Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Kazan_HB on May 21, 2009, 06:53:09 AM
-
Were Russians allied with German Nazis?
(http://www.niepoprawni.pl/files/images/rosja%20niemcy.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Armia_Czerwona%2CWehrmacht_23.09.1939_wsp%C3%B3lna_parada.jpg)
Sure! September 1939 Brzesc Poland
and read there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact)
-
Well not exactly allied ... they just said they wouldn't attack each other -- yet. :aok
-
They were partners in both business and splitting up certain "areas", that is, countries.
Both Poland as well as the three Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) fell under the deal.
Further more, they went through some very big business deals in 1940 and 1941. The Germans had their oil sources not only from Romania, but also huge quantities from the USSR. Ironical it is, but the LW probably used mostly Russian fuel while trying to bomb Britain into submission in the BoB.
The USSR also got their pay, one thing that comes to mind are the blueprints of the Bismarck.
And one fine happy day in the summer of 1941 this was all over....
-
Oh! Is this because of my comment that France and the UK were obliged to declare war on Russia, but didn't? :D
-
And one fine happy day in the summer of 1941 this was all over....
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 :D" June 22 for the win...er lose. Good thing Mussolini was incompetant in Greece, or my day would be pretty ordinary. :aok
-
Oh! Is this because of my comment that France and the UK were obliged to declare war on Russia, but didn't? :D
They did study the possibility to bomb Russian oil fields.
-
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff186/obie303/scan0001.jpg)
The Red Army attacked Poland on September 17, 1939. As a result of this, it was reported that the Red Army had captured 452,536 Polish troops, government officials, police, postal workers, and other non-military personnel as part of the "de-Polonize" policy. Most of the officers captured in 1939 were murdered in 1940 at Katyn and other places.
This is taken from the book, "Poland 1939. The birth of Blitzkreig." Written by Steven J. Zaloga.
-
Oh! Is this because of my comment that France and the UK were obliged to declare war on Russia, but didn't? :D
I think this is from my comments I made on ch200 last night.
Bruv seemed to be the only one to respond back the best, but it wasn't enough to overcome my argument that Churchill was responsible for killing millions of people around the world.
:noid
-
Russians paid dearly for their Non Aggression Pact with the Germans.
-
Russians paid dearly for their Non Aggression Pact with the Germans.
So did the Polish against Russian hands.
-
Does Boroda still haunt this forum? Just wait till he sniffs this topic :).
-
So did the Polish against Russian hands.
You may say that Poles payed dearly for making allies with France and England in the first place. Poland was incomparably weaker than either Russia or Germany - major threats to the country at that time and ever before. Our defence doctrine relied on cooperation with our allies. In case Poland was attacked, allied attack on Germany's western border should have drawn most of German army there and make it easier to defend Poland. Russians wouldn't move then too (if you asked why they attacked only after 17 days of the campaign, when it was apparent that nobody was going to help Poland). In case Hitler attacked west, Poland was to attack it's eastern borders. I think that giving high priority to produce modern PZL P.37 medium bombers (purely attack weapon) in last years before the war confirms my thesis.
Recently some historians in Poland started to say that in late 30's it was possible and would probably pay better for Poland, to ally with Germany against Russia. I doubt if western European countries would have anything against that too. Wonder what would Europe and world looked like today had it happened.
-
There might still be a wall up through poland.... who knows.
-
I think this is from my comments I made on ch200 last night.
Bruv seemed to be the only one to respond back the best, but it wasn't enough to overcome my argument that Churchill was responsible for killing millions of people around the world.
:noid
You can claim that Churchill is the reason of Britain not bending to the Germans, and therefore WW2 carried on and took millions of lives. So now prove to me where it would have saved lives, since the Nazi plan was to attack Russia anyway, as well as completing the final solution.
-
Recently some historians in Poland started to say that in late 30's it was possible and would probably pay better for Poland, to ally with Germany against Russia. I doubt if western European countries would have anything against that too. Wonder what would Europe and world looked like today had it happened.
One might speculate that the war would have passed through Poland only once, in 1945, instead of -39, -41 and -45. Op Barbarossa would have had a bit deeper starting position, but I doubt it would have changed the final outcome.
Then again, the post war years in Poland under Soviet rule might have been worse? ...who knows?
Maybe in BoB the Poles would have flown 109:s (in JG303) instead of Hurricanes? :rolleyes:
-
You can claim that Churchill is the reason of Britain not bending to the Germans, and therefore WW2 carried on and took millions of lives. So now prove to me where it would have saved lives, since the Nazi plan was to attack Russia anyway, as well as completing the final solution.
I think Kermit is talking about Churchill's insistence on attacking Italy before Germany? Truly, it was an ill-conceived plan. The war lasting an extra year = millions of lives.
-
You can claim that Churchill is the reason of Britain not bending to the Germans, and therefore WW2 carried on and took millions of lives. So now prove to me where it would have saved lives, since the Nazi plan was to attack Russia anyway, as well as completing the final solution.
Had Germany defeated Russia, we would have then fought and defeated Germany. Now the world would have had two evils gone! All of Vietnam and Korea would be democratic with less loss of lives during those wars, and also the lives lost in Eastern Europe from the Iron Curtain for 45 years would have been saved. The entire world would be less socialist due to more democratic nations being freed and reformed. Then we would be left to only attack Britain as they would be the only evil of the world with their millions they were enslaving. :noid
-
One might speculate that the war would have passed through Poland only once, in 1945, instead of -39, -41 and -45. Op Barbarossa would have had a bit deeper starting position, but I doubt it would have changed the final outcome.
Then again, the post war years in Poland under Soviet rule might have been worse? ...who knows?
Maybe in BoB the Poles would have flown 109:s (in JG303) instead of Hurricanes? :rolleyes:
I doubt there would be BoB. I'd rather see Brygada Poscigowa fighting together with expeditionary RAF squadrons along with Luftwaffe during siege of Moscow ;).
Do you think that Germany fighting on one front in 1939 or 1940, fresh and fully prepared, without the losses it sustained in Polish and French campaigns and BoB, and its blitzkrieg tactics still a surprise, wouldn't crush Russia? They almost succeed in 1941.
-
The Second Pic conversation.
Russian: We want Poland.
German: No, we want Poland.
Russian: OK, we take Eastern Poland, German takes western.
German: No, we want all of Poland.
Russian: Why you want it all? You have Austria and Cezh.
German: So, what business dose Russia want with Poland? It was sitting there all this time and you never done anything in the past. Now that Geramy regain power and you guys now want it.
Russian (think in is mind): agh, this is not going to end well.
German to the left: Sir, we have Panzer they dont. We can take them on.
Obie303's pic. When Russian try to served German gone wrong.
Russian: Here is our finest tank. 11.5 tonnes, 6-13 mm armour, 450 hours power engin, max speed at 200 km and 45-mm Model 32 tank gun and 7.62mm DT MG.
German: LOL. well we have the Panzer IV. 20.6 tonnes, 10-80 mm armour, 75 mm (2.95 in) KwK 40 L/48 main gun and 2-3 × 7.92-mm Maschinengewehr 34.
Russian: CRAP!
-
A PzKpfw IV in 1939 would be pretty interesting...
-
I think Kermit is talking about Churchill's insistence on attacking Italy before Germany? Truly, it was an ill-conceived plan. The war lasting an extra year = millions of lives.
Doesn't hindsight give you all the power?
The first landing through the Atlantic wall was a failiure. Dieppe.
The landings on Italy came straight after the war in the desert. They did not fail, but were costly. They were also costly to the Axis, who's one power of three turned sides.
Now to Kermit:
"Had Germany defeated Russia, we would have then fought and defeated Germany. Now the world would have had two evils gone! All of Vietnam and Korea would be democratic with less loss of lives during those wars, and also the lives lost in Eastern Europe from the Iron Curtain for 45 years would have been saved. The entire world would be less socialist due to more democratic nations being freed and reformed. Then we would be left to only attack Britain as they would be the only evil of the world with their millions they were enslaving."
"We" is who? The USA I presume? I am sorry to disappoint you, but it was GERMANY who declared war on the USA. And seriously, had Germany defeated Russia, in which case a key issue would have been bending the UK or making peace there, the USA would not have been up to the task of defeating Germany. And for what reason anyway, the USA did not see a reason to make war on Germany in Britain's darkest days. Even the lend-lease deal to the British made it through congress with no width to spare, - so many were against it. And that was in 1941!
Me thinks you have to read more.
-
Germany declared war on the US because of the Japs. Germany was not prepared to make the declaration but had to when the Japs attacked the US.
The US was still leaning towards isolationism for the most part.
-
A PzKpfw IV in 1939 would be pretty interesting...
The Pz IV was in service in 1939, though not the late-war version oakranger mentioned. It was in German service from, 1936 to 1945 and was the only tank in service the whole war. After the war it remained in Finnish, French and Spanish service. The Pz IV's final war was the Six Day War in 1967 fighting for the Syrians (ex-French and Spanish vehicles). Remarkable service life for a defeated pre-war tank.
-
Doesn't hindsight give you all the power?
The first landing through the Atlantic wall was a failiure. Dieppe.
The landings on Italy came straight after the war in the desert. They did not fail, but were costly. They were also costly to the Axis, who's one power of three turned sides.
Now to Kermit:
"Had Germany defeated Russia, we would have then fought and defeated Germany. Now the world would have had two evils gone! All of Vietnam and Korea would be democratic with less loss of lives during those wars, and also the lives lost in Eastern Europe from the Iron Curtain for 45 years would have been saved. The entire world would be less socialist due to more democratic nations being freed and reformed. Then we would be left to only attack Britain as they would be the only evil of the world with their millions they were enslaving."
"We" is who? The USA I presume? I am sorry to disappoint you, but it was GERMANY who declared war on the USA. And seriously, had Germany defeated Russia, in which case a key issue would have been bending the UK or making peace there, the USA would not have been up to the task of defeating Germany. And for what reason anyway, the USA did not see a reason to make war on Germany in Britain's darkest days. Even the lend-lease deal to the British made it through congress with no width to spare, - so many were against it. And that was in 1941!
Me thinks you have to read more.
Whoa...I stated all the lives that were lost because of the Churchill's eagerness to go to war and you take the argument of who declared war on who between Germany and US? Okay, lets get focus on that. Yes Germany declared War on US, but Churchill had already pulled the US into the war. Declassified British documents show that the US president and Churchill agreed to go to war in November 1941 and just needed Germany to attack a US vessel and bring the US into another world war. Churchill had a proven record for staging a reason for a country to go to war, look at the staged attack on the Lusitania that Churchill was part in WWI.
-
Germany declared war on the US because of the Japs. Germany was not prepared to make the declaration but had to when the Japs attacked the US.
The US was still leaning towards isolationism for the most part.
Did Hitler wanted Jap to attack U.S. anticipation that U.S. and Jap go to war and that Russia will declare war with Jap thus forcing Russia to split his force in the west and east? Then German army will have a weaker Russian army to fight.
-
I'm always amazed at the mindset of some folks.
Like the kid that robbed and shot a couple awhile back in Houston. When caught he said it was their fault for not doing what he told them.
Mind numbing..........
-
In all these years I have not seen much of anything as far as Russian/ Japanese. Now on the other hand.... China was in the thick of it even before the US was brought into it.
This is an interesting discussion in regards to seeing how folks in other countries see all of our history.
Interesting too because you find that all countries have their conspiracy theorists.
-
I think, Hitler wanted Jap to attack U.S.S.R. ( Soviet Union)
-
OK, let me make it a little clear. Did hitler wanted Jap and U.S. to decrea war in hoping that Russia would Declear war on Jap. And in the situation, that Russia would send troops to fight Jap.
-
In all these years I have not seen much of anything as far as Russian/ Japanese. Now on the other hand.... China was in the thick of it even before the US was brought into it.
This is an interesting discussion in regards to seeing how folks in other countries see all of our history.
Interesting too because you find that all countries have their conspiracy theorists.
Let's keep the discussion going without adding any insults, however vaguely they are concealed. :frown:
-
Let's keep the discussion going without adding any insults, however vaguely they are concealed. :frown:
No insult intended..... not even a veiled one. If you were insulted by anything I said it was not my intention and I apologise.
Now let's get some BBQ and a beer!
-
Doesn't hindsight give you all the power?
The first landing through the Atlantic wall was a failiure. Dieppe.
The landings on Italy came straight after the war in the desert. They did not fail, but were costly. They were also costly to the Axis, who's one power of three turned sides.
Dieppe wasn't an invasion attempt. It was a test to see what was required to take and hold a coastal port. People point to the Dieppe failure in order to whitewash UK/US feet dragging over invading France.
-
No subject is a more "heated" discussion in my family, especially when my grandfather was alive. He never had one good thing to say about the Russians or the Germans for that matter. I know from my perspective, I have a tainted view on the events involving Poland. However, I would like to offer somebody else's view on the matter. If you haven't read the book "A Question of Honor." by Stanley Cloud and Linda Olsen (American writers), I would highly recommend it. There were allegations that in 1939, Roosevelt knew the Russians were planning on attacking Poland and did nothing!
In the end, Poland was betrayed by everyone. The Poles fought from the beginning of WWII to the very end. What did they get....nothing. They lost everything from their freedom, right down the line to their own country.
Again, read the book. I don't recommend many, but when it comes to the dirty little secrets at the beginning of WWII, this book was emotional from beginning to end.
-
I will look up that book. Fwiw, I've previously stated here that France and the UK not only betrayed Poland, but also Czechoslovakia, Norway, and ultimately each other.
-
I don't understand what The First Lord of the Admiralty would have to do with the Invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939.
Poland fell September 30, 1939. Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of England May 10, 1940.
Someone needs a little history lesson.
wrongway
-
I don't understand what The First Lord of the Admiralty would have to do with the Invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939.
Poland fell September 30, 1939. Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of England May 10, 1940.
Someone needs a little history lesson.
wrongway
Churchill promoted War ALL THE TIME during this political life and was in favor of going to war long before the invasion of Poland by Russia and Germany. Him being a graduate of a Military school, he also had a love for war! He was a "win at all cost", not because life depended on it, but because of his lust for war. This lust screwed Europe in both wars due to the political concessions made to win at all cost.
After that said, Churchill declined the Peace offering in June 1940 with Germany! Why side with one enemy instead of letting both your enemies fight each other? Well, read my first paragraph again.
-
It is Sad but British politics brought to the 2WW.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/MunichAgreement_.jpg)
'"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." Munich 1938
-
Churchill promoted War ALL THE TIME during this political life and was in favor of going to war long before the invasion of Poland by Russia and Germany. Him being a graduate of a Military school, he also had a love for war! He was a "win at all cost", not because life depended on it, but because of his lust for war. This lust screwed Europe in both wars due to the political concessions made to win at all cost.
After that said, Churchill declined the Peace offering in June 1940 with Germany! Why side with one enemy instead of letting both your enemies fight each other? Well, read my first paragraph again.
Actually, it was, has been, and will be for the forsee-able future, British policy to maintain a situation in mainland Europe where no country is dominant. This policy goes back to the French Revolution. Under that policy, GB could not acquiescence a mainland Europe dominated by Germany. Same as they can't allow an unified EU, or a Europe dominated by Napoleon, or Bismarck, or Soviet. So, I wouldn't blame it all on Churchill, he was continuing the same policy as always. You got to understand that GB looked at any dominant power in mainland Europe as a challenge to their own empire. Why they continue that policy now that the empire has been dismantled, is a matter for another debate.
Now, I would not caractherise Churchill as bloodthirsty. He was more a product of an Empire, which dominated international affairs, used to military adventures and as such opportunistic.
-
Actually, it was, has been, and will be for the forsee-able future, British policy to maintain a situation in mainland Europe where no country is dominant.
And yet Germany still became the dominant European country right under their noses in the second half of the twentieth century. :D :P
-
Actually, it was, has been, and will be for the forsee-able future, British policy to maintain a situation in mainland Europe where no country is dominant. This policy goes back to the French Revolution. Under that policy, GB could not acquiescence a mainland Europe dominated by Germany. Same as they can't allow an unified EU, or a Europe dominated by Napoleon, or Bismarck, or Soviet. So, I wouldn't blame it all on Churchill, he was continuing the same policy as always. You got to understand that GB looked at any dominant power in mainland Europe as a challenge to their own empire. Why they continue that policy now that the empire has been dismantled, is a matter for another debate.
Now, I would not caractherise Churchill as bloodthirsty. He was more a product of an Empire, which dominated international affairs, used to military adventures and as such opportunistic.
Well said. :aok
I believe British policy was to ensure dominance over all European countries. The Treaty of Versailles is a good example of doing that in a political way. They went with the "self determination" as a way to create smaller countries that would be individually weaker than Britain. Once Churchill was Prime Minister he did what he wanted to do, and that was have his war with Hitler, at any cost.
I do not place all the blame on him, as the French are just as responsible. To be clear, I partly blame Churchill for the handling of WWII so wrongly. Yes it's hindsight, but if one gives up ones beliefs (Stalin = bad) you give up much more in the end. Being friends with Stalin caused much suffering and death in Eastern Europe long after WWII, along with loss of life in Vietnam and Korea.
Signing that treaty with Poland was only a way to get their(Britain&France) war and ensure their Dominance over all European countries. Yes Britain and France both knew they could not save Poland. They could not even save themselves. In the end, Britain got lucky with the change in the LW tactics. But I guess the fire bombings in Berlin was a war crime worth doing that gave them the much needed luck.
:uhoh
So much was wronged to so many, by so few. :huh
-
Although Churchill was not the Prime Minister until 1940, his voice did have weight behind it in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Even as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Churchill was an important figure in British politics. I'm not a professional when it comes to politics, but even in Europe, the political atmosphere was volatile. The Treaty of Versailles basically ensured that there would be a second World War. Like Kermit said, Both France and Britain knew that they couldn't save Poland. But at least they could have offered a more amicable outcome instead of turning their backs on Poland.
To blame one person for the fate of a country is wrong. I would never say or agree with anyone that Churchill was the reason why Poland did not receive the aid they were promised. I feel that it was a combination of many things that caused the ultimate fate of Poland in 1939. That being said, the Pole did prove that they could defend their country till the bitter end.
Below is the Oath that all Polish military personnel took in 1924. (There are many variations. This is one:)
I swear to God Almighty my faithful allegiance to my Fatherland, Republic of Poland. I swear always to stand by the military banners, to uphold the constitution and guard the honour of the Polish soldier, to be obedient to the law and to the President of Poland, to faithfully carry orders of my commanders and superiors, to keep the military secrets, to fight for my Fatherland to the last breath in my breast, to always behave so as to live and die as a true Polish soldier. So help me God! Amen.
-
OK, let me make it a little clear. Did hitler wanted Jap and U.S. to decrea war in hoping that Russia would Declear war on Jap. And in the situation, that Russia would send troops to fight Jap.
No, Nazi Germany did not want the Japanese to go to war with the US. The attack on Pearl Harbor took the Germans by surprise as well, as the Japanese did not inform Germany of her plans to attack the US. Hitler was upset that he was forced to declare war on the United States earlier than what was planned for.
However, after the war was started between the Japanese and US, Hitler did try and get the Japanese to attack the USSR through China which Japan repeatedly ignored.
ack-ack
-
No, Nazi Germany did not want the Japanese to go to war with the US. The attack on Pearl Harbor took the Germans by surprise as well, as the Japanese did not inform Germany of her plans to attack the US. Hitler was upset that he was forced to declare war on the United States earlier than what was planned for.
However, after the war was started between the Japanese and US, Hitler did try and get the Japanese to attack the USSR through China which Japan repeatedly ignored.
ack-ack
OK, got it backwords. thx.
-
I have read some versions of history in my time. But I've never seen one where Churchill and the British are blamed for WW2. :huh Kermit, I'm not sure where you got your ideas from. But I suggest you do some further research.
I think part of your problem is that while you have obviously have done some reading. You are ignoring the context of the times. Right through the thirties everyone expected war with Germany once Hitler was in power. He didn't exactly keep it a secret. You simply cannot ignore the Nazis ambitions. As for not making peace in June 1940. Why on earth would the world's greatest empire at the time, effectively surrender to the Nazis and grant them free reign. It was never going to happen. The British have a certain pride, which as an American you should understand.
As for Stalin, well Soviet Union wasn't perceived as the threat that can only be seen with hindsight. Stalin's territorial ambitions were not exactly on a par with Hitler's, in any case he was too busy purging real or imagined traitors. What happened in Eastern Europe post war could hardly be imagined. In fact whether or not the British stayed in or out. It's likely that the Soviets would have won out in the end and taken all of the continent. That would have been a lot worse than what actually transpired.
But I'm not going to give you history lessons. It probably won't make any difference to your viewpoint anyway. When it comes to mistakes made, no country or leader has a monopoly on that. Indeed the winners of most war are those who make the least number of mistakes or less fatal mistakes.
-
I have read some versions of history in my time. But I've never seen one where Churchill and the British are blamed for WW2. :huh Kermit, I'm not sure where you got your ideas from. But I suggest you do some further research.
Pat Buchanan argues as much in his book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War)
-
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!
-
:lol 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.
-
Pat Buchanan argues as much in his book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War (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
-
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.
-
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
-
:lol 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!! :furious
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!
:uhoh
-
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 (http://web.archive.org/web/20060506082348/ww2-aviation.net/polavhist/myths.html)
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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 :D" June 22 for the win...er lose. Good thing Mussolini was incompetant in Greece, or my day would be pretty ordinary. :aok
june 22 1965 for the win a good day to be born :salute
-
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. :D
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.
-
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 (http://www.ww2.pl/The,„Enigma”,and,the,Intelligence,26.html)