NationStates Jolt Archive

I started a previous thread by posting the following:

I believe that WW II was basically a big fight between Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, who were more or less equally evil. If the USA and the UK and its affiliates had stayed out of the war, 'Dolf and Joe would have mainly focused on beating the crap out of each other and would have done a bang up job of it, eliminating two of the world's worst dictators. Instead, most of the western world sided with Uncle Joe. Hitler was defeated, but Stalin, and the Soviet Union, and the other socialist dictatorships of the world, were greatly strengthened and we had to deal with them for about another thirty years. Things would have been a lot simpler if Uncle Sam and . . . uh, whatever the British call their government when they're trying to be colloquial . . . had let Dolf and Joe go at unhindered. Also: Hitler was evil, but not much more evil than many of the other politicians the world has known, and Franklin Roosevelt provoked the Japanese into attacking pearl harbor so that he could convince the American people to let him go to war.

I tried to convince people not to argue with me, since I didn’t want the thread to be about WW II, but about strange ideas in general. For a while people cooperated, but eventually they took issue with my statement. For this reason I am starting this new thread. If you think I’m an idiot because of what I believe about WW II, post here. If you have strange ideas of your own, go to the What do you think is YOUR weirdest opinion/belief? Thread. Thank you.

(The Weird thread also has some responses to my statement, in case you’re interested)

... Things would have been a lot simpler if Uncle Sam and . . . uh, whatever the British call their government when they're trying to be colloquial . . .

In this context, probably "Union Jack."

well frankly i think that idea is nonsense. Hitler and Stalin had agreed on the pact of non-aggression when the war started; although its debatable whether Hitler was planning to break the pact or whether his megalomania got in the way.
but thats beside the point anyway. the main point is that Hitler did invade Belgium, France and as much of Europe to his western border as he could. if WW2 had simply been a punch up between Stalin and Hitler, he wouldn't have bothered. Hitler was hardly provoked into these invasions what with British appeasement and turning a blind eye to Czechoslovakia. and the USA's stance of isolationism at the time, at the start of the war, can hardly be called.

basically, Hitler started it on the western front, which is why the Allies got involved. if Hitler had kept his invasions to the East and, specifically, Russia, perhaps the Allies could have "let them duke it out", seeing how the Triple Entente was no longer since the Bolshevik revolution. but this simply wasn't the case.

at least thats what i believe. i could be thouroughly wrong of course. its been years since i've studied WW2 so my facts are probably not correct, for a start...

In this context, probably "Union Jack."

How about John Bull?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bull

Either one works. Technically, Union Jack is the name of their flag, but it was the first colloquialism that lept to mind.

How about John Bull?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bull

Nah: too specifically English. Britannia, perhaps?

Technically, Union Jack is the name of their flag, but it was the first colloquialism that lept to mind.

Nope, technically 'Union Flag' is the name of the flag unless it is being flown on the bow of a sailing vessel, in which case 'Union Jack' is the correct terminology.

Nope, technically 'Union Flag' is the name of the flag unless it is being flown on the bow of a sailing vessel, in which case 'Union Jack' is the correct terminology.
Hey now! I said it was a colloquialism! :eek:

I know Union Jack isn't its actual name. At any rate, we're hijacking this thread horribly.

I think we ought to make up a Name to represent all of Britain, since none seems to exist so far. How about Limey MacLwyl? Limey=English, Mac=Scottish, Lwyl=Welsh. No Irish, unfortunately, but Irish is kind of outside of Brittain. Except for North Ireland, which is a bit like Scottland anyway. Right?

Nah: too specifically English. Britannia, perhaps?

!! I forgot about Britannia! Good call! :cool:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Britannialion.jpg

Hey now! I said it was a colloquialism! :eek:

I know Union Jack isn't its actual name. At any rate, we're hijacking this thread horribly.

Are you kidding?!? We've gone a whole 11 posts without anyone mentioning Iraq, George W. Bush or who "won" the war! :D

well frankly i think that idea is nonsense. Hitler and Stalin had agreed on the pact of non-aggression when the war started;
It's an odd coincidence that I hear someone talking about World War II and non-aggression pacts right after I change my sig to "I'll Meet You in Poland, Baby".
[/offtopicness]

Anyway, I don't think that the idea that it was merely a quarrel between Hitler and Stalin quite matches up. It might be that it later turned to a quarrel between them, but I don't think it began that way. There were definately tensions there, but I don't think they were a result of only the Nazis' quarrel with the Soviets, because in my opinion that quarrel was driven at least in part by the Nazis' desire for 'lebensraum'.

Your idea of just letting Hitler and Stalin go at it was held by quite a few people, who hoped that Hitler would wipe out the commies. I think that the Munich Agreement might have been a stab at trying to appease Hitler to get him to try to get him to do something similar, but I am not quite clear on that. But apparently the 'let Hitler and Stalin duke it out' idea either didn't work, or was abandoned.
Or I could be remembering incorrectly. My history is a tad rusty.

All this time I thought the weirdest opinion about WWII was that if Germany had won Hogan's Heroes would be about a bunch of efficient but clever German guards at a POW camp who constantly fool the bumbling spies under thier watch...

If you think I’m an idiot because of what I believe about WW II

I think that because, well, gee, It may have been a little hard just to "Stay out of it" WHEN BRITIAN AND THE LIKE ARE ALREADY BEING ATTACKED/INVADED!!!!1111

I think that because, well, gee, It may have been a little hard just to "Stay out of it" WHEN BRITIAN AND THE LIKE ARE ALREADY BEING ATTACKED/INVADED!!!!1111

Hitler wanted to have a non-aggression pact with Britain, but Britain refused. At the beginning of WW II Britain was one of the most powerful nations in the world. Do you really think the Germans would have attacked them unnecessarily? If Germany had gotten the non-aggression pact with Britain, Germany would have started empire-building in the traditional manner (beating on weaker countries) until it bumped heads with the USSR.

Actually, Hitler always intended to attack the Sov Union. That's where he intended to carve 'lebensraum' out of in Europe for the 'volk'.
He attacked France becuase of the same triple alliance that existed in WWI that would rise up against his Nazi Germany:France, Britain, and Russia. To attack Russia, and be successful, he had to get the other two off his back. So he took over France, did all he could to get Britain out of the war, and then launched the war he wanted, against Stalin.
So, to get rid of Stalin we would have had to allow Hitler to keep France. That's not a trade many are willing to make. Yeah, the Cold War and the Iron Curtain(on the Soviet side) were some of the worst events in human history, but leaving France and much of Western Europe in the hands of a mad man just to get rid of Stalin is a terrible trade.

Actually, Hitler always intended to attack the Sov Union. That's where he intended to carve 'lebensraum' out of in Europe for the 'volk'.
You can call it living space and people. We're not some strange alien force that is so incomprehensible you don't even have to try.

He attacked France becuase of the same triple alliance that existed in WWI that would rise up against his Nazi Germany:France, Britain, and Russia. To attack Russia, and be successful, he had to get the other two off his back. So he took over France, did all he could to get Britain out of the war, and then launched the war he wanted, against Stalin.
Well, he needed to take out France because
a) The French declared war on him
b) He had to avenge Versailles
c) He needed to free his back for the Soviets.

Hitler wanted to have a non-aggression pact with Britain, but Britain refused.
Err, I had thought that the Munich Agreement was a treaty between Britain and the Nazis, and that the Nazis broke it by seizing Czechoslovakia?

Err, I had thought that the Munich Agreement was a treaty between Britain and the Nazis, and that the Nazis broke it by seizing Czechoslovakia?
It's true though. Hitler reckoned the Brits were of the same race as the Germans, and so they played a big part in his plans. The idea was to kill off France, and then together with the UK destroy Bolchevism.
I don't know the text of the Munich agreement, but I would imagine Hitler would've called it an internal German affair and expected the Brits to just watch. Same thing with Poland, but by then the British did declare war on Germany afterall.

Britain and France were allied with Poland . After the western powers appeased Hitler and let him take a bite out of the Chechs he then gobbled up the whole country .Afterwords he invaded Poland KNOWING he would have to fight France and Britain but beleiving them to be a house of rotten cards ( by their own actions against his earlier efforts they seemed to prove him right ) that would fall or give up . At any rate he had secured his eastern front by his non aggression pact with Stalin . Britain and France had little choice but to fight or leave Europe to Hitler .

When did they stop teaching history in school ? You would think WW1 and WW2 would be a mandatory study since those two events shaped the world that we live in today . Without knowing about the treaty of Versaille along with Hitlers thought on racial purity you can not have much of a clue about two of the major reasons for WW2 . And without knowlage of WW1 and the period of depressions that hit all over the world you can not understand the rise of militarism and facism along with the allure of communism and socialism that came to a head in WW2 and continued through the cold war . Germany and Russia had fought a proxy war in Spain at the same time German units were being trained in Russia to get around the Versaille treaty . And it would be hard to fully understand Japan withouit knowing about how Japan entered WW1 and what happened after Japan beat Russia in 1905 and the treatys that followed that war . All this led directly to Japans war in China and Manchuria and that in turn led to Pearl harbor .

Well, I can certianly say I am happy that war started when it did. I don't think the US economy could have lasted until the end of a Soviet-German war.

Hmmmm, now that I think about it...it is entirely possible that Operation Barbarossa would have succeded if the West had not become involved in the war.

Well, I can certianly say I am happy that war started when it did. I don't think the US economy could have lasted until the end of a Soviet-German war.

Hmmmm, now that I think about it...it is entirely possible that Operation Barbarossa would have succeded if the West had not become involved in the war.

I'm sorry, Lokiaa, but your comments about the US economy are simply wrong. War is not good for the economy. The economy is made up of people; killing them is not good for them. What is good for the economy (In the short term) is an expanding money supply. During the roaring twenties, the American government printed money at a very high rate. This made the economy boom, but it also debased the value of the currency. To stop the debasement, the US government slowed down its money printing. This caused the economy to recede in an incedent now called the Great Depression. When the US entered WW II it started printing money more quickly (governments almost always do this during war time). The influx of new money into the economy ended the depression. Of course, this also caused the money to lose value, and that's why things are much more expensive these days than they were in your Grandparents' time.

World War II didn't end the Great Depression; loose fiscal and monetary policy did, and not without a cost.

I'm sorry, Lokiaa, but your comments about the US economy are simply wrong. War is not good for the economy. The economy is made up of people; killing them is not good for them. What is good for the economy (In the short term) is an expanding money supply. During the roaring twenties, the American government printed money at a very high rate. This made the economy boom, but it also debased the value of the currency. To stop the debasement, the US government slowed down its money printing. This caused the ecomony to recede in an incedent now called the Great Depression. When the US entered WW II it started printing money more quickly (governments almost always do this during war time). The influx of new money into the economy ended the depression. Of course, this also caused the money to lose value. And that's why things are much more expensive these days than they were in your Grandparents' time.

World War II didn't end the Great Depression; loose fiscal and monetary policy did, and not without a cost.

Quite possibly one of the most uninformed economic posts I've seen to date. But I'll let someone else kick out your pegs.

To the original poster, its not a wierd opinion. Its exactly what Harry Truman was advocating during the war. Supporting the losing side, to make them destroy each other indefidentally. And indeed, when the war ended, truman immediatly canceled shipments to russia, including ones en route.

I'm sorry, Lokiaa, but your comments about the US economy are simply wrong. War is not good for the economy. The economy is made up of people; killing them is not good for them. What is good for the economy (In the short term) is an expanding money supply. During the roaring twenties, the American government printed money at a very high rate. This made the economy boom, but it also debased the value of the currency. To stop the debasement, the US government slowed down its money printing. This caused the ecomony to recede in an incedent now called the Great Depression. When the US entered WW II it started printing money more quickly (governments almost always do this during war time). The influx of new money into the economy ended the depression. Of course, this also caused the money to lose value. And that's why things are much more expensive these days than they were in your Grandparents' time.

World War II didn't end the Great Depression; loose fiscal and monetary policy did, and not without a cost.

Did you honeslty just post that? :eek:
I'll keep my post short and maybe someone with a better grounding in economics than I (Leonstein perhaps) will come along.

The only people that think expanding the money supply will expand the production capacity are the Keynesians, and they believe that will expand the economy only to a certain point before creating serious inflationary pressures. And, IIRC, the Keynesian view is based on the volatile curve of business investment.

War can be very good for the economy. Sure, people get killed...but people are also put to work making bullets and bombs for the people doing the killing. It's good ol' deficit spending that goes SOLELY to creating new factories and practical technology.

EDIT: And many people believe the loose money supply in the 1920's created more credit than the market could sustain, thus actually causing the Great Depression.

When did they stop teaching history in school ? You would think WW1 and WW2 would be a mandatory study since those two events shaped the world that we live in today .

I agree. It is appalling how few people have a true understanding of two greatest events in the 20th century.

Your right in one way, but you forget that Adolf Hitler also attacked Austria, Czecholslovakia, Poland then Belgium, the Netherlands and France. If he had focused all his armed might soley on Russia for his lebenstraum, then he would probably have won completely over Russia within three years, provided of course his logistics for the winter were alot better organised, indeed he would be regarded by the west then as a hero, if he had done only that and of course resettled the Jews not massacred them.

I'd say the wierdest opinion is that WWII was started by the mutated satanic penguins living under Antartica. They needed something to distract the major naval powers of the world while they moved their forces into position so that they could kill the major world leaders and seize power. Quite regretfully for the penguins, their ink ran when it came in contact with warmer waters and the orders that their assassins had were smeared, resulting in them killing the "major old lemurs". Once this move failed, the penguins became so depressed that they started drinking and writing stories about the depressing fate of the common satanic penguin in the horrible modern capatilist climate.

*snip*
Yep, that's defintely one of the odder ones out there. Want to write a short story on one of meetings of the Satanic Penguin High Command? Certainly would make for good reading. :p

Did you honeslty just post that? :eek:
I'll keep my post short and maybe someone with a better grounding in economics than I (Leonstein perhaps) will come along.

The only people that think expanding the money supply will expand the production capacity are the Keynesians, and they believe that will expand the economy only to a certain point before creating serious inflationary pressures. And, IIRC, the Keynesian view is based on the volatile curve of business investment.

War can be very good for the economy. Sure, people get killed...but people are also put to work making bullets and bombs for the people doing the killing. It's good ol' deficit spending that goes SOLELY to creating new factories and practical technology.

EDIT: And many people believe the loose money supply in the 1920's created more credit than the market could sustain, thus actually causing the Great Depression.

Maybe I was a bit unclear in my post

1. I know that expanding the money supply doesn't really increase production in any way. What it does is make money easier to get, because there is more money in the economy. Of course, the money also loses value, but people don't always realize that right away, so they feel like they are getting more money. This makes them more likely to invest aggressively, and their investment often returns handsomely because of the excess of money in the economy. Basically, loose monetary policy creates a bull market. Eventually problems crop up because of the debasement of the currency, but that is not usually until a few years down the road.

2. Inflation doesn't increase production; neither does war. In fact, because the things produced during war time are destructive rather than constructive, war can actually be seen as decreasing a country's capacity to produce goods and services. Rather than using natural and human resources to create food, clothing, housing, education and the like, the country is using its resources to create bullets, bombs and aircraft carriers, all of which serve no practicle purpose, other than to kill people.

3) I meant to imply that the loose financial policy of the twenties led to the depression of the thirties. That's why I said that an expanding money supply allways has a cost.

I think that you and I are more or less in agreement on most things economic. I look forward to meeting Leonstein if he's as knowledgeable about economics as you say.

. . .Franklin Roosevelt provoked the Japanese into attacking pearl harbor so that he could convince the American people to let him go to war.

And how did Roosevelt provoke the Japanese to do that?

And how did Roosevelt provoke the Japanese to do that?

He levied an oil embargo against them. The Japanese had no source of oil, and they knew that without oil they wouldn't be able to accomplish much in a 20th century war if they couldn't use oil dependant machines. They were cornered; desperate. So they desperately launched an attack against the US.

I know that that isn't a very satisfactory answer, but I haven't done much reading on WW II just recently and I'm not really well prepared to defend my position. If you want to argue with me, do me a favor: explain to me why Japan, a relatively small, weak nation, would deliberately attack America, the biggest freakin' kid on the block. The only answer I see is that they were really, really desperate and that America was the one who made them desperate.

He levied an oil embargo against them. The Japanese had no source of oil, and they knew that without oil they wouldn't be able to accomplish much in a 20th century war if they couldn't use oil dependant machines. They were cornered; desperate. So they desperately launched an attack against the US.

I know that that isn't a very satisfactory answer, but I haven't done much reading on WW II just recently and I'm not really well prepared to defend my position. If you want to argue with me, do me a favor: explain to me why Japan, a relatively small, weak nation, would deliberately attack America, the biggest freakin' kid on the block. The only answer I see is that they were really, really desperate and that America was the one who made them desperate.

The movie "Pearl Harbor" is no way to teach history. :D

(Yes, I know it was also mentioned in "The Godfather", but really... we also had an embargo on Germany and Italy. Yet I don't recall Italy bombing Cuba or Germany bombing Rhode Island because of it...)

The movie "Pearl Harbor" is no way to teach history. :D

(Yes, I know it was also mentioned in "The Godfather", but really... we also had an embargo on Germany and Italy. Yet I don't recall Italy bombing Cuba or Germany bombing Rhode Island because of it...)

Because Japan had only small reserves of oil and no way to get oil without importing it an embargo by the US could be considered close to an act of war if not an actual act of war because it ammounted to a blockade in Japans situation . If Japan was to survive as a military and regional power it needed to secure its strategic resources . War was inevitable with the US as long as it controlled Japans access to vital national resourses .

Think of it this way . What happens to countrys that try to embargo the US or that threaten its access to oil in the middle east ?

...

Think of it this way . What happens to countrys that try to embargo the US or that threaten its access to oil in the middle east ?
Those countries become very rich.

After all, precisely that happened in 1973--remember the OPEC oil embargo?

What happened to Iran and Iraq ?
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomic.htm

On September 22, 1980, Iraqi military forces invaded Iran, triggering a war that lasted almost eight years. Although the war was initially limited to a land war between Iran and Iraq, it spread to the Persian Gulf in 1984 when Iraq began attacking oil tankers on their way to and from Iranian ports, in an attempt to disrupt Iran’s oil exports. This resulted in the so-called Tanker War, which ended with the general ceasefire in August 1988. During the Tanker War, Iran retaliated against Iraqi attacks by attacking and mining mostly neutral-flag ships coming from or destined for ports in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, in disregard of the rules on neutral shipping and naval warfare. More than a third of the 550 or so attacks reportedly were attributable to Iran’s military forces. Iran publicly blamed the U.S. for its support of Iraq.

The U.S. attacks on the Iranian oil platforms that are at the center of this case occurred after two specific attacks on shipping in the Gulf. On October 16, 1987, the Kuwaiti tanker Sea Isle City, which had been re-flagged to the U.S., was hit by a missile near Kuwait harbor. Asserting that Iranian oil platforms were used as a staging facility for attacks by Iranian forces against shipping in the Gulf, the U.S. attacked and destroyed two Iranian offshore oil production installations in the Reshadat complex three days later. On April 14, 1988, the U.S. frigate Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine in international waters near Bahrain. Five days later, the U.S. attacked and destroyed the Nasr and Salman platforms belonging to the National Iranian Oil Company

We all know what happened to Saddam ...he's making license plates waiting for a noose . His country has been invaded and occupied . He was a threat to stability in the middle east and thus threatend the US access to oil . Do you think it a coincidence ?

What happened to Iran and Iraq ?
After 1973? Iran armed itself to the teeth with American weapons, but it didn't help the Shah. Iraq armed itself to the teeth with Soviet and French weapons. Then they decided to find out whose weapons are 'da best'. Then... well, the story of the Middle East is looong... :rolleyes:

After 1973? Iran armed itself to the teeth with American weapons, but it didn't help the Shah. Iraq armed itself to the teeth with Soviet and French weapons. Then they decided to find out whose weapons are 'da best'. Then... well, the story of the Middle East is looong... :rolleyes:

Ahhh I see so the war against Iraq ( both times ) and the sinking of Iranian ships and attacks on Iran by the uS navy were not about oil..... :rolleyes:

Ahhh I see so the war against Iraq ( both times ) and the sinking of Iranian ships and attacks on Iran by the uS navy were not about oil..... :rolleyes:
You cannot deny that by then the oil embargo of 1973 was nothing more than ancient history.

I started a previous thread by posting the following:

I believe that WW II was basically a big fight between Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, who were more or less equally evil. If the USA and the UK and its affiliates had stayed out of the war, 'Dolf and Joe would have mainly focused on beating the crap out of each other and would have done a bang up job of it, eliminating two of the world's worst dictators. Instead, most of the western world sided with Uncle Joe. Hitler was defeated, but Stalin, and the Soviet Union, and the other socialist dictatorships of the world, were greatly strengthened and we had to deal with them for about another thirty years. Things would have been a lot simpler if Uncle Sam and . . . uh, whatever the British call their government when they're trying to be colloquial . . . had let Dolf and Joe go at unhindered. Also: Hitler was evil, but not much more evil than many of the other politicians the world has known, and Franklin Roosevelt provoked the Japanese into attacking pearl harbor so that he could convince the American people to let him go to war.

I tried to convince people not to argue with me, since I didn’t want the thread to be about WW II, but about strange ideas in general. For a while people cooperated, but eventually they took issue with my statement. For this reason I am starting this new thread. If you think I’m an idiot because of what I believe about WW II, post here. If you have strange ideas of your own, go to the What do you think is YOUR weirdest opinion/belief? Thread. Thank you.

(The Weird thread also has some responses to my statement, in case you’re interested)

ok. you are :D

Ok Hitler killed millions of Jews and Stalin didn't. Of course everyone was going to go against them. Except Japan......

Because Japan had only small reserves of oil and no way to get oil without importing it an embargo by the US could be considered close to an act of war if not an actual act of war because it ammounted to a blockade in Japans situation . If Japan was to survive as a military and regional power it needed to secure its strategic resources . War was inevitable with the US as long as it controlled Japans access to vital national resourses .

And going to war with the country that you want to supply you with a resource works why? The Japanese knew they'd never win unless it was a very, very fast war... no more than 18 months. They also knew the odds were long even for that.

Think of it this way . What happens to countrys that try to embargo the US or that threaten its access to oil in the middle east ?

Good question. The answer is not very much.
* Iran's been under sanctions for about 25 years. (1979)
* Kuwait was liberated internationally, so no issue there. (1991)
*Afghanistan has no/negligable amounts of oil. (2001)
*Iraq was invaded, but the US has renounced all claims on Iraqi oil & revenue. (2002-present)
I'm not aware of any others... I also recall the gas lines in the 70s, courtesy of OPEC.

Ok Hitler killed millions of Jews and Stalin didn't. Of course everyone was going to go against them. Except Japan......

Starlin killed far more people than Hitler, he was just more indiscriminate about it

Frankly, If The UK and the US had stayed out of the War, Russia would have been totally obliterated and we would have an evil empire stretching from Paris to Rome to Moscow to Tokyo to Ouagadougu (Capital of Burkina Faso....in Africa). Not to mention the fact that Germany would have kicked the Uk's ass if they had been able to take Cairo from the North, through Russia, and that would mean that the US would be totally alone and would have been smothered from two sides. The only thing that actually would have worked against Hitler's Germany, was a war on two fronts, that is what they had (it was probobly 3 if you include Africa).

Frankly, If The UK and the US had stayed out of the War, Russia would have been totally obliterated and we would have an evil empire stretching from Paris to Rome to Moscow to Tokyo to Ouagadougu (Capital of Burkina Faso....in Africa). Not to mention the fact that Germany would have kicked the Uk's ass if they had been able to take Cairo from the North, through Russia, and that would mean that the US would be totally alone and would have been smothered from two sides. The only thing that actually would have worked against Hitler's Germany, was a war on two fronts, that is what they had (it was probobly 3 if you include Africa).

First of all, you're overestimating the Germans. Invading Russia is no easy matter; the last person to do it with any amount of success was Genghis Kahn (who was FAR more brutal than Hitler). Even Napoleon, a military genius, failed in his attempt to conquer Russia. He famously said that he was defeated because the Russians had two great generals working for them: January and February. That's the problem with invading Russia: things go well for the first little while, but then about midway through September snow starts falling and before you know it your men are up to their knees in snow and your artillery is jamming up because of the cold. By the time January shows up, you're army is in tatters. February only has to clean up the scraps.

It would have taken a miracle for the Germans to conquer Russia and then be in a position to do anything to anyone else, but even if they were able to pose a threat to the US or UK, so what? The Anglos and Americans would merely have had to fight the cold war against Naziism rather than Communism.

As a Jewish individual I think you are an asshole. Although Hitler was a genious, he was facing the wrong way. Also, socialism is better than you think.

As a Jewish individual I think you are an asshole. Although Hitler was a genious, he was facing the wrong way. Also, socialism is better than you think.

As a human individual, I find the fact that Stalin killed 40 million people more frightening than the fact that Hitler killed 6 million Jews. (Hitler killed 20 million people total, both Jews and Gentiles. Statistics courtesy of Death By Government, by R.J. Rummel, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 1994.)

He levied an oil embargo against them. The Japanese had no source of oil, and they knew that without oil they wouldn't be able to accomplish much in a 20th century war if they couldn't use oil dependant machines. They were cornered; desperate. So they desperately launched an attack against the US.

I know that that isn't a very satisfactory answer, but I haven't done much reading on WW II just recently and I'm not really well prepared to defend my position. If you want to argue with me, do me a favor: explain to me why Japan, a relatively small, weak nation, would deliberately attack America, the biggest freakin' kid on the block. The only answer I see is that they were really, really desperate and that America was the one who made them desperate.

They could've withdrawn from China. Unlike today, China and the US used to be real buddy-buddy. Americans felt they shared a unique bond with the Chinese, and were a voice that went against the Europeans taking away parts of China into thier Empires (granted, much for thier own economic interests, but still). They were really really desperate before America's oil embargo, that was what the whole war on Mainland Asia was about, getting a resource base that belonged to Japan to fuel Japan, instead of being dependent upon foreign nations, like the US.

Had we not made them desperate with the oil embargo? They would've still ended up at war with us at some point, they needed the Dutch East Indies and British possessions in Malaya to become self-sufficient. And any attack on these nations would draw the US into the war, since the Philippines straddle any attack route into those islands, and we cared a bit more about the Pacific than Europe. So we could've kept supplying with them with oil, but they would just use it to enlarge thier gains in China. It was either take a stand or let them go on, and I think we learned from Appeasement too.

As to why attack America, well, America was the only other viable Pacific power. Britain was far too stretched in it's Empire and troubles in Europe to seriously contend against Japan. The Dutch were a pushover even before the loss of thier Continental base. The Japanese needed those islands in the Pacific, and the people in thier way were us. Furthermore, Japan was not a weak insignificant nation, it was an industrial powerhouse with huge territorial possessions. It had already beaten one leviathan, Russia, in 1905, and furthermore while the US was an industrial powerhouse, our military was pathetic. Our Army was smaller than the Dutch, and our Air Force only recently expanding. Only our Navy (and Japan technically had a larger one, since ours was split between two Oceans, and not yet up to wartime readiness levels) was in anyway ready for war. Further, everything we did or built indicated that if we lost all our overseas possessions, as long as the Japanese could just keep us out and not invade the Mainland (they never intended too, despite propoganda claims) for a few months, we would agree to a negotiated peace.

Yes Germany was very stupid in invading Russia, especially since he didn't give his soldiers winter clothing.

Actually most of the Russian people had the belief that eventually, once Germany took out Most of the western enemies, that they would divide up the world.

Little known fact: The Beginning of 1942 was the closest that Germany Japan and Italy were to winning the war.

If Germany had destroyed the British Egyptian forces and moved into the middle east, while their Russian Invasion group headed south to meet up in Iran, while India rebelled against the British and Joined Japan. With Germany and Japan now able to acess Middleast oil, and Germany able leaving Moscow surrounded they could have at least won Asia. Then they could turn their Eyes for the face off with the Remains of the British and the untrained US forces. Of course that was only around a 5% chance of Happening.

As a human individual, I find the fact that Stalin killed 40 million people more frightening than the fact that Hitler killed 6 million Jews. (Hitler killed 20 million people total, both Jews and Gentiles. Statistics courtesy of Death By Government, by R.J. Rummel, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 1994.)

Ah yes the 'Forced Famine' personally I don't know which is worse, to starve to death or to be gassed after being sick for a month.

Of course that was only around a 5% chance of Happening.

How on earth did you come up with that figure? Either you are just pulling stuff out of thin air, or you are the greatest mathematician the world has ever known.

but thats beside the point anyway. the main point is that Hitler did invade Belgium, France and as much of Europe to his western border as he could. if WW2 had simply been a punch up between Stalin and Hitler, he wouldn't have bothered. Hitler was hardly provoked into these invasions what with British appeasement and turning a blind eye to Czechoslovakia. and the USA's stance of isolationism at the time, at the start of the war, can hardly be called.

basically, Hitler started it on the western front, which is why the Allies got involved. if Hitler had kept his invasions to the East and, specifically, Russia, perhaps the Allies could have "let them duke it out", seeing how the Triple Entente was no longer since the Bolshevik revolution. but this simply wasn't the case.

...It's like you've detailed the exact opposite of what really happened. Hitler did keep his attacks to the east. He invaded fascist Poland (with totally legit reasons, actually), and the western allies declared war on him. Hitler made overtures of peace (I know it sounds bizzare) whilst the allies began to restrict Germany's shipping and make probing attacks into the Saarland. Finally the Nazis threw up their hands and turned their attentions westward, rolling over the frogs and kicking us Brits clear into the Channel.

at least thats what i believe. i could be thouroughly wrong of course. its been years since i've studied WW2 so my facts are probably not correct, for a start...

Did you really ever study World War II? Not knowing who declared on who is a pretty galling error.

As a human individual, I find the fact that Stalin killed 40 million people more frightening than the fact that Hitler killed 6 million Jews. (Hitler killed 20 million people total, both Jews and Gentiles. Statistics courtesy of Death By Government, by R.J. Rummel, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 1994.)

Stalin killed a lot more than 40 million in total. Hitler's figure of 20 million is actually really unfair, and includes a lot of soldiers and civilians on either side who died in the war. Hitler can hardly be blamed for the Russian soldiers shot in the back by their commisars when unwilling to charge Werchmat machine-gun nests unarmed, or the German women taken apart with hacksaws by aforementioned soldiers in East Prussia, or even the American stratofortress pilots etc. shot down whilst bombing schools in Frankfurt, really.

The figure of 5.7 million Jews is the only one that can really be attributed to him, and it turns out most of them were not "gassed" but actually died in the typhoid epidemic that swept Germany as a result of the Allied bombing campaign.

From a utilitarian standpoint it would have been better if the Nazis had won the war simply because it would have resulted in less human loss.

Only our Navy (and Japan technically had a larger one, since ours was split between two Oceans, and not yet up to wartime readiness levels) was in anyway ready for war.

Surely that would mean technically America had the bigger navy but the Japanese had a larger force of ships in the Pacific in effect because the former was divided?

Little known fact: The Beginning of 1942 was the closest that Germany Japan and Italy were to winning the war.

If Germany had destroyed the British Egyptian forces and moved into the middle east, while their Russian Invasion group headed south to meet up in Iran, while India rebelled against the British and Joined Japan.

The Afrika Korps lacked the resources to finish the job in Egypt (as they proved at El Alamien). Perhaps if Rommel had bided his time a bit things would have gone differently, but still... Even with a succesful Egyptian campaign supplies were already tight, it seems the logistics involved in further moves to take the Middle East would have been immense, and they'd have Operation Torch in Morocco to trouble them at the end of the year.

And the Germans did attempt to push throught the Caucasus into Iran. That's what Operation Blau was all about. Unfortunatley some dumbass generalship on the part of Paulus in Stalingrad left the German Caucasus group in a precarious position and they had to withdraw.

India rebelling though, that's a massive What If. That was never likely to happen at the beginning of 1942, I'm not sure where you got that from.

...It's like you've detailed the exact opposite of what really happened. Hitler did keep his attacks to the east. He invaded fascist Poland (with totally legit reasons, actually), and the western allies declared war on him. Hitler made overtures of peace (I know it sounds bizzare) whilst the allies began to restrict Germany's shipping and make probing attacks into the Saarland. Finally the Nazis threw up their hands and turned their attentions westward, rolling over the frogs and kicking us Brits clear into the Channel.

I don't think anyone in Germany seriously believed the West was going to accept peace, they had been planning to attack the West for awhile, not quite the way you described it.

...Did you really ever study World War II? Not knowing who declared on who is a pretty galling error.

Most people just assume Germany declared war on everyone, although they officially only did it once (Against the US).

...From a utilitarian standpoint it would have been better if the Nazis had won the war simply because it would have resulted in less human loss.

From 1939-1945, there is no telling what would have happened in the world after a Nazi victory, nor telling how many would die at the hands of the Nazis.

...Surely that would mean technically America had the bigger navy but the Japanese had a larger force of ships in the Pacific in effect because the former was divided?

Well, it can go either way. The US had the larger Navy, but technically the Japanese had a larger force on hand for operations in that theatre, thus giving them the advantage. Or the Japanese had a larger force to use, but technically the US had a larger Navy.

...The Afrika Korps lacked the resources to finish the job in Egypt (as they proved at El Alamien). Perhaps if Rommel had bided his time a bit things would have gone differently, but still... Even with a succesful Egyptian campaign supplies were already tight, it seems the logistics involved in further moves to take the Middle East would have been immense, and they'd have Operation Torch in Morocco to trouble them at the end of the year.

Finally, I thought I was the only one who understood this.

...India rebelling though, that's a massive What If. That was never likely to happen at the beginning of 1942, I'm not sure where you got that from.

Most likely from a bad source, like watching the History channel program The Samurai and the Swastika. The History Channel is good, but most of thier programs really blow things out of proportion (like thier Amerika Bomber piece). Until the end when dealing with India the piece makes it seem like the entire sub-continent would go over the Subhas Chandra Bose if the Fourteenth Army fell back further.

Given the huge amounts of What If's, and the low possibility of any of them happening, I think that 5% needs to be severely reduced. Further, I'm a bit tired of the mideast oil miracle. The oilfields in that part of the world were no where near the level they are now, and the infrastructure to properly get that oil back to Germany was wholly lacking.

All I will say about the Holocaust opinions you have stated, or your claim of the rightness of Germany's invasion of Poland, is that there are probably 2 or 3 40+ page threads waaaay back in the forum dealing with this.

Hitler was playing nice with Russians for one reason. As much as we like to say he was stupid he wasnt. He knew two fronts like that was too much.

Hitler made peace propositions like hichschool boys professing love. Just to get into your pants. And then bring you under his power.

He was good at twisting people. That was it. He wanted a race killed. And he succeeded greatly due to the west's pascifist nature

If the UN had their way, who knows sadam might have been the same. With their lack of follow through on threats of force

If the UN had their way, who knows sadam might have been the same. With their lack of follow through on threats of force

Let's try to keep todays discussions out of one over World War II, the UN may have been borne of it, but Iraq udner Saddam has nothing to do with it. Want to discuss Iraq, then talk about Habbinaya Air Base or the trouble in the Levant with Vichy.

I think that because, well, gee, It may have been a little hard just to "Stay out of it" WHEN BRITIAN AND THE LIKE ARE ALREADY BEING ATTACKED/INVADED!!!!1111

Jeez. Cut the caps. These things happened decades ago, so at least keep the conversation civil and restrained. I can feel a little mercy for arguments over things happening today, but none of us here are historians dealing with publish or perish, so take it easy.

Have a nice one!

The Duke

...It's like you've detailed the exact opposite of what really happened. Hitler did keep his attacks to the east. He invaded fascist Poland (with totally legit reasons, actually) .

I'd think
(a) a better description of Poland would be "authoritarian", it wasn't out and out fascist and
(b) "legit" reasons?

... and the western allies declared war on him. Hitler made overtures of peace (I know it sounds bizzare) whilst the allies began to restrict Germany's shipping and make probing attacks into the Saarland. Finally the Nazis threw up their hands and turned their attentions westward, rolling over the frogs and kicking us Brits clear into the Channel.

I'd think
(a) Hitler knew the allies had to declare war on him, given both France and the UK was bound by treaty to defend Poland and
(b) You seemed - somehow - to have missed out that whole "Norway/Denmark" thing? Or did Hitler only invade them when the evil allies forced his hand?

You then make the CLASSIC error of claiming the deaths of the Jews were all down to a Typhus epidemic. This is, generally, the approach taken by Holocaust deniers. I wonder, have you ever read Martin Gilbert's magisterial tome "The Holocaust"? Or did you ever wonder why exactly this typhus epidemic - by and large - only seemed to carry off Jews, Gypsies etc?

And as for "From a utilitarian standpoint it would have been better if the Nazis had won the war simply because it would have resulted in less human loss.", i'm at a loss. You think that if the Nazis had won the war they would have suddenly stopped gassing - i mean, accidentally infecting with typhus - political, racial and social "undesirables"?

So, i must ask:-
Did you really ever study World War II?

Right, some more info on the early war:
There was a "Fall Rot" plan in case France would attack when Germany took over Czecheslovakia. So they were quite ready to fight the West from Day One.

Polish propaganda, and politicians, were quite confident the German offensive would be crushed and they would march on Berlin soon.
Their military planning staff apparently wasn't. So the civilian population was completely unprepared for the onslaught, were on picnics and so on.

And for our friend Unified Japan, I'd like him to read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_quote).

Right, some more info on the early war:
There was a "Fall Rot" plan in case France would attack when Germany took over Czecheslovakia. So they were quite ready to fight the West from Day One.

Of course, Fall Rot didn't work too well against the French even after they were emaciated in Fall Gelb.

Polish propaganda, and politicians, were quite confident the German offensive would be crushed and they would march on Berlin soon.
Their military planning staff apparently wasn't. So the civilian population was completely unprepared for the onslaught, were on picnics and so on.

Of course, all politicians and especially propoganda would say this. Of course, any cursory look at how the Polish were forming thier armies shows they were not really expecting to launch offensive operations soon, and were far more concerned with holding onto Silesia (and basically any soil said to be Polish, leading to disastrous deployment that helped propogate the blitzkreig myth).

If America and the UK had stayed out. Nazis ruled would cover the globe.

This is crazy.

Why debate what good was done ? how was stoppping the murder of so many people bad ?

If America and the UK had stayed out. Nazis ruled would cover the globe.

This is crazy.

Why debate what good was done ? how was stoppping the murder of so many people bad ?

Why debate? Because people seem to have the perception that WW II was a fight between good and evil and that the Nazis were virtually unbeatable. I think both are false: almost all wars are more like a fight between evil and evil (note my earlier comments on the death tolls of Hitler and Stalin: both were evil), and when you look at the economics of the war, Germany was not much stronger than any one of the USSR, Britain or the US. The Nazis seemed unbeatable at first because they kind of got the drop on everyone and won some early victories, but, once the Allies mobilized their armies, victory over the Nazis was merely a matter of the proper application of overwhelming force.

The Nazis would have ruled the world? At their height, the Nazis didn't even have all of Europe. The British, in their colonial days, came much closer to ruling the world, but you never hear anyone talk about how scary that is, or say that the French were doing something noble when they fought against the British. And after WW II, because of the actions of the US and Britain, the Soviets ruled a substantial portion of the world. This hardly seems like "good that was done" considering that Stalin was just as evil as Hitler.

You seem to overlook the fact that Hitler attacked Britain before he attacked Russia. If he had left Britain alone and just gone after Stalin, things might have been different. Also, Hitler lost the Battle of Britain because he refocused on civilian targets and slowed his attacks on military ones, giving Britain the ability to "hang on" until the U.S. entered the war. He should have kept on going after the R.A.F. and/or never attacked England to start with and accepted Dunkirk as the British defeat and left them alone on their island.

I think we ought to make up a Name to represent all of Britain, since none seems to exist so far. How about Limey MacLwyl? Limey=English, Mac=Scottish, Lwyl=Welsh. No Irish, unfortunately, but Irish is kind of outside of Brittain. Except for North Ireland, which is a bit like Scottland anyway. Right?

Limey O'MacLwyl?