Author Topic: So who won the war? (Read 2700 times)

Boroda · « **Reply #15 on:** July 05, 2005, 12:32:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Would be interesting to see Russians trying to shove military supplies thru two million miles of phone wire.. and stand around looking at all that fuel with no truks to put it in.

Hang, most of the trucks were delivered after 1943, when the end was quite obvious.

My point was to show that some lend-leased supplies are unknown to public, but were much more imporant then second-hand Hurricanes or "General Lee" tanks.

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Well, if yah didn't need the stuff, or pay for it.. least yah coulda done was return it.

We returned everything that remained undamaged. And we payed for lend-lease 3 times more then other allies as UK did, I mean the same equipment was 3 times more expensive for USSR then for the UK.

Seeker · « **Reply #16 on:** July 05, 2005, 12:33:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
There was no "declared Soviet aim to spread communism". For such ideas in 1930s you could be accused in Trotskism and spend some time cutting trees.

More to say: Comintern advised it's members (national left-wing parties) to stop fighting for "social revolution".

Ah; that explains what happend in Spain then

ramzey · « **Reply #17 on:** July 05, 2005, 12:40:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
There was no "declared Soviet aim to spread communism". For such ideas in 1930s you could be accused in Trotskism and spend some time cutting trees.

More to say: Comintern advised it's members (national left-wing parties) to stop fighting for "social revolution".

Pavel you lie so sweet, can we read it again in slow motion?

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #18 on:** July 05, 2005, 12:41:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
There was no "declared Soviet aim to spread communism". For such ideas in 1930s you could be accused in Trotskism and spend some time cutting trees.

More to say: Comintern advised it's members (national left-wing parties) to stop fighting for "social revolution".

Really?

Nevermind the 1930's, we're talking about post war Europe with regards to spreading ideals.

Are you going to try to tell everyone there was no Soviet policy of expansionism?

Surely not.

Boroda · « **Reply #19 on:** July 05, 2005, 12:42:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seeker
Ah; that explains what happend in Spain then

Maybe it does. I hope you remember what happened there by 1939. And the revolution in Spain was not "communist" or "socialistic", Civil war began as a fascist uprising. "The sky is clear all over Spain".

Boroda · « **Reply #20 on:** July 05, 2005, 12:43:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ramzey
Pavel you lie so sweet, can we read it again in slow motion?

Should I provide you Comintern documents?...

Boroda · « **Reply #21 on:** July 05, 2005, 12:52:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Really?

Nevermind the 1930's, we're talking about post war Europe with regards to spreading ideals.

Are you going to try to tell everyone there was no Soviet policy of expansionism? Surely not.

Soviet expansionism in post-war Europe?!

Did we provoke uprisings in NATO countries, anything similar to Hungary 1956? Did we support armed resistance groups in the West, like "blue" side did in Ukraine and Baltic SSRs?

I have to remind you that Soviet Army withdrew from Austria, and left it neutral. There were serious plans to withdraw from GDR in early-50s, ruined after Stalin died and political gangsters led by Khruschev started to fight for power. BTW, one of the real accusations against Beriya was that he supported an idea of withdrawing from Germany and negotiating with the West to re-unite Germany, and it was almost 40 years before Gorby!...

Again I have to repeat: post-war Soviet policy in Europe had one aim: to provide security for the USSR. In 1945 Western "allies" could be thrown into the Atlantic in a matter of weeks, but it didn't happen. You call it "expansionism"?

Monk · « **Reply #22 on:** July 05, 2005, 01:07:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda

Again I have to repeat: post-war Soviet policy in Europe had one aim: to provide security for the USSR.

Pretty good job too.

Thrawn · « **Reply #23 on:** July 05, 2005, 01:14:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
Therefore without Britain's heroic lone stand we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Dan, Sheffield, England

I'm so sick and tired of hearing about Britain's so called "lone stand". Sure, it wa alone...if by "alone" you mean "not alone".

Skydancer · « **Reply #24 on:** July 05, 2005, 01:19:21 PM »

Duh and theres me thinking it was Hitler who kicked off the procedings. Nope I was wrong it seems it was Britain's fault that WW2 happened! If we had just let Mr Chamberlain carry on waving paper and divvied the world up between us and the Nazis there wouldn't have been a war!

Come on? Mr Chamberlain was responding to the fact that we had not long before lost a large portion of our male population fighting German expansion and were prepared to try anything to avert such a thing happening again. Also we needed the year or so it bought us to try and get our forces into some kind of war readiness.

When it was crystal clear that Mr Hitler was not going to just grab a bit of extra living room for German speakers but had rather more meglomaniac intentions, my nation did the right thing and declared war. For many a long month the British empire waged war alone whilst the USA and USSR dithered about who's side they were on or if they were going to fight at all.

And the Irony of Ironies is that this country went to war over Poland and the USA our great ally helped to seal Polands fate by doing a deal with uncle Joe to let him keep it after the war!!!

No we couldn't have won that conflict on our own, yes its a good job the US did finaly jump in and help. But in reality this country bankrupted itself, lost thousands of lives and its empire and economic power. Perhaps Mr Chamberlain was right all along?

Hangtime · « **Reply #25 on:** July 05, 2005, 02:05:53 PM »

Quote

And the Irony of Ironies is that this country went to war over Poland and the USA our great ally helped to seal Polands fate by doing a deal with uncle Joe to let him keep it after the war!!!

You scewed the Poles, not us. Eyeball their treatment in your country after the war, sidelined at the victory parades. The Polish government and free forces fled to England after the Gemans conquored 'em. They fought with British units. Not American. Your 'deportation' of their free troops back to Russian Occupied Poland and certain execution..

Yes, we took a part of bthe abandonment of Poland after the war.. But it was England that did the deed. Don't try that Boroda re-direct crap on this side of the pond, Skydancer.

straffo · « **Reply #26 on:** July 05, 2005, 06:11:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
How soon you forget. Ever heard of a clown named Chamberlain? You know, the guy with the document signed by Mr Hitler, guaranteeing peace in our time? You must have layed out of history class that day.

Face up to the facts, the Europeans had been in a near constant state of war for 8 or 10 CENTURIES.

Only after the horror of the most devastating war in the history of the world did any of the European powers become even somewhat hesitant to wage war.

Some points :

even if I hate siding with the brits (our traditionnal enemy you know

) at least Chamberlain tried something and I'm not sure he had a lot of option giving his health and the hope lot of people had to not see a second world wa r(perfectly illustrated by your last sentence ).

It's also easy to say the European have 8 to 10 century of war when living in a country about 200 years old.
But as lot of Americans I guess you have possibly Euro blood and possibly are as guilty as me of whe happened 300 year go

(seriously this idea crack me up

)

straffo · « **Reply #27 on:** July 05, 2005, 06:12:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
How soon you forget. Ever heard of a clown named Chamberlain? You know, the guy with the document signed by Mr Hitler, guaranteeing peace in our time? You must have layed out of history class that day.

Face up to the facts, the Europeans had been in a near constant state of war for 8 or 10 CENTURIES.

Only after the horror of the most devastating war in the history of the world did any of the European powers become even somewhat hesitant to wage war.

Some points :

even if I hate siding with the brits (our traditionnal enemy you know

) at least Chamberlain tried something and I'm not sure he had a lot of option giving his health and the hope lot of people had to not see a second world wa r(perfectly illustrated by your last sentence ).

It's also easy to say the European have 8 to 10 century of war when living in a country about 200 years old.
But as lot of Americans I guess you have possibly Euro blood and possibly are as guilty as me of whe happened 300 year go

(seriously this idea crack me up

)

Skydancer · « **Reply #28 on:** July 05, 2005, 06:16:41 PM »

The Frenchman is quite right, ( ooh that hurt

remember agincourt, ah thats better

)

Now on the subject in question

"The Americans lost 300,000 in WWII. We British lost 600,000. The Russians lost 17-20 million. I don't have any doubt who made the greatest contribution to the defeat of Nazism.
Steve, Sheffield, UK

If we had lost the Battle of Britain at the beginning of the war there would have been no western front and no supply routes to Russia. Consequently, the above arguments would have been made irrelevant. Whilst we could not win the war, by not losing at this early stage this battle was the most important factor.
Steven Miles, Nazeing, Essex"

I believe these arte two pretty accurate assesments. Plus we British have by far the smallest population of the three. seems like a big contribution to me.

Now what was it that was said earlier about sitting back doing nothing? Actualy I find that a blatant insult my freind.

Seeker · « **Reply #29 on:** July 05, 2005, 06:43:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
. Plus we British have by far the smallest population of the three. seems like a big contribution to me.

Did you miss Thrawn's post? Great Britain may have limited manpower; Imperial Britain did not.

Want to give the yanks a hard time? Ask 'em where our training fees are for schooling 'em in Africa. Allies that are mere meat on the table for one's enemies are hardly any help at all.....