The Little History lesson.

[Curlew]

Yes, the russians were, and you can read all about it here, http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,264755.0/topicseen.html , you can then continue to read and see why the germans lost!

[Bruv119]

   kermit   still at it?

if hitler / stalin had an epic battle with no-one else involved.  I doubt america would have been able to defeat the victor in 1940-1941.

with america being isolationist and the rest of the world under commonwealth or german/russian , japanese rule it would have been very orwelian like with 3 superpowers.  Any potential conflicts between either of these 4 would have resulted in many casualties.

Either way America would have been much worse off if it didn't happen the way it did.  With churchill being half american/british  It was more of a passing of the torch for international supremacy.  We would rather have americans in charge than a bloody fascist/communist.  the "free world" etc.

whilst your argument holds true, he was a warmonger IMO Hitler / stalin types are MUCH more dangerous in terms of killing people.

[Ack-Ack]

Pat Buchanan argues as much in his book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

Lucky for us that Buchanan doesn't really know what he's talking about and his book is really nothing more than an attempt at revising history.

War against Japan was inevitable, despite what Buchanan claimed in his book.  Even though we were in the midst of an isolationist movement, we still considered the Pacific Ocean to be our 'pond' and didn't like the territorial ambition of the Japanese, hence the embargos we placed against them (to try to control and ultimately stop their land grab in the Pacific and China) which became the catalyst that lead to Peal Harbor and war.


ack-ack

[Anaxogoras]

Lucky for us that Buchanan doesn't really know what he's talking about and his book is really nothing more than an attempt at revising history.

That's an understatment.   Still, the Versailles treaty was probably a worse option than the Carthaginian peace than the French wanted.  Either destroy your enemy completely or lift him up after victory, but don't let him fester in humiliation with the potential to come back and hurt you.

[Ack-Ack]

That's an understatment.   Still, the Versailles treaty was probably a worse option than the Carthaginian peace that the French wanted.  Either destroy your enemy completely or lift him up after victory, but don't let him fester in humiliation.

Oh, I agree the Treaty of Versailles made a 2nd war in Europe inevitable, and to a certain extent, the failure of the League of Nations as well.


ack-ack

[Kermit de frog]

  kermit   still at it?

if hitler / stalin had an epic battle with no-one else involved.  I doubt america would have been able to defeat the victor in 1940-1941.

with america being isolationist and the rest of the world under commonwealth or german/russian , japanese rule it would have been very orwelian like with 3 superpowers.  Any potential conflicts between either of these 4 would have resulted in many casualties.

Either way America would have been much worse off if it didn't happen the way it did.  With churchill being half american/british  It was more of a passing of the torch for international supremacy.  We would rather have americans in charge than a bloody fascist/communist.  the "free world" etc.

whilst your argument holds true, he was a warmonger IMO Hitler / stalin types are MUCH more dangerous in terms of killing people.

We are America, we can do anything!  Like have popularity contests every 4 years!  Yeahh!!   

We could have let the Germans beat the Russians while we focus on Japan!  Then we could have beaten the new Germany.  Then beat down the Koreans and Vietnamese with one hand behind our backs!  And if Britain still had their slave nations, we would have beaten you Brits too!

(I say the above with a touch of propaganda)

Anyone know of a good place to hide from Bruv?  The MA is not SAFE!
 

[Obie303]

I believe, as many of you have already expressed, that history, after years of being debated and analyzed, can be rewritten and certain truths and facts are blurred and distorted.  To say that one person is responsible for the start of WWII is petty ignorance.  I wouldn't blame Churchill for what happened in Europe no less than I would say Roosevelt was responsible.  In the end, what happened was a part of history that will continue to be debated.  It's my opinion, discussions like this will continue.  It's only natural to find fault for a wrongful act in history.

Case in point.  I started reading a new book titled "With Wings Like Eagles" by Michael Korda.  This book was released a few weeks ago.  It didn't take long for this author (Chapter Two) to make an utter false statement about the Polish Air Force giving up the fight in the first few hours of the fight.  What really upsets me that even after all these years, many authors still cling to the false myths.

Some myths that proved to be false:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060506082348/ww2-aviation.net/polavhist/myths.html

[Bruv119]

Then we could have beaten the new Germany.  Then beat down the Koreans and Vietnamese with one hand behind our backs!  And if Britain still had their slave nations, we would have beaten you Brits too!

Explain to me how you would have invaded Europe and russia?   After finishing off the japanese who would have had the industrial backing of their allies.  Without nukes. 

Without your unsinkable aircraft carrier and no North africa it would have taken something un-imaginable at the time for the US to get across the atlantic to do anything! 

[Anaxogoras]

Obie, have you noticed that even the wikipedia article on the invasion of Poland does not state these myths?  I would suspect that the first two myths actually originate from the Allies rather than Germany, however.  Puffing up the Luftwaffe to be bigger and badder than it really was is part of the glory-story of Allied victory, and a convenient way to explain away the early Allied blunders of the war.

[oakranger]

Explain to me how you would have invaded Europe and russia?   After finishing off the japanese who would have had the industrial backing of their allies.  Without nukes. 

Without your unsinkable aircraft carrier and no North africa it would have taken something un-imaginable at the time for the US to get across the atlantic to do anything! 

Invade Europe would be a tough cookie to do, in fact the U-boats will be all over us.  Russia won't be so hard, we can cross the Baring Straights. 

[Kermit de frog]

Explain to me how you would have invaded Europe and russia?   After finishing off the japanese who would have had the industrial backing of their allies.  Without nukes. 

Without your unsinkable aircraft carrier and no North africa it would have taken something un-imaginable at the time for the US to get across the atlantic to do anything! 

You mean Britain would not help us conquer the new Germany after Russia had been defeated???
I think by that time, Churchill would have lost 100lb running in circles, waiting for us to help him get that invasion started.

To invade Russia, we would have used China and Japan, since Japan our troops would have already massed there for the defeat of Japan.

Then to attack Britain if necessary, I'm sure Ireland would have helped us out.   

[WWhiskey]

Yea, my friends like to tell me all the cool stuff that happened in history on their birthdays.  In my mind, nothing comes close to "on my birthday Hitler decided to lose WW2 "  June 22 for the win...er lose.  Good thing Mussolini was incompetant in Greece, or my day would be pretty ordinary.   

june 22 1965 for the win a good day to be born 

[Bruv119]

You mean Britain would not help us conquer the new Germany after Russia had been defeated???
I think by that time, Churchill would have lost 100lb running in circles, waiting for us to help him get that invasion started.

To invade Russia, we would have used China and Japan, since Japan our troops would have already massed there for the defeat of Japan.

Then to attack Britain if necessary, I'm sure Ireland would have helped us out.   

Churchill would have been out of a job because he would have been replaced by a pro-german, puppet, peace loving PM.   So you get no help from us in this hypothetical situation.   Infact you haven't got any friends anywhere except maybe the Aussies......

The problem Is kermit,  it took the US a good couple of years to get across the pacific.  With Germany already in control of europe/ russia they could have easily sent aid / troops / planes to assist the japanese.  Whilst von braun continued his work on the V1/V2's/ ICBMS etc nukes.  The US would be at a loss for technology / codebreakers / radar boffins and the wolf packs would be patrolling the US coast / atlantic in more and more numbers.

so blaming churchill for causing WW2 and a higher death toll is folly if it resulted in washington sueing for peace and the Free world (capitalism / democracy ) being broken to the little fascist crazy.

[Obie303]

The US would be at a loss for technology / codebreakers / radar boffins and the wolf packs would be patrolling the US coast / atlantic in more and more numbers.

Much of the code breakers and intelligence prior to the BoB was provided by Polish cryptographers.  Bletchley Park took much of the credit though.
http://www.ww2.pl/The,„Enigma”,and,the,Intelligence,26.html