Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seeker on July 05, 2005, 04:52:32 AM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4508901.stm
Another BBS for guys to post on.
It's an intermnable point.
-
"The biggest loser in the war was Britain, who lost her empire, foreign assets and was still paying for the cost of the war (mostly to the USA) decades later. The Soviets had the highest casualties, both civilian and military, but won a moral victory despite their leaders incompetence. The Americans were the real winners, they came out of the Great Depression with a stable/growing economy, made loads of money and still claim the moral high ground to this day. However, I believe that Britain should take the 'winners medal' as it took almost two years before the USA and the USSR declared war on Germany. Therefore without Britain's heroic lone stand we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Dan, Sheffield, England"
I agree with this chap but then I would wouldn't I
;) :lol
-
britan didn't lose anything except things they never owned in the first place. Hitler was within rock throwing distance and you guys let it all happen. The fight after that was heroic in a euro barbarian way but... it was just the normal euro barbarian diplomacy style. You probly lost the most but... it was inevitable.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
However, I believe that Britain should take the 'winners medal' as it took almost two years before the USA and the USSR declared war on Germany.
At about this point in time it`s probably a good thing that the U.S. didn`t start kicking and screaming "Your leaders got us in this stupid war" , as you seem to be so fond of saying about about the U.S. comcerning recent events, huh?
You might just be practicing your goose step about now.
-
We let it all happen!!!!:eek:
Are you totaly barmy!
Tell that to my Grandfather's generation. That remark is an insult to their memory!
Jackal1 Bloody nonsense. The two situations bear no comparison.
-
Mr Falin, however, says Russians never forgot the help they received from their allies.
"You ask any Soviet person, whether he remembers what a Dodge or a Willis is!" he says.
"The Americans supplied us with 450,000 lorries. Of course, in the final stages of the war this significantly increased our armed forces' mobility, decreased our losses and brought us, perhaps, greater success than if we had not such help."
[/i]
I'm sure Boroda will be by shortly to dispell this myth known as propaganda above. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
... it was inevitable.
lazs
Kim Jong Il: And now da destwuction of de worurd is inedidable
Lisa: It's what?
Kim Jong Il: Ine - ine - inedidable.
Lisa: One more time...
Kim Jong Il: I said, da destwuction of da worurd is inedible. Golly-geen, open your ******* eaws, girw!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
britan didn't lose anything except things they never owned in the first place. Hitler was within rock throwing distance and you guys let it all happen. The fight after that was heroic in a euro barbarian way but... it was just the normal euro barbarian diplomacy style. You probly lost the most but... it was inevitable.
lazs
I'd definately agree that _a_ world war was inevitable; partly as a result of you guys and the French.
You'd (along with the French) proven that one didn't need a God annointed king to be stable; and that not only was the grip of religion a hindrance to material progress; but that material progress did more good to more people than religion ever did. Therefore a conflict between the vested interests in power on the European mainland and the new forces of Democracy and rationality were in fact inevitable.
However; that there was a _second_ world war is a deplorable stain on humanities record; I reckon.
Further; having made a "deal with the devil"; inasmuch as Imperial Britain came to rely so heavily on a former client state; then yes; I agree that the Empire was doomed. It was clear from an early state that the post war world would be in great part ruled by the USA; and it had been a declared aim of the USA to spread it's version of popular rule (therefore putting it's self in conflict with the Imperial powers) in much the same way it was a declared Soviet aim to spread communism.
So yes; Great Britain absolutely needed the help of the USA in achieving Churchill's goal of unconditional surrender; but accepting that help lead to the inevitable end of Imperial Britain.
-
"..ruled by the USA..."
Objection!!
(along with mosta the rest of the world outside of Washington)
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
We let it all happen!!!!:eek:
Are you totaly barmy!
Tell that to my Grandfather's generation. That remark is an insult to their memory!
Jackal1 Bloody nonsense. The two situations bear no comparison.
But Skydancer; the critique is valid.
The Europeans were masters of thier own ship; if not dam near every one else's ship in the begining of the 20th. centuary.
Who else can you blame for WWII; ileagal combatants or something?
No; it was indeed our Grandfathers' generation.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
We let it all happen!!!!:eek:
Are you totaly barmy!
Tell that to my Grandfather's generation. That remark is an insult to their memory!
Jackal1 Bloody nonsense. The two situations bear no comparison.
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.:rolleyes:
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.
-
lessee where's my BBS Euro vs US Battle Royale checklist
popcorn... Check!
candy, gummibears, assorted... CHECK!
brewski's, cold, american... CHECK!
Ready on the American Right... Right side is ready!
Ready on the American Left... Left side is ready!
Lock and load, gents....
You may commence bickering!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm sure Boroda will be by shortly to dispell this myth known as propaganda above. ;)
USSR received more cars and trucks from lend-lease then it produced by itself during the War. It's a fact. But if you'll look at delivery schedule you'll see that the War was won on Soviet Zakhars (ZiS-5), not on Studebeckers. "An egg is precious on Easter".
Lend-leased weapons were insignificant compared to oil-cracking factories and 2 million kilometers of telephone wire...
-
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.
Well, if yah didn't need the stuff, or pay for it.. least yah coulda done was return it.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
and it had been a declared aim of the USA to spread it's version of popular rule (therefore putting it's self in conflict with the Imperial powers) in much the same way it was a declared Soviet aim to spread communism.
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".
-
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.
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.
-
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 :)
-
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? ;)
-
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?:rolleyes:
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?:eek: Surely not.:rolleyes:
-
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".
-
Originally posted by ramzey
Pavel you lie so sweet, can we read it again in slow motion? ;)
Should I provide you Comintern documents?... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Really?:rolleyes:
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?:eek: Surely not.:rolleyes:
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"? :confused:
-
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.
(http://www.brianrose.com/lostborder/images/16-sm.jpg)
-
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".
-
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! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
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?
-
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.
-
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.:rolleyes:
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 :D) 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 :D
(seriously this idea crack me up :D)
-
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.:rolleyes:
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 :D) 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 :D
(seriously this idea crack me up :D)
-
The Frenchman is quite right, ( ooh that hurt ;) remember agincourt, ah thats better :lol )
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.
-
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.....
-
Yeah I did. Good point.
-
yeah, we conquered a nation, made our mistakes along the way, but without us there would have been no aresenal of democracy, and even if hitler had been beaten solely by the soviets and british, the soviets would have ALL of europe now
-
2 cents by someone who lived through it...
...we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Some points :
even if I hate siding with the brits (our traditionnal enemy you know :D) 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 :D
(seriously this idea crack me up :D)
Hehe. I guess you could say Chamberlain tried something, despite the fact that it obviously was not going to work.
Yeah, we've only been around 229 years. OTOH, how many of the wars we've been in were started in one way or another by European powers, especially in the 20th Century? My point was, for centuries, Europe has been engulfed in wars of conquest, and that did not change until World War II ended. No, the US is not lilly white, far from it. In fact, I think we should also bear some of the blame for allowing World War II to escalate. We should have prepared for war earlier and better, and done something before we were attacked.
OTOH, you have to remember that MOST of the citizens of the US had LEFT Europe, and wanted little to do with Europe, especially when it came to being drawn into ANOTHER European war of conquest. The idea that Europeans cornered the market on being war weary after the 1st World War is a little facetious. Both times we came in late, but we were still there and it still cost us dearly.
Yes, I do have German blood, and also a little Irish blood, in my veins. My Dad's father came over from Germany a few years before World War I. Unlike some, I do not blame the descendants for what the ancestors did. Just like I find the notion of blaming white US citizens of today for slavery absurd, I find the notion of blaming those Europeans outside the governments of the European nations involved (much less the Europeans not even born then) for World War II absurd.
-
Yep very much agree there.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
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.....
Yeah, and when the US Army got it's prettythang kicked at Kasserine Pass who was in command? And what happened when a good US general was put in command of the same troops against the same enemy?
-
Originally posted by Monk
Pretty good job too.
(http://www.brianrose.com/lostborder/images/16-sm.jpg)
:lol :lol :lol :lol
-
Wasn't Ike in command of the US troops at Kasserine? Or did I get that wrong.
Besides without El Alemain ( my spelling stinks ) there would have been no Kasserine pass battle to fight. No Operation torch no deal at all in Africa.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Wasn't Ike in command of the US troops at Kasserine? Or did I get that wrong.
Besides without El Alemain ( my spelling stinks ) there would have been no Kasserine pass battle to fight. No Operation torch no deal at all in Africa.
You got it wrong, ALL wrong. US troops at Kasserine Pass were under BRITISH command. Ike replaced the British commander with Patton.
By the way, Monty got his prettythang handed to him until he got intelligence breaks. So long as Rommel and Monty were on equal terms as far as intelligence and counter intelligence, Monty was getting whipped.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
But Skydancer; the critique is valid.
Who else can you blame for WWII
Germany. Last time I checked Britain didn't invade Czechoslovakia and Poland. Nobody forced Germany inot starting the war, the Germany goverment decided it wanted one (just as the Germans and the Austrians decided they wanted one in 1914).
Now you can certainly blame Britain and France for not doing everything they could have to prevent it. However it's easy for the USA to be aggressive after the fact, particularly as it didn't have to suffer through four years and millions dead in the previous war.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Yeah, and when the US Army got it's prettythang kicked at Kasserine Pass who was in command?
ummm, Rommel?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
britan didn't lose anything except things they never owned in the first place.
Yes because the USA originally owned all the central and west of the current country: no-one lived there and no people were killed, displaced and generally oppressed in it's taking...............
-
Originally posted by Pei
Yes because the USA originally owned all the central and west of the current country: no-one lived there and no people were killed, displaced and generally oppressed in it's taking...............
So where do you stand on Austrailia's historical policy vis a vis the Aboriginies?
-
Originally posted by Pei
Germany. Last time I checked Britain didn't invade Czechoslovakia and Poland. Nobody forced Germany inot starting the war, the Germany goverment decided it wanted one (just as the Germans and the Austrians decided they wanted one in 1914).
Now you can certainly blame Britain and France for not doing everything they could have to prevent it. However it's easy for the USA to be aggressive after the fact, particularly as it didn't have to suffer through four years and millions dead in the previous war.
Jeezus freakin cripes.. we bailed Europe out in THAT war too. Who you gonna blame fer starting or award the winners prize to for that one? Enh? Check yer cottin pickin brain at the door?
The USofA that you guys just looooove ta rag on over the course of the last 100 years has stepped up and saved yer collective bacon more times than you've saved ours.. or your own. And, after we got done cleaning up yer mess, we handed back the keys to the 'victors' and vanquished alike and let yah go about ruining yer lil cabbage patches again.
Yah thankless whiners.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Jeezus freakin cripes.. we bailed Europe out in THAT war too. Who you gonna blame fer starting or award the winners prize to for that one? Enh? Check yer cottin pickin brain at the door?
The USofA that you guys just looooove ta rag on over the course of the last 100 years has stepped up and saved yer collective bacon more times than you've saved ours.. or your own. And, after we got done cleaning up yer mess, we handed back the keys to the 'victors' and vanquished alike and let yah go about ruining yer lil cabbage patches again.
Yah thankless whiners.
I don't love to rag on the USA, though many here do, and I appreciate the fact that neither war would have been won without the USA, and the that the USA took the major part in the second one. I along with many other Europenas will always remain grateful for the sacrifice and valour of the USA during the 20th century. This does not mean that I accept the often arrogant and ignorant remarks made by some US citizens (on this BBS and elsewhere).
I fail to understand why the UK gets the blame for starting either war nor do I understand how many on this board fail to appreciate the sacrifice in blood, money and power the UK made nor the fact the the UK began making those sacrifices long before the USA got involved on either occasion.
The UK did not have to declare war on Germany in either 1914 nor 1939. This would have meant accepting Germany as the major European power (and one of the first superpowers), but on neither occasion was their any direct threat to the UK or the Empire. The world would almost certainly be a worse place than it is now but the UK could well have been better off (and more of my family would be alive for that matter).
-
Dodge, Pei... dodge!
Did you post this?? :
... it's easy for the USA to be aggressive after the fact, particularly as it didn't have to suffer through four years and millions dead in the previous war.
And this:
Yes because the USA originally owned all the central and west of the current country: no-one lived there and no people were killed, displaced and generally oppressed in it's taking...............
And THIS:
This does not mean that I accept the often arrogant and ignorant remarks made by some US citizens (on this BBS and elsewhere).
For arrogant and ignorant posters, might I invite you to grab a mirror. Then, since you'll have a visual, You, Sir; can take yer posts, print 'em on 80lb paper, fold 'em up till they're all sharp pointy corners and use that mirror pack 'em up yer backside.
Cherrio, enh, wot!
Oh, and have a nice day... one brought to you and paid for by OUR Uncle Sam.
-
Who caused the war? If you want to get technical then the Allied Powers of WWI did when they laid an oppressive burden on the German people at the end of the war in the form of the Treaty of Versailles. In effect, this treaty made Germany their ***** for the next few decades. Hitler? He started out doing great things for Germany. Eliminated unemployment, created jobs, turned a destroyed economy completely around. Then he got greedy and wanted more (as uncontrolled power always tends to do). He annexes the Czechs and Chamberlain, acting on what he believes at the time to be the best for the British people, lets Hitler keep it in exchange for a document promising peace. Hitler takes this to mean "I can get away with murder" and later takes Poland. Stalin, having killed off most of his military in the Great Purges of the '30s, sees Hilter taking over Poland (which they jointly raped years earlier) and sees his country unable to fight the German military machine, so he signs the non-aggression pact. Britain and France declare war over Poland. France does this to honor the alliance with Britain as they are woefully unprepared for the war, putting far too much faith in their wall between their border and Germany. Germany topples France in weeks after attacking through Belgium exactly like they did in WWI (which still amazes me as the French had no defensive provisions for this). France copitulates and Britain is beaten back to the Channel. Meanwhile, the U.S. aids Britain in every way possible short of open warfare as the U.S. needs the money and jobs generated by the Lend-Lease agreement and the U.S. military is in no shape to fight another major war. Germany then attacks Russia and Stalin is caught woefully unprepared as his trust in Hitler to honor the non-aggression pact was nearly his undoing. The Soviets finally stop the German advance outside of Moscow and push the Germans out of Stalingrad, and by this time the U.S. has entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Lend-Lease extended to the Soviets though it doesn't start arriving until 1943. Second front opened in France in 1944 and eventually Germany, fighting a losing war on both fronts, surrenders in May 1945. Japan follows suit in September after atomic bombings.
The Outcome:
United States:
- recovery from a major depression
- sphere of influence in Europe created by Treaty
- money generated from Lend-Lease
- loss of 400,000+ lives
Britain:
- end of Imperial era
- cities damaged by bombings
- massive war debt
- territories gained in Middle East
- loss of 380,000+ lives
France:
- occupied
- divisions between Free and Vichy
- country in ruins
- loss of 800,000+ lives
Germany:
- cities, industry, economy destroyed
- divided into zones of influence by victors
- loss of 7,000,000+ lives
Russia:
- much of western Russia destroyed
- sphere of influence in Europe created by Treaty
- loss of 25,000,000+ lives
Japan:
- loss of Empire
- cities in ruin
- demilitarized as result of Treaty
- nuked
- loss of 1,800,000+ lives
Looking at it from this perspective, the allies are clearly the victors with the U.S. coming of as the least worse for the wear. I attribute this to their entering the war two years after it started and the protected isolation of the United States mainland. I welcome debate on these issues.
-
I always find it amusing that certain of our cousins on the other side of the pond are only too happy to take credit for the victory in 1918 yet as members of the victorious side and signatories to the resulting ceasefire refuse to shoulder even a proportion of the blame for the failure to enforce the peace that ended so tragically in 1939.
Oh and Lazs, as a nation you are in no position to pass judgement on Britain's imperial past and the terms of its "ownership" of various segments of the planet. You would do well to remember that our "indians" now make up the largest democracy on the planet, whereas we all know what happened to your "indians" don't we?
-
I think the essence of this debate is that whilst nobody denies that the US made a serious contribution and indeed helped to defeat facism in Germany and Japan, many other nations were involved in that fight. I accept it appears I'm ragging the US. Not because I deny the contribution made, but probably because for the remaining years of the 20th century and during my youth it seemed from this side of the atlantic that many citizens of that great country would like us to believe that they won the war for us. Thats kind of annoying and belittles the contribution that my nation and my ancestors made to that great struggle. Not only that but it belittles the contribution made by all those other nations too.
Its victors propaganda. In much the same way that Soviet Russia used the words liberation when all they did was replace one dictators oppression with anothers. Living in any country in Europe during the post war years right up to the end of the cold war, I don't think I'm alone in saying that many citizens of European countries both on the winning side and the defeated felt that they were being used as mere pawns in an ideological conflict that the US and USSR were waging. I guess sometimes we all felt a little pissed off at that and the army and airforce that was stationed here to supposedly protect us began to feel more like a colonial prescence in our lands preparing to fight an enemy of its creation on our home turf.
Its also galling that when you read a bit you find that Churchill was only too aware of the Soviet plans and was soundly ignored at the end of the war and part of the responsibility for Soviet expansion actualy falls on the Truman administration and the niavety shown in its dealings with uncle Joe. So we ended up on a potential nuclear battlefield created by inept foreign policy and deals between two powers who were intent on carving the planet up along their ideological lines. All a tad galling when you've fought a terrible war alone for many months to try and prevent this kind odf thing from happening. No wonder us Euros are sometimes a tad sceptical of the great freedom loving United States and very glad to see the back of the Soviet Union.
From here in the middle of no mans land it looked a little like the ultimate in war profiteering, on the part of our great US allies and the USSR. Hell we're still paying the debt for your help now. Not exactly unconditional generous help realy!
-
Mr. Hat: That's right, Mr. Garrison. Ben Affleck won the Battle of Britain and Chamberlain was Hitler's best friend. He helped the Nazis bomb Pearl Harbour and became a big basketball star in America. Oh yea...and he discovered France.
-
Chamberlain based his diplomacy on an assumption(Germany and Russia would never ally) and a goal(Germany and Russia should go to war) He was soundly wrong in his assumption and transparently cynical in his goal.
His diplomacy in regards to russia was not one of peace.
England was as much to blame for the start of WW1 as anyone else was. The whole Euro extended family wanted to go to war so they did, then they couldnt shut it off.
Who won ww2? Well it was won by Russia. But the biggest winner was America monitarily and Russia generally.
I dont think there would be any russians left by now if the Nazis had gained control there.
-
Well whatever, the Germans didn't, the Czechs didn't, the Hungarians didn't, the Poles didn't, the Bulgarians didn't, The Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Ukranians didn't. The Japanese? well they didn't. So that about sums it up i think.
Of those that did? The US did very well out of it, The USSR did for a time. We got stuffed, the former colonies did pretty good, all independant now, The French and italians did pretty good and the world in general? Well not that great a victory when you look at all the poop that keeps on coming.
And now I'm out of here.
-
skyprancer quoted.. "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"
yep... and if we had fought the same way the brits did we woulda lost 600,000 and if we had fought like the russians we woulda lost 17-20 million. Your commanders like to lose people.
As for the west and the U.S. We fought the indians on their terms. We treated em like they treated each other.. we were just the tribe with the biggest stick. they took it from whoever was there first and we took it from them...
The brits lost a lot of slave colonies that they were gonna have to give up anyway..
And I am really getting an education on soviet russia and communism... I was not aware that all the countries it absorbed were just "accepted" into the fold... I hope they didn't have to beg too hard... I guess all the walls that got put around these new soviet paradises were to keep out the westerners...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep... and if we had fought the same way the brits did we woulda lost 600,000 and if we had fought like the russians we woulda lost 17-20 million. Your commanders like to lose people.
Nice that the Americans were able to learn, eventually, from the mistakes of others.:eek:
-
yep... except some of it was stuff we allready knew.
lazs
-
Skydancer the UK paid the last of it's debt to the US back in April.
Nevermind i just double checked. That's when we began paying off the last installment, should be finished by 2006 though.
-
Urm Lazs
Omaha Beach? If your generals hadn't dismissed Mr Hobart then maybe that wouldn't have been a bloodbath? Seems a pretty profligate way to use lives.
Urm
The Rapido River ( Bloody River ) Italy
General Mark ( wheres the camera? ) Clark sent rather a lot of his boys into a bloodbath as I recall.
Urm
Battle for the Hurtgen Forest. Another rather high casualty conflict for the US.
I think you have it a little mixed up. Monty was very anxious not to lose men needlessly. Something he was criticised for rather a lot by his US colleagues. Generaly we Brits had fewer boys to lose so we tried especialy later in the war to ensure we didn't. Not always with success. Monte Casino, Arnhem, etc but tried nonetheless.
And as this is an air war game how about the losses by daylight bomber crews earlier on in your (ahem rather imprecise ) precision bombing campaign.
And while we're about it
Fought the Indians on their own terms? You have got to be kidding right? It was a Genocide. Not a massacre of a few thousand but a full on extermination campaign.
Our Colonies were not slave colonies. Yes they were colonies and people had reduced freedoms and rights. Not saying thats great though I've met a few Africans who actualy rather liked their place better when we ran it. Thing is we didn't exactly exterminate the people there. Things hotted up then usualy took the path of grudging co existance and in some cases cooperation. I'm not sure that there were that many of your Indians left to cooperate with.
:rolleyes:
-
skyprancer... there were american slaves who "liked" their "place" I am sure, just ask em back then...... many starved or were abused and killed when they were freed.... what's your point? your people who lived in your "colonies" didn't just lose a few rights as you put it... they lost all freedom to govern themselves and in many cases... their very lives. You were living in the past with your colonies and would have lost em in any civilized world... your so called glory was built on oppressing people in other lands and it couldn't last in any case.
How would you have done omaha beach differently? Are you really saying that the Americans, brits and russians all fought in the exact same manner?
And... what do you really know about the indian wars? I bet you haven't read one book on the subject. Seeing "Dancing with wolves" doesn't really count.
The indians were commititing genocide on each other long before we got there. We just did it better than them. In allmost every case... the land belonged to the tribe that could take it. We were that tribe in the end. Like I said... we played by their rules... genocide? the indians thought nothing of slaughtering every man woman and child of not only the whites but of other tribes. the only difference is that in some cases they would take the very young children to raise as their own since they had such a high mortality rate from having no medical science.
lazs
-
Who won the war? It is incorrect question.
Who contributed more to the victory? I really do believe that it was the USSR. 27 millions lost, it is more than enough to convince anybody.
Who played the most important role? Hard to say. History doesn't know conditional mood, but it is very possible that without GB and US Russia would be overcome. Without USSR (actually it means "Germany would have oil and material supplies from the USSR") Britain would be conquered for sure. Without supplies from the USA it would be difficult for Russia and GB to resist. Anyway, in this sence I would say that the war was won by soldiers from all nations.
Who achieved more in the war? US, for sure, and I think I don't need to prove it.
BTW, it is interesting that in some sence everybody won in that war. A-bomb, one of the result of that war made impossible the WW3. You can speculate about plans of russian invasion in Europe, communist threat, etc, but it would be just your insinuations. It's never happened. We are, may be,
brainwashed dogmatists but we are not suicides. May be bold Americans want to spead their idea of "democracy" all over the world but hopefully it will never happen. Americans may be rednecks but they are not suicides also.
-
Lazs we studied the Indian wars at High School for O level History. I spent some time in 98 at Pine Ridge with the real Americans ;)
I read this
(http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWindianT1.JPG)
and
(http://adamsmuseumandhouse.org/images/book_bury_heart_wk.jpg)
So I know some. Enough to recognise Genocide!
No one is saying Britain is holy in its history but its worth remebering we were the first country to abolish slavery. Our Colonial cousins were considered British till they chose independance and During WW2 our forces were integrated whereas you guys were fighting racist Fascists with a segregated Armed Forces! ? !
-
Well, we really musta blown the genocide thing... there's an awful lotta Indian lands, reservations and Casino's lying around.
-
Theres still quite a few Jewish people in Europe, Tootsies in Ruanda, Moslems in Bosnia etc. Doesn't mean there was no Genocide!
Anyhow enough already. Thats past history. We're living now
I'm off to enjoy the sun that just came out.:aok
-
If you want to count it by casualties, the Russians come in first with 10-30 million. The German and European Jews would then be second with 6-9 million.
But then having a high casualty rate is not necessarily a measure of contribution.
The whole world LOST, with untold millions killed, and property destruction that is probably just as hard to quantify.
You can decide who won and who lost by seeing who surrendered.
There is no way anyone can say with absolute certainty WHAT FACTOR contributed more to victory. As such, no country, or even group of countries, can make an absolute claim to being the one or ones who contributed the most to victory. Most all claims are subjective at best.
-
Genocide is most often defined as the elimination or attempted elimination of an entire race, creed, religion, etc.
However, when said race, creed, religion etc, declares war on anyone else, you really can't call those they declare war on genocidal when they attack or defend themselves.
Japan is not only a nation, but is also made up almost exclusively of the Japanese race. As such, the Allies could be considered genocidal by the same standard as the US itself is considered genocidal in the wars with the Indians.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
I always find it amusing that certain of our cousins on the other side of the pond are only too happy to take credit for the victory in 1918 yet as members of the victorious side and signatories to the resulting ceasefire refuse to shoulder even a proportion of the blame for the failure to enforce the peace that ended so tragically in 1939.
Oh and Lazs, as a nation you are in no position to pass judgement on Britain's imperial past and the terms of its "ownership" of various segments of the planet. You would do well to remember that our "indians" now make up the largest democracy on the planet, whereas we all know what happened to your "indians" don't we?
Our history teaches that we tried to make the peace of 1918 more lenient on the Central Powers, via Wilson's 14 point plan. That plan was rejected by the French and (iirc) the British as a non-starter.
The French were PISSED because the western parts of their country had been devastated by the war, millions had been killed and they wanted revenge. The Brits were PISSED because of the huge loss of life and treasure due to the war. Both were interested in making sure the Germans couldn't do it again. That's why they imposed the strict terms on the Germans.
The major flaw in the plan was that they did not remake the social power structures in Germany, or make any fundamental political changes there. The second mistake was not to enforce the treaty.
That same mistake was NOT made after WW2. The power of the (economic and political) aristocracy was broken, and Germany was fundamentally changed by the long occupation.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
By the way, Monty got his prettythang handed to him until he got intelligence breaks. So long as Rommel and Monty were on equal terms as far as intelligence and counter intelligence, Monty was getting whipped.
Actually the other way around. Rommel was winning whilst he had one of the best ever intelligence sources on his side, as soon as he lost it, he didn't win another battle.
The source was Frank Fellers, US military attache in Cairo. He posted daily reports on British positions and plans back to Washington, using a code first the talians, then the Germans had cracked.
Unlike the British intelligence on Rommel, which consisted mainly of supply information, Fellers posted information down to individual raids, battalion level deployments, which units were below strength, etc.
Most of Rommel's reputation was built whilst he could see both sides of the board, his own and his enemy's deployments.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
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..
I think you're getting mixed up here.
The "deportations back to execution" were of forces that had fought with the Germans, not against them, eg Cossacks.
The Poles serving with British forces were not deported, they were given a choice to return to Poland or stay in Britain. Just over half (123,000) stayed, about 105,000 went home, and were not executed.
From General Anders' memoirs:
""They were, however, obviously sincere, and there was every reason for gratitude to them for the assurances they gave that no soldiers would be repatriated against their will, and that demobilisation would not be hurried. For me, there was, indeed, no alternative but to agree with their proposals. If I disagreed, I should have been asked, "what then ?" and have had no answer, while Britain, to her great credit, was the only country which realised that there was a moral obligation to these soldiers who had fought so long by the side of the Allies and which was therefore prepared to make provision for the future of all who would not risk returning home.""
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.
Most historians agree it was Roosevelt who was either taken in by Stalin at Yalta, or who was too ill to stand up to him. The post war allocation of eastern Europe certainly owes more to Roosevelt than Churchill, although Stalin and facts on the ground were by far the most important factors.
-
Very succinctly put.
-
wounded knee covered one incident and really didn't go into the factors that led up to it.
White settlers were slaughtered down to the last man woman and child many times.... one event had a wagon train of nearly 100 people killed, mutilated and tortured. How would you fight the people who fought like that?
we played by their rules...
much as we did the japs in WWII and the germans... the germans treated our pow's and combatants fairly (for the most part) and so we did theirs... the japs were cruel torturing barbarians so that is how we fought them.
you started slavery so it seems only fair that you would be first to end it. Still... I doubt that those indiginous people working in your colonies under british rule could see the fine line of distinction between being a slave and a worker.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
wounded knee covered one incident and really didn't go into the factors that led up to it.
White settlers were slaughtered down to the last man woman and child many times.... one event had a wagon train of nearly 100 people killed, mutilated and tortured. How would you fight the people who fought like that?
we played by their rules...
Not so... the natives learned about total war from us and not the other way around.
-
laz reads too many 'white man' books.
About time he went back to school and took a coarse on American indian history and culture.
-
The Brits started slavery laz? Your education is lacking. Slavery is as old as prostitution.
-
Correct its a bit daft to say we started slavery realy isn't it? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say we were the first nation that actualy abolished slavery. We also managed to end our empire relatively bloodlessly. Not completely but compared to the death throes of some other nations empires we did ok I think.
-
One should look at Belgium in the late 1800s-early 1900s and their slavery in the Congo. This puts mosts other countries at the bottom of the pillar with regard to explotation and abuses.
-
Oh my. The British started slavery.
And Spartacus and his friends were just poorly paid masochists in your version of history Lazs?
-
the british started slavery in the U.S. that is what we were talking about. I will agree with skyprancer tho that the brits did give up their colonies in a fairly civilized manner compared to some other empires.
We taught the indians total warfare? they never slaughtered every single person from another tribe before we got here? never tortured and commited genocide on other tribes? Maybe it is not I who needs to read more about indian history.
What do you think happened? bunch of red hippies all sweetness and light till we showed em the dark side?
plains indians... where the resources were more sparce than back east, regularly looted and slaughtered everyone in a rival tribe that they found... torture was considered great sport by these "hippies of the plains" You should read about some of the great ways they had of entertaining themselves.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
We taught the indians total warfare? they never slaughtered every single person from another tribe before we got here? never tortured and commited genocide on other tribes? Maybe it is not I who needs to read more about indian history.
I'm currently studying American military history. According to this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029215978/ref=pd_sxp_f/102-8815681-4773728?v=glance&s=books), we brought the concept of total war to the indians.
Of course, if there's a pre-1700 native american history that I can refer to, I might buy into the plains indian thing.
-
Guess laz never heard of touching the enemy with a stick (don't know how to spell the word). Humiliate the enemy, not kill him.:eek:
-
Counting coup. :)
-
Urm the reason many of those tribes lived on the plains is because the white colonists had pushed them farther west and already appropriated many of their old tribal lands in the east. They were driven onto the plains because european settlers thought the area barren and unusable for agriculture or anything. Thats why they were living where resources were scarce.
Lazs I will concede though that in many cases Indians perpetrated hideous acts of cruelty also. But its that old chicken and egg thing. Cruelty breeds cruelty unless you can make the leap to rise above it. ( one of the very hardest of things to do I guess )
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Urm the reason many of those tribes lived on the plains is because the white colonists had pushed them farther west and already appropriated many of their old tribal lands in the east. They were driven onto the plains because european settlers thought the area barren and unusable for agriculture or anything. Thats why they were living where resources were scarce.
The resources on the plains were far from scarce, but what has that got to do with the subject of who won WWII?
I`m still a might confused here. Is the question that`s being asked "Who won the war?" or "Who gained the most from the war being won?"
-
yeah you are right things off on a bit of a tangent here.
-
lazs, your revisionist history is really quite silly.
Britain "banned" slaves long before America and in fact were actively destroying the whole trade with their navy at a time when demand for slaves was the greatest in one country....America.
-
Originally posted by Curval
lazs, your revisionist history is really quite silly.
Britain "banned" slaves long before America and in fact were actively destroying the whole trade with their navy at a time when demand for slaves was the greatest in one country....America.
America had about 1/2 million slaves total. Brazil had 3 million and the rest of the world held about 15 million.
-
well.. we are off subject here but.. Are you saying that british ships did not supply America with slaves?
milo...Counting coup... yep.. and whites played games too, all kinda non leathal war games.. it didn't stop us or the indians from slaughtering our own people or each other. You don't seriously believe that indians never killed each other or tortured each other before we got there?
None of you guys believe that the plains were deserted of indians before we chased em all there do you?
As for who won WWII? in the long run I would have to say that the entire world did...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
None of you guys believe that the plains were deserted of indians before we chased em all there do you?
No. But AFAIK, the pre-1700 history of plains indians is a bit thin.
-
but there is ample evidence that there were tribe that lived there for many years before we came and that tribes were slaughtered by other tribes. Their verbal history tells of tribal warfare...
lazs
-
Sure, their verbal history speaks of tribal warfare. Does it also speak of tribal slaughter?
-
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0700610294/qid=1120832602/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/102-2032441-9246530?v=glance&s=books
the plains indians were allready using up valuable resources on the plains and straining survival before the whites got there (not counting the spanish).
Do we let the indians roam freely forever and control all the resources of the plains so that the farming and grazing culture of the whites is not allowed on the plains? If the settlers hold the desirable water and grazing areas then the indians can't use them... even amoung whites... water rights caused "conflict" on the plaines.
If you want to blame anyone then blame the spanish who gave the plains indians the horse. the horse increased their mobility and strained resources and caused territorial conflict... there is ample evidence of tribes slaughtering each other.
What I find silly is that everyone is willing to say that the indians were great warriors and the best light cavalry but.... then say that they were peacful hippies of the plaines.... How did they learn to fight? Why were they all armed?
lazs
-
Interesting book. I'll have to find a copy. Still, this book seems to focus on the 19th century, well after the white expansion in the east.
I'm curious about their methods of war in the 17th and 18th centuries.
-
sandie... there are others that are more specific on the way indians used the plains. If you want to blame someone for their inevitable decline (someone other than them that is)....
blame the spanish and the mexicans who gave them horses and iron... if left to themselves... without horses.. they would have an even lower lifespan and smaller tribes.... without iron they would have not been able to make as efficient a weaponry or housing or tools... even higher mortality.
It would appear that every advance in science that was passed on to the indians they used like every other people known to man... they used it to increase their population and to make more effiecient war on each other and anyone else who showed up... the first trade rifles were used for slaughtering game and each other... later they were used in the war against the white devil.
Their way of life could never have been sustained. They themselves would destroy it by taking any technolodgy that was offered. Would they turn down a medicine that would increase the chances for their babies to live for instance? Would they turn down advances in weaponry in order to "protect" themselves from other tribes or foreigners who had different ideas on how the resources of the land should be used?
Take away their horses and modern tools and leave em alone would have only prolonged the inevitable.
lazs
-
to be fair, no one wins in wars.....everyone looses
-
Originally posted by Overlag
to be fair, no one wins in wars.....everyone looses
well not according to Harry Truman's Committee.
-
This is silly,
The Americans joined the war because of Pearl Harbour (which stifled the isolationists) and we were very happy that they did. American intervention did win or shorten the end of both wars.
...and Lasz is right about the Red Indians, their fate was inevitable, as has happened in cultures before them.
It would be nice to live in a world where there was no change and people were in harmony in their environment (as the red indians were) but as with Africa, for example, we introduced them to advanced weaponry and after an untold number of deaths we are only now just waking up to the cost.
It's very hard to apportion blame in such circumstances.
Ravs
-
silly is painting all north american natives as typical plains indians, feeble absolution when it comes to the blame game, but that's not knew around here.
i still think fdr knew what was going to happen at pearl harbour, but it was the only way to leverage corporate america away from aiding hitler, which it had been doing since the early thirties. chamberlain is to blame for that as well i suppose.
-
torque... we did deal with hitler before the war.. how were we to know which eurobarbarians were gonna be the worst? Heck.. the brits still had colonies and we dealt with them.
The reason I used the plains indians was because that is the group who most consider had a war on them by the U.S. Canadas indians are not living the life of the spiritual nomadic hippie tho now are they?
lazs
-
Overlag speaks the truth there.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well.. we are off subject here but.. Are you saying that british ships did not supply America with slaves?
No...that isn't what I am saying.
British ships did indeed supply America with slaves initially, but so did the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portugese and American ships too.
When it was determined that slavery was an inhuman practice the Brits sent their navy to destroy the trade...much to the chagrin of your southern states, who kept the trade going for quite some time by buying through other sources.
-
Ahh... sooooo it was just a missunderstanding about the slave thing? soon as you realized you were trading in humans you stopped therefore making you blameless? course.... british owned and crewed ships were supplying slaves till they were no longer a commodity in America but... that is a minor detail.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ahh... sooooo it was just a missunderstanding about the slave thing? soon as you realized you were trading in humans you stopped therefore making you blameless? course.... british owned and crewed ships were supplying slaves till they were no longer a commodity in America but... that is a minor detail.
lazs
Laz you gotta learn your British History...It was the Bureau of inhumane practices in Liverpool that discovered that British ships where suppling slaves where ever they got the best price. It was right after they discovered Democracy.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
plains indians... where the resources were more sparce than back east, regularly looted and slaughtered everyone in a rival tribe that they found... torture was considered great sport by these "hippies of the plains" You should read about some of the great ways they had of entertaining themselves.
lazs
Yeah, Lazs got it right. Don't you hippies be done turning my ancestors in noble red hippies too.
-
So who won the war?....I just did a nexus search. Over 40 million hits on the Allies. Maybe we should update our history books.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ahh... sooooo it was just a missunderstanding about the slave thing? soon as you realized you were trading in humans you stopped therefore making you blameless? course.... british owned and crewed ships were supplying slaves till they were no longer a commodity in America but... that is a minor detail.
lazs
lol...
Amazing.