Author Topic: So who won the war? (Read 2202 times)

Hangtime · « **Reply #45 on:** July 05, 2005, 09:18:46 PM »

Dodge, Pei... dodge!

Did you post this?? :

Quote

... 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:

Quote

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:

Quote

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.

AdmRose · « **Reply #46 on:** July 05, 2005, 10:59:52 PM »

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.

Momus-- · « **Reply #47 on:** July 06, 2005, 04:06:47 AM »

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?

Skydancer · « **Reply #48 on:** July 06, 2005, 05:37:20 AM »

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!

Curval · « **Reply #49 on:** July 06, 2005, 06:27:57 AM »

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.

Pongo · « **Reply #50 on:** July 06, 2005, 07:17:23 AM »

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.

Skydancer · « **Reply #51 on:** July 06, 2005, 08:11:32 AM »

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.

lazs2 · « **Reply #52 on:** July 06, 2005, 08:52:04 AM »

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

MiloMorai · « **Reply #53 on:** July 06, 2005, 08:58:12 AM »

Quote

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.

lazs2 · « **Reply #54 on:** July 06, 2005, 09:02:01 AM »

yep... except some of it was stuff we allready knew.

lazs

thrila · « **Reply #55 on:** July 06, 2005, 09:03:50 AM »

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.

Skydancer · « **Reply #56 on:** July 06, 2005, 10:25:29 AM »

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.

lazs2 · « **Reply #57 on:** July 06, 2005, 11:07:25 AM »

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

Vad · « **Reply #58 on:** July 06, 2005, 11:42:03 AM »

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.

Skydancer · « **Reply #59 on:** July 06, 2005, 11:56:43 AM »

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

and

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! ? !