is a vital trading partner of Australia and vice versa.

It ensured that the United States would not remain isolationist, and post war it ensured that the United States would prevent the conquest of Western Europe by the Soviet Union

It made the idea of total war so dangerous that one hasn't been fought since... a good thing, as World War 3 would have killed potentially billions.

East West Trade in the Cold War had no long term disadvantages to the US and the West... if anything, it brought the wealth of the West to the average Soviet who in turn eventually brought down the whole decaying system. In other words, it clearly showed that something better existed.

World War II ensured that even an economically powerful Germany would not dominate Europe, a real concern for over a century since its unification.

It ensured an end to Western European Imperialism in the Third World by bankrupting them, and ensured that any future imperialism by any superpower or great power would be indirect through economic means instead of direct rule. That economic imperialism (for those who believe it occured) is even now fading away as more and more nations become economic engines of their own.

The world is a better place unquestioningly without the totalitarian governments that ruled Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Japan, or Communist Soviet Union. 192 out of 237 nations in the world currently have popularly elected legislatures.... the Second World War and Western victory in the Cold War made that possible.

I have heard of stalingrad. It wasn't an 'ass-kicking' at all. It was a prolonged stalemate, and the Russians happened to have more young boys to use up. They took even more casualties as the Germans in that battle.
.

I think you'll find it was, the Red army won becuase they managed to pull 2 million men out of nowhere, then use them to surround and then annihilate the Germans besieging Stalingrad. Although I will admit they took as many if not more casualities than the Germans did.

Trade increased massively during the Vietnam War. LBJ removed over 400 items from the "strategic" list (which listed items that could not be traded with the Soviets). In fact, the more the war escalated, the more trade stepped up. The ironic thing was that the North Vietnamese received 80-85% of their supplies from the Soviets and Eastern Europe, and LBJ not only drastically stepped up trade with them, but he removed over 400 items (some of which had serious military potential), and even wanted to extend "Most Favored Nation" status to the Soviet bloc.
This is LBJ you're talking about. Are you really surprised?

This is LBJ you're talking about. Are you really surprised?

Not at all.

Both times people thought they would be Liberated(Nazi controlled then Soviet)

Thats the most Heartbreaking thing about WWII for me Ukranians and other NAtionalities who thought Germany was Liberating them and the Germans go on to oppress them.

So you think it's acceptable that likely 200 million more innocent Europeans would have died in the process?

I think that America was right to fight WWII.

I dont think the question is whether America (or indeed any of the allies) were right in what they did. I simply ask what the victory in Europe achieved and present the view that it simply replaced one murderous, miliataristic, fundamentalist dictatorship with another.

It should be remembered that traditionally, the US was concerned only about western europe and the western europeans were concerned more about themselves than about the east.

There has always been a thread within in the western european culture (including the US, for a time) that regards the slavs and less civilized and less european.

The main thing it accomplished was bringing us a heck of a lotof great games to play! Advanced Squad Leader, Hell's Highway, etc. etc. etc.

It should be remembered that traditionally, the US was concerned only about western europe and the western europeans were concerned more about themselves than about the east.

There has always been a thread within in the western european culture (including the US, for a time) that regards the slavs and less civilized and less european.

I gotta take umbrage at this one.

The US is a nation of immigrants. Today, 1 in 9 Americans have a Polish ancestor alone. The US was not any less concearned about the East. That is why the US supplied Slovak and Hungargian partisans (in fact, ANY partisans). But the US had to acknowledge that the Soviets would liberate the East before getting to Berlin. There was also a push by more than just people than just Patton to get to Prague first (as it was not liberated before Berlin was taken).

You're descirbing the NAZI point of view. Why else do you think the French and British allied with Poland and (the French with) Czechoslovakia?

American involvement in the world, creation of a Jewish state, and of course the nuclear bomb (which would have come anyway, but not as soon). Oh yah, and the possibility of a World War 3, which has such a ring to it aye?

American involvement in the world, creation of a Jewish state, and of course the nuclear bomb (which would have come anyway, but not as soon). Oh yah, and the possibility of a World War 3, which has such a ring to it aye?


Actually it seems that ww2 (especially the advent of the atom bomb and creation of superpowers) has effectively ensured that there will not be a third world war.

I consider the 50 year peace between the US and the USSR - some of the most bitter enemies in history - to be evidence that war between superpowers is next to impossible.

Reasons for this are the globalized economy and, most importantly, the idea of "mutually assured destruction."

Recall that the germans honestly thought that they could win ww2, it is impossible to win a major war nowadays.

Dont be so sure, Hitler got his ass kicked in Russia without the U.S before the U.S had really commited itself militarily to the war in Europe. Ever heard of Stalingrad? The red army butchered Von Paulus's 6th army (i think it was the 6th) without any help from the U.S.
You are forgetting about Japan. Even if Russia and Britain somehow stopped Hitler, Japan would have come from the East and raped everyone.

Actually it seems that ww2 (especially the advent of the atom bomb and creation of superpowers) has effectively ensured that there will not be a third world war.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. If there isn't a WW2, then there can't be a WW3 since any world war would become WW2 not WW3. My point was more from a name standpoint...

I think you misunderstood what I meant. If there isn't a WW2, then there can't be a WW3 since any world war would become WW2 not WW3. My point was more from a name standpoint...


Ah k no problemo :)

I'd just like to thank New Shiron for what he or she wrote. It was quite a good summary of the effects of WW2.

It also accomplished the murder of countless German POWs (one million by the Americans and French alone) as well as almost two million German nationals killed during "resettlement" from parts of of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. And lets not forget the hundreds of thousands killed by Allied bombing (Dredsden anyone?) or murderd/raped by the Soviets (Berlin anyone?). I just figured that that needed to be mentioned, and don't forget the war didn't end for everyone on May 8th 1945...

I'll finish this up with a little stat: of the 91,000 Germans of the 6th army and the 4th Panzer army that surrendered at Stalingrad only 5,000 ever came home, mostly in the mid 1950s.

It also accomplished the murder of countless German POWs (one million by the Americans and French alone) as well as almost two million German nationals killed during "resettlement" from parts of of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. And lets not forget the hundreds of thousands killed by Allied bombing (Dredsden anyone?) or murderd/raped by the Soviets (Berlin anyone?). I just figured that that needed to be mentioned, and don't forget the war didn't end for everyone on May 8th 1945...

I'll finish this up with a little stat: of the 91,000 Germans of the 6th army and the 4th Panzer army that surrendered at Stalingrad only 5,000 ever came home, mostly in the mid 1950s.

all that is true, except for the American and French claims... that has been thoroughly discredited by numerous sources... the initial book claiming that, "Other Causes" was using US and French statistics showing prisoners removed from the POW rolls from other causes post war... it was later determined by more careful analysis that these POWs were simply released as under aged or over aged (Volksturm basically). The writer simply assumed that they died. Although the death toll was clearly indicated in that same body of statistics. (source, John Keegan, World War II among others)

If America hadn't joined the war either the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany would have gained control of Europe and that would have left the US without any allies in Europe and without the economic stimulus which pulled it out of the depression. The US would have been weaker and all of Europe would have been left under totalitarian rule.
The Europeans allies should have teamed up with Czechoslovakia in the first place. Their combined military strength was twice that of Germany so they would have defeated Hitler and the war wouldn't have been nearly as bloody.

When people talk about American invovment i sure hope they mean Weapons of War not their actual Soldiers The Empire had it Won After Alamein but American Suplies boy did we need them!
Even if you deliberatly sold us Defective Lee Tanks!-You BAstards! :mad:

When people talk about American invovment i sure hope they mean Weapons of War not their actual Soldiers The Empire had it Won After Alamein but American Suplies boy did we need them!
Even if you deliberatly sold us Defective Lee Tanks!-You BAstards! :mad:

oh sure, British Imperial soldiers had a notable presence at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the Central Pacific Campaigns, the Philippines (both times), the US Carrier fleets, Omaha Beach, St. Lo, Cherbourg, the Battle of the Bulge, the bridge at Remagan, Schweinfurt, Big Week, Ploesti.... oh wait, they weren't present at those American victories....

The ANZACs have plenty to be proud of, as do Canadians, British, Poles, Free French, and others, not to mention the Russians.

No need to pretend that American blood wasn't as central to Allied victory as British Imperial blood.

In getting back to the orginal question... Well, as you pointed out, it was half of Europe as opposed to all of Europe, which is what the Nazis had pretty much managed to grab (I'll leave the debate on if the UK would have fallen without Amerian intervention and if Hitler didn't prove his lunacy, again, by attacking the USSR, in winter, to another debate). Also, I'm not sure it's fair to point fingers at the world for failing to stop Stalin. The US came out pretty good from WWII (meaning increased teritory, most of our troops came home, our economy recovered, and we hadn't been flattened), but the rest of the world...

I think it was more being sick of war, of death, and being physically incableable to fighting abother war that started the stare down of the Cold War. So yeah, it was worth fighting, but it did leave new problems. But what else is new?

I think we should have sponsored a coup d'etat against Hitler, rather than get involved militarily.

Because US sponsored coup d'etats always work out so well....

The Nazis were exterminating millions of innocent civilians. They had to be stopped. That Stalin did the same thing with dekulakization is neither here nor there. The West was in no position to pursue war against Russia; the entire continent had been laid to waste. Continued war would have -in my opinion- led to something resembling the collapse of the tsarist army during WW2. Everyone seems to conveniently forget that all of Europe was in danger of turning socialist. There were Communist parties seeded across both Eastern and Western Europe, and the massive popular discontent that a furtherance of the war would have engendered very well may have collapsed what was left of the fragile governments France and England. My grandfather knew Marxist union members in Glasgow (more than a few of them at that) who -had they gained access to firearms- most likely could have bested the local authorities and caused a crisis in Scotland. These were very pissed-off war-hardened veterans, not rock-tossing hippy students. If it were not for Stalins mishandling of the international communist movement and Western attempts at consolidation, we could be looking at a very different map of Europe. However, the West did have ambivalent feelings towards the Soviet reigime. For all of Stalins duplicitous behaviour, it was he who dragged our collective butts out of the fire, it was his army that pushed the Nazis back to Berlin, and it was his country that lost 25 million people accomplishing it. Oh, and make no mistake, it was his country. Under the thinking of the time, he was due his spoils and they were given -if with hesitation.

We can sit here and pass judgement, but what we cannot understand is the war-weariness that gripped Europe. The people and their nations were sick and tired of fighting, sick and tired of the bloodshed, and sick and tired of the BS backdoor elite diplomacy that had killed the children of hundreds of thousands of families. And as for Patton, like many of the worlds greatest Generals, he was a complete loon who was thankfully never allowed within 100 kilometers of an important policy decision.

Ever heard of the anti-Hitler resistance?

I think, ironically, it has been a good thing that the assassination attempt failed. Otherwise, if Hitler truly had been assassinated, i'm sure Germans would be still worshipping him today like crazy because of that idiotic 'he would have won the war if he had not been assassinated' argument, and Stauffenburg would be regarded as a backstabber and traitor.

gee what did victory in WW2 achieve...

THEY STOPPED THE NATZIS!

only because japan attacked america and hitler pissed off stalin, i wonder if america would ever have participated in WW2 if it werent for what japan did... and russia was on hitlers side!(dumb idiot, should have finished off his enemys before making more...

Easy, man ...

If it weren't for WWII, we wouldn't have the History Channel.

Easy, man ...

If it weren't for WWII, we wouldn't have the History Channel.

lol. :)

How naive. The war was underway. It would have been lost without the Americans.I think it's you who are being naive. America only came in to the conflict after Hitler declared war on the USA. The USSR was militarily more than a match for Germany. The only real loser may have been the UK, who couldn't hope to beat Germany without the support of the USSR.

Until Hitler forced the USA to enter the war, they were content to profit on British deaths with their "lend/lease" agreement with the UK.

Omaha Beach, St. Lo, Cherbourg, the Battle of the Bulge

Battle of The Bulge. Actually The British were there, Amongst the British contingent were the 6th Airborne Division, famous for the capture of Pegasus Bridge, and the liberation of the first French building on D-Day. The Germans made their furthest advance there, before British Armour pushed it back a little known fact, that is often ignored as The Battle Of The Bulge is always portrayed as The Great American Victory. The Canadians were there too, equally as brave.

Omaha Beach? Forgetting Gold, Juno and Sword are we? British and Candian involvement?

St Lo, Cherbourg? Hmm what about British-Canadian involvement in Caen? And the British in Belgium, Antwerp, Antwerp being important as this was a an objective for the Germans in The Battle Of The Bulge, to capture a port to cut off allied supplies?

El Alamein? Tunisia? Oh yes, the British well remember Tunisia, when the British handed over a secured town for the Americans, only for the Americans to lose it to the Germans, meaning the British had to save your arses.

Italy? Monte Cassino? All the allies had a go at it, The Polish took it.

Carry on with your assumption America were the be all and end all of battles in WW2, whilst defecating on the history of the other allies by belittling them or not mentioning them at all, claiming sole US Victory for all, I am safe in the knowledge it's the usual American bollocks.

A great offence to the heroics of The British, The Canadians, and the other allies Americans like to ignore or belittle.

I think it's you who are being naive. America only came in to the conflict after Hitler declared war on the USA. The USSR was militarily more than a match for Germany. The only real loser may have been the UK, who couldn't hope to beat Germany without the support of the USSR.

Until Hitler forced the USA to enter the war, they were content to profit on British deaths with their "lend/lease" agreement with the UK.

The lend-lease policy applied to the "mighty" USSR as well. Without American equipment and supplies the Russian Front would have collapsed.

Okay, guys... back to your corners! (grr.)

In Europe, it was much,much, more of a joint effort. But in the Pacific, that show was mostly American and ANZAC. In indochina, for instance, the French were Collaborators with Japan, and the OSS had to work through the Vietminh.
(*thus proving that the U.S. provides some truly bad-ass training-we taught them how to beat us...and the french.)

Russia didn't enter the Pacific Theatre until after Japan was on the ropes. (incidentally, this means the U.S. was fighting a Two-front war...and won. that's bragging rights.)

Battle of The Bulge. Actually The British were there, Amongst the British contingent were the 6th Airborne Division, famous for the capture of Pegasus Bridge, and the liberation of the first French building on D-Day. The Germans made their furthest advance there, before British Armour pushed it back a little known fact, that is often ignored as The Battle Of The Bulge is always portrayed as The Great American Victory. The Canadians were there too, equally as brave.

Omaha Beach? Forgetting Gold, Juno and Sword are we? British and Candian involvement?

St Lo, Cherbourg? Hmm what about British-Canadian involvement in Caen? And the British in Belgium, Antwerp, Antwerp being important as this was a an objective for the Germans in The Battle Of The Bulge, to capture a port to cut off allied supplies?

El Alamein? Tunisia? Oh yes, the British well remember Tunisia, when the British handed over a secured town for the Americans, only for the Americans to lose it to the Germans, meaning the British had to save your arses.

Italy? Monte Cassino? All the allies had a go at it, The Polish took it.

Carry on with your assumption America were the be all and end all of battles in WW2, whilst defecating on the history of the other allies by belittling them or not mentioning them at all, claiming sole US Victory for all, I am safe in the knowledge it's the usual American bollocks.

A great offence to the heroics of The British, The Canadians, and the other allies Americans like to ignore or belittle.

What the hell are you talking about? As a USian millitary historian I can assure you USian millitary historians are well aware of the fighting skills and contributions of our allies. And we are grateful and happy and proud of the things you did. It is people like you, bitter and hateful in your thoughts who belittle US contributions to the war. We died just like your people did. We shed blood just like you. We helped each other, or have you goddamn well forgotten that!!! We were fucking allies and you hate and ridicule us.
Sometimes I wonder why the hell we even bothered to help. Sometimes I think we should have just left well enough alone, let the Nazis and Soviets take what they wanted and made our peace with them. I think they would of been more friendly to us in the end.
I am usually not a hot headed person but crap like you just spewed pisses me off.

And again it is proven that this kind of discussion will end in a cock length comparison...

And again it is proven that this kind of discussion will end in a cock length comparison...

Smartest thing I've read in this thread...

all that is true, except for the American and French claims... that has been thoroughly discredited by numerous sources... the initial book claiming that, "Other Causes" was using US and French statistics showing prisoners removed from the POW rolls from other causes post war... it was later determined by more careful analysis that these POWs were simply released as under aged or over aged (Volksturm basically). The writer simply assumed that they died. Although the death toll was clearly indicated in that same body of statistics. (source, John Keegan, World War II among others)

Hmm I got that stat from "The Historical Atlas of The Third Reich" I can't find "Other Losses" (I think thats the title you were meaning to say) anywhere.

Here are the numbers of deaths from the book.
In American hands: 793,239
In French hands: 314,000

Whatever the numbers are it's pretty well established that there were widespread atrocities against both the POWs and the civilian population of Germany by the western Allies. Throw top of that Dredsden, Hamburg, Berlin etc. and your hands aren't exactly clean...

Nothing the Soviets did was on the ethical scale of the Holocaust. There's murdering political opponents, which is evil, and there's attempting to wipe out an ethnic group based on delusional ideologies and pure sadism, which is unfathomably awful.

Hmm I got that stat from "The Historical Atlas of The Third Reich" I can't find "Other Losses" (I think thats the title you were meaning to say) anywhere.

Here are the numbers of deaths from the book.
In American hands: 793,239
In French hands: 314,000

Whatever the numbers are it's pretty well established that there were widespread atrocities against both the POWs and the civilian population of Germany by the western Allies. Throw top of that Dredsden, Hamburg, Berlin etc. and your hands aren't exactly clean...

I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm not a fascist, militarist or Republican in any way:

War is hell.

What the hell are you talking about? As a USian millitary historian I can assure you USian millitary historians are well aware of the fighting skills and contributions of our allies. And we are grateful and happy and proud of the things you did. It is people like you, bitter and hateful in your thoughts who belittle US contributions to the war. We died just like your people did. We shed blood just like you. We helped each other, or have you goddamn well forgotten that!!! We were fucking allies and you hate and ridicule us.
Sometimes I wonder why the hell we even bothered to help. Sometimes I think we should have just left well enough alone, let the Nazis and Soviets take what they wanted and made our peace with them. I think they would of been more friendly to us in the end.
I am usually not a hot headed person but crap like you just spewed pisses me off.

Amen.

Nothing the Soviets did was on the ethical scale of the Holocaust. There's murdering political opponents, which is evil, and there's attempting to wipe out an ethnic group based on delusional ideologies and pure sadism, which is unfathomably awful.

So killing 500 people randomly or accidently is better then killing 50 because you don't like that group and don't have the resources to keep them in prison? I'm not trying to justify the Holocaust here but the crimes of the USSR were far worse.

Although the Soviets didn't kill 10 times as many people as the Nazis it's not totally out of proportion, up to 30 million people in the Ukraine and White Russia were killed in the late 20's early 30's from starvation caused by the collective farm system. Thats not including the slaughter in the Gulags or Russian POW camps.

Nothing the Soviets did was on the ethical scale of the Holocaust. There's murdering political opponents, which is evil, and there's attempting to wipe out an ethnic group based on delusional ideologies and pure sadism, which is unfathomably awful.

Ethnic groups the Russians murdered:

Katyn Forest - Mass execution of 22,000 Poles in 1940.

Chechens - The entire population of the nation was deported to Siberia during WW2, and didn't return home until 1956. This was their 9TH deportation. God knows how many of them have been murdered over the years in these purges. http://www.amina.com/art/articles/18/1/Deportations-and-Genocides-of-Chechen-Nation

...there are many more examples, such as the Finns, the Latvians, the Tartars... these are just two I know off the top of my head. And all happened during WW2.

We never should have teamed up with the Soviets.

Well we picked what at the time was the lesser of two evils. I liked pattons idea. Use our troops and crush Russia while we were over there. Invade in Siberia to open a two front war. US/Mid East British troops up the middle. Russia would have been overrun. But then we would have had to rebuild a screwed up country. So what do you do?

Ethnic groups the Russians murdered:

Katyn Forest - Mass execution of 22,000 Poles in 1940.

Chechens - The entire population of the nation was deported to Siberia during WW2, and didn't return home until 1956. This was their 9TH deportation. God knows how many of them have been murdered over the years in these purges. http://www.amina.com/art/articles/18/1/Deportations-and-Genocides-of-Chechen-Nation

...there are many more examples, such as the Finns, the Latvians, the Tartars... these are just two I know off the top of my head. And all happened during WW2.

These are evil events, but the motives set them apart from the Holocaust. The men killed at Katyn were officers, aristocrats and other people that the Communist officials thought would be "troublemakers" in a socialist state, not because of a belief in the inferiority of Poles and superiority of Russians. Nationals from within the Soviet Union were deported because the Soviets thought they would collaborate with the Germans (some did; understandable given the opression within the USSR.) Considering that Chechnya was emptied of Chechens during the war and now is majority Chechen again is because the Soviets let them return after the war if they had the means (which many didn't.) Cruel and tragic, but not motivated by any twisted racist philosophy.

So it's better to kill more people because your reason for doing it wasn't written down and you didn't give the people a chance to leave the country? I don't know if its racist but that sure is one twisted philosophy...

I watched a BBC documentary the other day (D-Day to Berlin) and the last one detailed the Russian advance on Berlin and the way in which the Americans actually believed Stalin when he promised to set up democracies in the nations he had freed.

So before victory:

Most of Europe was under the control of one state
People were being massacred for political, religious and physical reasons
People were sentenced without trial
All native governments were puppet governments (see Vichy France)
The regime was run by a fundamentalist dictator
Propaganda was common place and the media was state controlled
The state functioned via the method of cult
War and invasion was a constant threat to those who remained free

So after victory:

Most of Europe was under the control of one state
People were being massacred for political and ethnic reasons
People were sentenced without trial
All native governments were puppet governments (see Poland)
The regime was run by a fundamentalist dictator
Propaganda was common place and the media was state controlled
The state functioned via the method of cult
War and invasion was a constant threat to those who remained free

The unfortunate reason that the Soviets were allowed to get so much land from allies is ultimately because of Roosevelt's susceptabiltiy to the charm of Stalin. Churchill (who, prior to 1941, had been the Communist Anti Christ) was much more sceptical about the nature of Stalin's regime and indeed Stalin's plans. He famously said to justify his alliance with the Communists:

If Hitler invaded Hell then I would at least make favourable consultations with the Devil

This is why Churchill (and Montgomery, the master mind of the D-Day operations) pushed Eisenhower and Roosevelt into capturing as much of Europe as possible to save it from the hands of Stalin.

Of course Roosevelt cannot be too heavly blamed. By the time of the Yalta agreement, he was an old man whose health was rapidly deterioating. But it is due to his naiviety in trusting Stalin's promise to grant democracy to those nations he liberated which led to half of Europe being imprisoned in tyranny until the 1990s.


Uhhhhhhhhh... it stopped Hitler from conquering Europe?

Granted, it was not a grand cultural leap forward. But it stopped a monster.

I would like to point out that during the 1930's, nobody knew the Cold War was going to happen.

The Soviets only managed to get the bomb through espionage.

Uhhhhhhhhh... it stopped Hitler from conquering Europe?

Granted, it was not a grand cultural leap forward. But it stopped a monster.

I was kind of wondering about this...

How many people here think that if Hitler had not been stopped he would have kept Europe under occupation forever? Maybe we'll even get a few good ol' fashioned "He wanted to conquer the world!!!" arguments.

I was kind of wondering about this...

How many people here think that if Hitler had not been stopped he would have kept Europe under occupation forever? Maybe we'll even get a few good ol' fashioned "He wanted to conquer the world!!!" arguments.
If he was never stopped he would have kept control. Its as simple as that. If he lost control, then he would have been stopped. Even if he died, he would have been stopped. If the earth was hit by a comet, he would have been stopped. If 20 years later mass rebelions broke up his empire, he still would have been "stopped". So you see, it was impossible for him to lose his occupation without being "stopped". ;)

Battle of The Bulge. Actually The British were there, Amongst the British contingent were the 6th Airborne Division, famous for the capture of Pegasus Bridge, and the liberation of the first French building on D-Day. The Germans made their furthest advance there, before British Armour pushed it back a little known fact, that is often ignored as The Battle Of The Bulge is always portrayed as The Great American Victory. The Canadians were there too, equally as brave.

Omaha Beach? Forgetting Gold, Juno and Sword are we? British and Candian involvement?

St Lo, Cherbourg? Hmm what about British-Canadian involvement in Caen? And the British in Belgium, Antwerp, Antwerp being important as this was a an objective for the Germans in The Battle Of The Bulge, to capture a port to cut off allied supplies?

El Alamein? Tunisia? Oh yes, the British well remember Tunisia, when the British handed over a secured town for the Americans, only for the Americans to lose it to the Germans, meaning the British had to save your arses.

Italy? Monte Cassino? All the allies had a go at it, The Polish took it.

Carry on with your assumption America were the be all and end all of battles in WW2, whilst defecating on the history of the other allies by belittling them or not mentioning them at all, claiming sole US Victory for all, I am safe in the knowledge it's the usual American bollocks.

A great offence to the heroics of The British, The Canadians, and the other allies Americans like to ignore or belittle.

if you had read my post carefully you would have noticed that I said the British and other Allies had nothing to be ashamed of.

Only one British brigade actually fought in the Battle of the Bulge (29th Armored Brigade), the remainder of XXX Corps was behind the Meuse as a backstop.

The Poles took Cassino, with the Free French mountain troops flanking the position. However, British, New Zealand, and American troops all died in the fighting there in the first two assaults.

Tunisia was a complex campaign, and the US took Bizerte, the British took Tunis, and both had their bad moments... the US Corps was under British command (Andersons 1st Army) during that entire campaign. All of the US divisions present had extremely good battle records the remainder of the war.

I would give the New Zealanders, Indians, Australians, Poles, and Free French as much credit as the British for El Alamain. It was the last purely British Imperial victory of the war against the Germans. Normandy, Holland, the Rhineland all had sizeable US forces assigned under Montys command (1st Army in Normandy, 2 Airborne divisions in Holland, 9th US Army in the Rhineland), the Italian campaign was a multinational campaign from day one, as was Sicily.

I didn't belittle British blood, or ANZAC or Canadian blood, I merely refuted your rather historically naive comments.

The most important thing to know about the war in Europe from 1944 until the end was that the US had more divisions engaged, and more aircraft squadrons engaged, than the remainder of the Western Allies put together. And more casualties, and inflicted more German casaulties.

John Keegan, a BRITISH historian, rates the British Army of World War 2 as one of the least effective in British history, and rates the US Army rather well... since he considered probably the best historian currently writing, I am going to take his opinion over yours

If you are going to talk about British and Canadian victories, you would be better off talking about the Battle of the Atlantic, were the British and Canadian navies carried on the bulk of the war escorting merchant convoys while the US Navy spent most of the battle of the Atlantic escorting troop convoys, thus the RN and RCN killed more Nazi subs between 1942 - 1945 than the USN did.

perhaps next time before you run your mouth (so to speak) you will know a little more about the subject and read what someone else posts before spouting off?

Hmm I got that stat from "The Historical Atlas of The Third Reich" I can't find "Other Losses" (I think thats the title you were meaning to say) anywhere.

Here are the numbers of deaths from the book.
In American hands: 793,239
In French hands: 314,000

Whatever the numbers are it's pretty well established that there were widespread atrocities against both the POWs and the civilian population of Germany by the western Allies. Throw top of that Dredsden, Hamburg, Berlin etc. and your hands aren't exactly clean...

actually, setting aside the bombing campaign (in which the British attacked at night against area targets, and the US during the day against precision targets, guess when most of the Germans died at Dresden and Hamburg?), there is NO reputable indication of widespread US or French or British or Canadian atrocities on the Western Front against the Germans. Although the Western Allies looted like crazy, and frequently shot SS troops out of hand (especially after the Ardennes campaign and most especially after the concentration camps were liberated) it is no accident that the Germans fought one more day against the Russians than they did against the West so that they could get as many troops and civilians into American and British areas (and occupation zones, as the Germans had the information on that) as they humanly could.

That should pretty much speak for itself wouldn't you say?

The figures quoted in the Atlas you are quoting from have been proven incorrect by a number of sources.... easiest to find is John Keegans book "The Second World War", also good is James Dunnigans "Dirty Little Secrets of World War II" both of which directly refute those figures and downgrade them by nearly 90%

Ethnic groups the Russians murdered:

Katyn Forest - Mass execution of 22,000 Poles in 1940.

Chechens - The entire population of the nation was deported to Siberia during WW2, and didn't return home until 1956. This was their 9TH deportation. God knows how many of them have been murdered over the years in these purges. http://www.amina.com/art/articles/18/1/Deportations-and-Genocides-of-Chechen-Nation

...there are many more examples, such as the Finns, the Latvians, the Tartars... these are just two I know off the top of my head. And all happened during WW2.

no question Stalin was a paranoid evil bastard, possibly the worst tyrant the world has ever seen. But he killed probably killed 40 million over 30 years (1920 - 1952), of these most (30 million) died by being worked to death in slave labor camps in the Gulags, with maybe 10 million shot out of hand.

On the other hand, Hitler killed through state policy directly nearly 12 million Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Homosexuals, various religious sects through death camps, mass executions, and destructive forced labor in really about 5 years (if he had 30 years like Stalin, we would be looking at 72 million in simple equation), had plans to kill one third of the inhabitants of Poland, Belorussia and the Ukraine, deport another third, and enslave the rest (about 50 million people or more), planned to to permanently enslave Eastern Europe all the way to the Urals (another 40 million endangered), and god help the world if he had won.

So in the scheme of things Hitler was more dangerous than Stalin.... kind of like Ebola being more dangerous than Pneumonia.... both are dangerous, but you might live through Pneumonia.

This is what would have happened if Hitler would have won, a bit worse than what Stalin had done IMO

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

Slavery of entire peoples, and the extermination of entire peoples, is worse than killing Political Prisoners. Dont get me wrong, both of these are repugnant examples of evil in the Human psyche.

no question Stalin was a paranoid evil bastard, possibly the worst tyrant the world has ever seen. But he killed probably killed 40 million over 30 years (1920 - 1952), of these most (30 million) died by being worked to death in slave labor camps in the Gulags, with maybe 10 million shot out of hand.

On the other hand, Hitler killed through state policy directly nearly 12 million Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Homosexuals, various religious sects through death camps, mass executions, and destructive forced labor in really about 5 years (if he had 30 years like Stalin, we would be looking at 72 million in simple equation), had plans to kill one third of the inhabitants of Poland, Belorussia and the Ukraine, deport another third, and enslave the rest (about 50 million people or more), planned to to permanently enslave Eastern Europe all the way to the Urals (another 40 million endangered), and god help the world if he had won.

So in the scheme of things Hitler was more dangerous than Stalin.... kind of like Ebola being more dangerous than Pneumonia.... both are dangerous, but you might live through Pneumonia.

I'm not saying that one is more evil than the other (if such a measure exists).
Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler... they're all so far beyond the pale that comparison breaks down. I'm for labeling them all anti-christs and move along.

These are evil events, but the motives set them apart from the Holocaust. The men killed at Katyn were officers, aristocrats and other people that the Communist officials thought would be "troublemakers" in a socialist state, not because of a belief in the inferiority of Poles and superiority of Russians.
Nationals from within the Soviet Union were deported because the Soviets thought they would collaborate with the Germans (some did; understandable given the opression within the USSR.) Considering that Chechnya was emptied of Chechens during the war and now is majority Chechen again is because the Soviets let them return after the war if they had the means (which many didn't.) Cruel and tragic, but not motivated by any twisted racist philosophy.

Aha. And the Jews the Nazi's killed were different why? They were branded as scapegoats of everything that went wrong in the Weimar Republic, and a factor of why Germany lost WW1. Troublemakers & enemies of the state.
Also, having been to Poland in 1984, let me tell you: the Russians (at least the ones in uniform in Poland at that time) most certainly considered the Poles inferior. I'm willing to bet that feeling was even greater 40 years earlier.

Dude, that's the DEFINITION of racism! :(

there is NO reputable indication of widespread US or French or British or Canadian atrocities on the Western Front against the Germans. Although the Western Allies looted like crazy, and frequently shot SS troops out of hand (especially after the Ardennes campaign and most especially after the concentration camps were liberated)

So right after saying there is no evidence of widespread atrocities on the Western Front you talk about "frequently shooting SS prisoners"? Sounds sort of widespread to me.

In a related story after the Malmedy incident it was official US army policy not to take SS prisoners for two weeks. I think that fits the bill as an atrocity.

The figures quoted in the Atlas you are quoting from have been proven incorrect by a number of sources.... easiest to find is John Keegans book "The Second World War", also good is James Dunnigans "Dirty Little Secrets of World War II" both of which directly refute those figures and downgrade them by nearly 90%

Ok I've only seen that stat there so I won't argue the number point too hard, still even 100,000 prisoners is quite a large number.

As for the guy that said 12 million were killed in the camps... actually that doesn't really deserve a response.

I'm not saying that one is more evil than the other (if such a measure exists).
Ahh but you should. One definitely IS more evil than the other.

As much as I loathe Communism in general and Stalin in particular, there's simply no comparison between Stalin and Hitler, regardless of the number of people they've killed. There's a world of difference between Auschwitz, where people were being methodically exterminated, and the Gulag, where people were being worked to death. This is a difference of intent. Yes, Stalin had no problem with sacrificing a worker for each stone laid at his bombastic building project- but his judgement criteria was stones, not bodies. At Hitler's death camps, it was the efficiency of murder techniques that counted.

no question Stalin was a paranoid evil bastard, possibly the worst tyrant the world has ever seen. But he killed probably killed 40 million over 30 years (1920 - 1952), of these most (30 million) died by being worked to death in slave labor camps in the Gulags, with maybe 10 million shot out of hand.

On the other hand, Hitler killed through state policy directly nearly 12 million Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Homosexuals, various religious sects through death camps, mass executions, and destructive forced labor in really about 5 years (if he had 30 years like Stalin, we would be looking at 72 million in simple equation), had plans to kill one third of the inhabitants of Poland, Belorussia and the Ukraine, deport another third, and enslave the rest (about 50 million people or more), planned to to permanently enslave Eastern Europe all the way to the Urals (another 40 million endangered), and god help the world if he had won.

So in the scheme of things Hitler was more dangerous than Stalin.... kind of like Ebola being more dangerous than Pneumonia.... both are dangerous, but you might live through Pneumonia.
I personally find Stalin just a little worse, because he killed without rhyme or reason. Hitler had a vendetta and was insane, but Stalin was both insane and horribly paranoid. He killed his own top generals, former revolutinaries, government workers, anyone in the public eye, and basically anyone who in any way shape or form had some power or influence. Not to mention the critics of communism.

But on the other hand, being Jewish, I'd rather be under Stalin.

That said, WW II was one of the few necessary wars in history. Up until Pearl Harbor many Americans were pro-isolationist, and had they stayed out Britain would have been destroyed. If the U.S. had waited until Britain was finished and the Axis looked across the Atlantic, we wouldn't have been able to survive. If Nazi Germany had succeeded not only would there be 3 types of people in the world, but there would be no music, no dancing, no TV, no computers, no personal entertainment, no books, no religion, and no color in life.

So right after saying there is no evidence of widespread atrocities on the Western Front you talk about "frequently shooting SS prisoners"? Sounds sort of widespread to me.

In a related story after the Malmedy incident it was official US army policy not to take SS prisoners for two weeks. I think that fits the bill as an atrocity.......
Ok I've only seen that stat there so I won't argue the number point too hard, still even 100,000 prisoners is quite a large number.

As for the guy that said 12 million were killed in the camps... actually that doesn't really deserve a response.

First, a reference concerning death tolls of all wars of the 20th Century, with specific counts on World War 2

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm


Second, there is no reference on your assertion of US policy on excuting SS troops.... there is mention of frequent incidents in many of the books I have read, but I have never seen an official policy reference concerning ANY of the Allied powers in World War 2 having such a policy, even the Soviets.

I watched a BBC documentary the other day (D-Day to Berlin) and the last one detailed the Russian advance on Berlin and the way in which the Americans actually believed Stalin when he promised to set up democracies in the nations he had freed.

<snip>



Oy....>< more of patting little Emperor boy George on the back I see...>< ><

Look, WW2 was not a war that any country, even my own imperialistic America, entered into by choice. It was foisted upon us by Adolf Hitler, remember him? It seems that every time this anniversary comes around, the reminiscing turns to mulling over shoulda, coulda, woulda, with absolutely no mention of the actual reason half the world went to war: Adolf Hitler was trying to take over the world!

What was the victory of WW2? WE FUCKING BEAT HITLER!!!!!! duh.

The fact that the soviet world remained soviet, or that there was little if no advancement in economics or world democracy is semantics. The entire point of fighting WW2 was to stop Hitler from realizing his mad, tyrannical empire on planet earth. If you speak English today, and not German, thank the allies. There's your victory!

Ahh but you should. One definitely IS more evil than the other.

As much as I loathe Communism in general and Stalin in particular, there's simply no comparison between Stalin and Hitler, regardless of the number of people they've killed. There's a world of difference between Auschwitz, where people were being methodically exterminated, and the Gulag, where people were being worked to death. This is a difference of intent. Yes, Stalin had no problem with sacrificing a worker for each stone laid at his bombastic building project- but his judgement criteria was stones, not bodies. At Hitler's death camps, it was the efficiency of murder techniques that counted.

I've *been* to Auschwitz. I've been in Poland while it was Communist, too, under martial law. IMHO, they're both monsters, and saying one was better or worse is like choosing between being shot in the head with a .45 or a .44.

...and btw, people worked at Aushwitz too. Both sucked.

Look, WW2 was not a war that any country, even my own imperialistic America, entered into by choice. It was foisted upon us by Adolf Hitler, remember him? It seems that every time this anniversary comes around, the reminiscing turns to mulling over shoulda, coulda, woulda, with absolutely no mention of the actual reason half the world went to war: Adolf Hitler was trying to take over the world!

The entire point of fighting WW2 was to stop Hitler from realizing his mad, tyrannical empire on planet earth. If you speak English today, and not German, thank the allies. There's your victory!

I love US history lessons (to be fair Canadian ones are pretty bad too). I'm just curious if you had the idea of creating a country with one race does it really make sense to invade Africa, Asia, South America etc. (lets forget the physical impossibilty of that for a moment) and govern their entire populations? The "Hitler wanted to take over the world!" comments are as unfounded as they are annoying, if that is the only thing you have to say please don't bother posting.

That said, WW II was one of the few necessary wars in history. Up until Pearl Harbor many Americans were pro-isolationist, and had they stayed out Britain would have been destroyed. If the U.S. had waited until Britain was finished and the Axis looked across the Atlantic, we wouldn't have been able to survive.

When you make that argument does it not also occur to you that Germany would have just as much trouble invading across the Atlantic? In fact they would have found a lot more difficulty considering the weak state of the German surface fleet. But since Germany never had any reason, let alone any intention, to invade the United States I can't picture it coming up.

If Nazi Germany had succeeded not only would there be 3 types of people in the world, but there would be no music, no dancing, no TV, no computers, no personal entertainment, no books, no religion, and no color in life.

Interesting theory you have there. Considering the amount of funding the National Socialists gave to arts and the fact that they never tried to invent a machine to steal all the colours of the rainbow I find that a rather naive statement. At least it keeps with the theme of your post.

I love US history lessons (to be fair Canadian ones are pretty bad too). I'm just curious if you had the idea of creating a country with one race does it really make sense to invade Africa, Asia, South America etc. (lets forget the physical impossibilty of that for a moment) and govern their entire populations? The "Hitler wanted to take over the world!" comments are as unfounded as they are annoying, if that is the only thing you have to say please don't bother posting.



When you make that argument does it not also occur to you that Germany would have just as much trouble invading across the Atlantic? In fact they would have found a lot more difficulty considering the weak state of the German surface fleet. But since Germany never had any reason, let alone any intention, to invade the United States I can't picture it coming up.



Interesting theory you have there. Considering the amount of funding the National Socialists gave to arts and the fact that they never tried to invent a machine to steal all the colours of the rainbow I find that a rather naive statement. At least it keeps with the theme of your post.

1st paragraph- He didn't want to take over the people in other countries, he wanted to kill them. Hitler didn't specifically hate Jews, he hated everyone that wasn't a blonde haired, blue eyed German. He got elected on a platform saying that German's deserved to rule the world. He even wrote a book about taking over the world. It may seem preposterous to you, and it could never work, but that's what he wanted to do.

2nd paragraph- more specifically the Japanese. Had the axis won the world would have been divided up between Italy, Germany, and Japan (far removed from Aryan I know, but it went from an attitude of "Germans are the best" to "we are the best", the "we" including Japan). Japan would have taken North America. Of course the Japanese were rash, and bombed Hawaii. Had they waited and Britain fell, America would have had no stepping stone from which to invade Germany occuppied France. Sure, America would put up a fight, but what offensive would they be able to launch? Also, the west was unpopulated. If Japan had been smart and waited until America was the last remaining country and then just invaded the west coast, they would have been halfway across the country before anybody knew what was going on. Today California is the most populated state, but back then it was still pretty empty.

3rd paragrap- Nazis were the good, straight arrow boys. They hated the decadence of the 20's, and appealed to others who wanted a return to family values life. They were against drinking, gambling, pre-martial sex, etc., things in that vain. Under the Nazis everyone would wear the same clothing, go to regimented schools, spend they youth in the army, and in short live a very orderly, strict life. The color thing was meant to be taken metaphorically.

It made so the US saved the rest of the World for a second time. The other time would be WWI, than in the future, when Asias markets were crippling and the US gave trillions of dollars to help right when Europe and South America was just starting to feel a crunch.

Well in my families case, the allied vixtory in 1945 meant they had flee from ethnic cleansing twice in 40 years. Because of Roosevelts poor misguided trust of Old Joe Stalin, my fathers homeland completely ceased to exist. It meant that my grandfather was out of contact for three years after the war, imprisoned in a gulag from which he ultimately had to escape from. He then had to flee across most of Belarus and across Poland. When he finally arrived in his home province, he found out almost all of it had come under Polish governance. The Soviets did this as a gesture to compensate them for the vast amount of land the Soviets had illegaly seized from Poland. By the time my grandfather was finaly reunited with his family, it was 1949.

DURING the war, The Nazis seized about half our familes lands, as retribution for owning a tavern where a plot to assassinate Hitler had been hatched in a back room during the early years of the war. The Soviets just finished the job their partners in atrocity had begun during the war.

To my knowledge, no in the family ever desired revenge or harboured any hat for the Polish aand Russian peoples. War is an ugly thing afterall, and they were just happy to be alive. Pretty much everyone in the family HATED the SOVIETS for what they did to all of Eastern Europe, not just their little corner of Germany. It was either MacArthur or Eisenhower who at the end of the war very seriously lobbied for the German POWs to be given new uniforms and weapons and pointed towards the USSR. The fact that this wasn't done, is to me, the biggest mistake and travesty of the entire war except for the holocaust. Millions shed their blood to free Europe from the grip of the evil Nazi schweinhunds only to have half of Europe come under the grip of a nation that treated its citizens more harshly than even the Nazis had done. It rendered moot the sacrifice and suffering of millions who had fought so hard to free their nations from a foreign invaderwhile Hitler was being dragged out the front door, Stalin let himself in through the back.

Eastern Europe went from having a megalomaniac failed painter for a brutal dictator to having a megalomaniacal failed swineherd for a dictator. The Marshall Plan was a brilliant denoument to the Allied victory. If only the same common sense and level headed approach had been applied to the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, it would have prevented to misery of millions of people.

1st paragraph- He didn't want to take over the people in other countries, he wanted to kill them. Hitler didn't specifically hate Jews, he hated everyone that wasn't a blonde haired, blue eyed German.

I find that rather amusing but if thats what you feel like believing go for it.

He got elected on a platform saying that German's deserved to rule the world.

No he got elected on a platform of putting the German economy back on its feet and restoring law and order. Although nationalism was a part of what he ran on it's hard to get people interested in that while they're starving and being assualted on the streets by gangsters and communists.


2nd paragraph- more specifically the Japanese. Had the axis won the world would have been divided up between Italy, Germany, and Japan (far removed from Aryan I know, but it went from an attitude of "Germans are the best" to "we are the best", the "we" including Japan).

So he wanted to conquer the entire world except for the Italian peninsula and Japan? Strikes me as odd that if he was that close he wouldn't just go for the whole thing but hey you said it so I'll believe it.


Japan would have taken North America. Of course the Japanese were rash, and bombed Hawaii. Had they waited and Britain fell, America would have had no stepping stone from which to invade Germany occuppied France. Sure, America would put up a fight, but what offensive would they be able to launch?

Like I said Germany would have the same problem, only amplified.

Also, the west was unpopulated. If Japan had been smart and waited until America was the last remaining country and then just invaded the west coast, they would have been halfway across the country before anybody knew what was going on. Today California is the most populated state, but back then it was still pretty empty.

Firstly no matter how sparsely populated the west was I doubt that no one would notice a rampaging Japanese army. I'm just saying hundreds of thousands of Japs driving around in tanks shooting up the place tend to be a little hard to miss...

Secondly this invasion you speak of would have probably occured in the mid to late 40s. Now your talk of California as an empty state might have been somewhat accurate before The Great Depression but the flood of migrants from the midwest went a long way to filling up the west coast (if you haven't read it I recommend you pick up a copy of The Grapes of Wrath).

3rd paragrap- Nazis were the good, straight arrow boys. They hated the decadence of the 20's, and appealed to others who wanted a return to family values life. They were against drinking, gambling, pre-martial sex, etc., things in that vain. Under the Nazis everyone would wear the same clothing, go to regimented schools, spend they youth in the army, and in short live a very orderly, strict life. The color thing was meant to be taken metaphorically.

Actually they encouraged the creation of beutiful art. Take a look at some of the period architecture and paintings for proof of that. Their lack of appreciation of dadaism and burlesque shows should not be construed as disdain for art in general.

It made so the US saved the rest of the World for a second time. The other time would be WWI, than in the future, when Asias markets were crippling and the US gave trillions of dollars to help right when Europe and South America was just starting to feel a crunch.


In what alternate reality is this? The US didn't enter the war until 1917 because they were making to much money selling arms to BOTH sides up until then. If former colonies like Australia and Canada hadn't sent so many soldiers and weapons, the German would have had a very good chance of winning LONG before the US ever got up off its sorry ass and joined the fray.

The US didn't win WWII either. It was a joint effort which could never have been successful without the determination and courage of many nations, including the US, but certainly not the US on its own. Don't go aoround with that attitude anywhere outside the US, because it will certainly make people pretty angry

In what alternate reality is this? The US didn't enter the war until 1917 because they were making to much money selling arms to BOTH sides up until then.

False! The US had almost no trade with Germany or other Central Powers during WW1.

If former colonies like Australia and Canada hadn't sent so many soldiers and weapons, the German would have had a very good chance of winning LONG before the US ever got up off its sorry ass and joined the fray.

Except for the minor detail the Petain's entire 1916-1917 strategy was to sit and hold to wait for the Americans. :rolleyes:

As for weapons/food, the American shipments (1914-1918) to the Allies dwarfs the rest of the world combined.

As for getting off it's sorry ass, we were a little busy occupying Haiti (the French couldn't do it), and chasing Pancho Villa in Mexico...

No, the US didn't do the lion's share of the fighting in WW1.
But it played an important role, and without American entry, it is almost a given that Paris would have been taken in Ludendorff's (German) offensive of Spring 1918.

The US didn't win WWII either. It was a joint effort which could never have been successful without the determination and courage of many nations, including the US, but certainly not the US on its own. Don't go aoround with that attitude anywhere outside the US, because it will certainly make people pretty angry

Exactly right.

Oy....>< more of patting little Emperor boy George on the back I see...>< ><

Look, WW2 was not a war that any country, even my own imperialistic America, entered into by choice. It was foisted upon us by Adolf Hitler, remember him? It seems that every time this anniversary comes around, the reminiscing turns to mulling over shoulda, coulda, woulda, with absolutely no mention of the actual reason half the world went to war: Adolf Hitler was trying to take over the world!

What was the victory of WW2? WE FUCKING BEAT HITLER!!!!!! duh.

The fact that the soviet world remained soviet, or that there was little if no advancement in economics or world democracy is semantics. The entire point of fighting WW2 was to stop Hitler from realizing his mad, tyrannical empire on planet earth. If you speak English today, and not German, thank the allies. There's your victory!

I am aware that the allies "won" in a conventional sense and the victory did actually achieve a lot more than I orginally made out. However I was trying to put a slightly different slant on the victory - the fact that many eastern European nations were subject to the same sort of tyranny after the war as during it. Nations such as Poland who fought just as hard as America or Britain or Russia gained nothing but more oppression. I am just trying to encourage a different aspect to the victory other than the usual triumphalism that is blasted across the boards.

World War II made the world even worse off. We never should have fought that war in the first place. We should have let the Soviets and Nazis wipe each other out, and then finished off the winner.
yes, damn all those dozens of millions of people! let them all die!

I would debate that since the Soviet economy was virtually destroyed by the war, despite the movement of industry to east of the Urals. European Russia where most of the industry lay was laid waste by the Wehrmacht.
Russia was economically devastated by the war, it still has yet to recover, even after 60 years....
Russias current economic state has very little to do with WW2. it was really stalinism, politics, arms race, etc. that did it. sure you could say that stuff was partially as a result of WW2, but the real reason was politics.

Think before speaking.
thats an awfully arrogant statement. he knew exactly what he was saying. just because someone disagrees with you politically doesn't mean they dont think before they speak.

I think we should have sponsored a coup d'etat against Hitler, rather than get involved militarily.
we did support the underground movement in Germany (eventually :mad: )
we gave them lots of money supplies and shared information. germany wouldnt have fallen without U.S. invasion

I have heard of stalingrad. It wasn't an 'ass-kicking' at all. It was a prolonged stalemate, and the Russians happened to have more young boys to use up. They took even more casualties as the Germans in that battle.

Anyway, if the Americans hadn't entered the war, and Russia did firght right across Europe, there would have been an unstopable soviet bloc, no EU, no Marshall plan. So I stand by my position.
see: enemy at the gates

oh sure, British Imperial soldiers had a notable presence at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the Central Pacific Campaigns, the Philippines (both times), the US Carrier fleets, Omaha Beach, St. Lo, Cherbourg, the Battle of the Bulge, the bridge at Remagan, Schweinfurt, Big Week, Ploesti.... oh wait, they weren't present at those American victories....

The ANZACs have plenty to be proud of, as do Canadians, British, Poles, Free French, and others, not to mention the Russians.

No need to pretend that American blood wasn't as central to Allied victory as British Imperial blood.
Alaimein and Stalingrad combined put the curry up the Germans
The only American prescence at Alamein was the AF and they flew about 1181 sorties for 20 Aircraft lost DAF flew 10405 for 77

If America hadnt have sent Armed forces the war would have been different but just as likely a Victory for the Allies.
The Torch landings actually helped Panzerarmme to an extent in that with shortened supplies Rommel could hold off two massivly supperior forces in his tiny wedge.

I would think the end of nazism and the freedom of France would count for something.

Alaimein and Stalingrad combined put the curry up the Germans
The only American prescence at Alamein was the AF and they flew about 1181 sorties for 20 Aircraft lost DAF flew 10405 for 77

If America hadnt have sent Armed forces the war would have been different but just as likely a Victory for the Allies.
The Torch landings actually helped Panzerarmme to an extent in that with shortened supplies Rommel could hold off two massivly supperior forces in his tiny wedge.

US built Liberty ships, US built Landing craft, US built and crew escort carriers and destroyer escorts for the Battle of the Atlantic, US troops that supplied most of the combat divisions in Northwest Europe from July 1944 until the end of the war, US supplied trucks (nearly 800,000) to the Soviet Army that enabled the Soviets to build tanks, US manned and built fighter planes and bombers shooting down the Luftwaffe over Germany in 1944, US supplied Sherman (nearly 500) that were hurried to Egypt for Alamein (stripped from US armored divisions which then had to make do with Grants for Torch), US fire support (half the gunship fleet) at Sicily, Anzio, Normandy, Southern France,

I could go on....but the simple fact is that the British Empire and the Free French simply did not have the manpower to beat Germany on the Western Front without US forces ... no US forces, and the Soviets would have taken all of Europe once they crushed the Nazis (assuming the Soviets still got US lend lease)

as far as the Tunisian Campaign goes, all of the units of the 1st Army (US and British) performed equally well and poorly at times... the US was more ruthless about removing ineffective officers than the British were, but General Anderson, the British commander, never saw action again after the campaign.

The Germans held on for so long because Allied logistics were shaky for much of the campaign, the weather was bad, the terrain, rugged, and Hitler sent practically an entire panzer corps, plus effectively an airborne corps to beef up Panzer Armee Afrika... which worked out pretty well for the Allies as practically none of those soldiers got away when the campaign ended. In sheer numbers of Axis prisoners, it basically tied Stalingrad, both of which occured around the same time (December 42 - February 43) with Tunisia ending a month after Stalingrad.... both cost the Axis over a half million troops, and thousands of experienced and hard to replace aircrew.

US built Liberty ships, US built Landing craft, US built and crew escort carriers and destroyer escorts for the Battle of the Atlantic, US troops that supplied most of the combat divisions in Northwest Europe from July 1944 until the end of the war, US supplied trucks (nearly 800,000) to the Soviet Army that enabled the Soviets to build tanks, US manned and built fighter planes and bombers shooting down the Luftwaffe over Germany in 1944, US supplied Sherman (nearly 500) that were hurried to Egypt for Alamein (stripped from US armored divisions which then had to make do with Grants for Torch), US fire support (half the gunship fleet) at Sicily, Anzio, Normandy, Southern France,
-Snip-

I said we needed your supplies but not your Troops!
Yes including the Atlantic Convoys.
Ive already said it saved the Ruskies.

If America wants to build Tanks that cant fire in Hull down positions in the first place thats their choice dont send defective lees to us though!

I said we needed your supplies but not your Troops!
Yes including the Atlantic Convoys.
Ive already said it saved the Ruskies.

If America wants to build Tanks that cant fire in Hull down positions in the first place thats their choice dont send defective lees to us though!

just sticking to the European Theater, there is no way that Britain could have liberated France, Belgium, Luxemborg or Holland without the presence of the US Army, which had nearly 60 divisions in Europe, versus roughly 20 British, 5 Canadian, 1 Polish, 6 French, and a Brazilian division (includes Italian theater).

Without the US 8th and 9th Air Forces there would not have been a successful invasion of Normandy, and without the 8th Air Force fighting it out in daylight over Germany in the winter and spring of 1944, the German Luftwaffe would have been present in powerful numbers at DDay, enough to certainly increase the cost.

In the Pacific Theater, the US Navy and air arms of the Navy, Marine Corps and US Army Air Corps destroyed the Japanese Naval Air Force, destroyed its fleet, and made possible the defeat of Japan. Anzac blood and several divisions are certainly important, but there is no way the Royal Navy or Royal Australian Navy could have defeated the Japanese alone, especially with British committments in the Atlantic. A RN Fleet was at Okinawa, the most powerful RN fleet of the war, with 3 battleships (King George V class), 4 carriers, numerous cruisers and destroyers, but it was dwarfed by the 20 US fleet and light carriers, 10 battleships, and hundreds of cruisers and destroyers.

No US entry means no British victory in World War II... although that doesn't mean the British wouldn't have survived, they simply would have lost their empire even sooner than they did historically and those peoples would have been enslaved by something far worse... Japanese and German racial fascism.

snip

It is simple, ignore the politics for a moment. In those six years of war technology took a huge speed up. Radar, radar jamming, a fledgeling space program, first jet fighter, jets being developed and later employed for civilian use, first stealthy aircraft: Ho-229, Acceleration of piston engine devlopment, advancements all across the board of aircraft designs, aircraft carriers becoming the mainstay of the navy. I could go on and on.

OK American Military involvment in Europe is of little consequence to the Pacific you would still have to beat Japan!

It is simple, ignore the politics for a moment. In those six years of war technology took a huge speed up. Radar, radar jamming, a fledgeling space program, first jet fighter, jets being developed and later employed for civilian use, first stealthy aircraft: Ho-229, Acceleration of piston engine devlopment, advancements all across the board of aircraft designs, aircraft carriers becoming the mainstay of the navy. I could go on and on.
Exactly. Humanity NEEDS war. No matter how awful it is and how much we hate it, we need war. We couldn't live without it. Technology would advance very slowly, the world would become overpopulated and it would be (amazingly) even worse off than it is now. I for one hate war because it is pointless and bad for the health of tons of people, but I understand that humanity can't survive without and that there's nothing we can do.

Exactly. Humanity NEEDS war. No matter how awful it is and how much we hate it, we need war. We couldn't live without it. Technology would advance very slowly, the world would become overpopulated and it would be (amazingly) even worse off than it is now. I for one hate war because it is pointless and bad for the health of tons of people, but I understand that humanity can't survive without and that there's nothing we can do.

although war seems one of the things that marks us as human, I sure hope you are wrong about that

although war seems one of the things that marks us as human, I sure hope you are wrong about that
So do I.