At 12/15/05 09:09 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: What really gets me is how the Western Allies hijacked the victory of the European theatre from the Russians. I mean before WWII, the West was willing to watch Germany and the USSR rip each other to pieces. This is why they all crapped their pants when Germany signed a non-aggression with the Soviets.

I don't think the Western Allies wanted to help Russia at all. They first chose the North African campaign to do all their fighting, a slow campaign that made sure that the pressure remained primarily on Russia. I am not understating the importance of the North Africa campaign, but the allies could have committed to a second front so much earlier than they did.

And when did the Allies decide they were gallantly going to help their allies the USSR? Once it appeared certain that the Russians had turned the tide on Germany, thats when. The Allies did not want this to be a Soviet victory, so they quickly attacked at D-Day, and the rest is history. And the war is always touted in the West as a victory the West. I don't think enough credit is given to Russia, and I am always unhappy about they way we chose our battles during the war.

you should watch the series The World At War. it will clear up many of the things you dont understand about the war. without the supplies the west was giving russia, the russians would have certainly lost moscow. it was the west that kept the soldiers in russia going. the reasons that russia lost so many men are 1) stalin was a complete idiot, and killed all his best generals right before the war and replaced them with yes men, and 2) they didnt have very good supplies. ever watch the movie Enemy at the Gates? one man got a rifle and very little ammo, another behind him got no weapon at all, but four whole bullets. the policy was that when the man holding the gun infront of you dies, you pick up his gun and shoot. when not even half the men that are attacking an entrenched position even have weapons, you should expect to have some major losses of men. i read that after the war, there were so many russian men that had died that about 2/3 of the population of the country were women.

when you say that we could start a second front you dont realize that england at that part of the war was in serious risk of starving to death for supplies. the german submarine force was really good at destroying anything that america tried to send across the atlantic. the west eventually crushed the german subs, but just in the nick of time.

did you know that earlier in the war the west actually tried to start a second front in france? i bet you didnt, since you think the west could have. the entire operation was a disaster, the men all were killed or became POWs those beaches were REALLY well defended.

you discount several campains by the west that took many german men away from russia. if the west hadnt been fighting in africa, russia would have been taken by germany, and the whole world would now be bowing to hitler's kids. (or whoever he would have named as his successor)

america provided the supplies, and weapons, russia provided the blood.

if you feel so protective of russia, i ask why did russia not help the england and france when germany attacked france? because stalin thought that if both sides weakened themselves, all of europe would become weak, and ready to be taken.

At 12/16/05 01:07 AM, mayeram wrote: you should watch the series The World At War. it will clear up many of the things you dont understand about the war. without the supplies the west was giving russia, the russians would have certainly lost moscow. it was the west that kept the soldiers in russia going. the reasons that russia lost so many men are 1) stalin was a complete idiot, and killed all his best generals right before the war and replaced them with yes men, and 2) they didnt have very good supplies. ever watch the movie Enemy at the Gates? one man got a rifle and very little ammo, another behind him got no weapon at all, but four whole bullets. the policy was that when the man holding the gun infront of you dies, you pick up his gun and shoot. when not even half the men that are attacking an entrenched position even have weapons, you should expect to have some major losses of men. i read that after the war, there were so many russian men that had died that about 2/3 of the population of the country were women.

But wait a minute, I thought you said that the US was supplying the USSR with arms? Me, having not studied this era at all, find this confusing. I know very well of the Russian front thanks, and I do not like to be talked to like an idiot. I was merely pointing out that the US and the UK were purposefully delaying a second front in Europe.

when you say that we could start a second front you dont realize that england at that part of the war was in serious risk of starving to death for supplies. the german submarine force was really good at destroying anything that america tried to send across the atlantic. the west eventually crushed the german subs, but just in the nick of time.

at no point was the UK in any danger of starving. and, as i have been forced to admit, the US couldve taken on the Germans at any point. i think the worst the rationing did to the Uk was make them healthier.

did you know that earlier in the war the west actually tried to start a second front in france? i bet you didnt, since you think the west could have. the entire operation was a disaster, the men all were killed or became POWs those beaches were REALLY well defended.

you mean the canadian attack on France. if you call that a campaign......then you need to go back to your books.

you discount several campains by the west that took many german men away from russia. if the west hadnt been fighting in africa, russia would have been taken by germany, and the whole world would now be bowing to hitler's kids. (or whoever he would have named as his successor)

Yet you discount me saying I didn't say the African campign wasnt important. And it has been generally agreed that even if there wasnt a minor drag from the African/Italian front, the Russians wouldve eventually prevailed.

america provided the supplies, and weapons, russia provided the blood.

I thought you said the Russians were poorly armed.

At 12/16/05 01:10 AM, mayeram wrote: if you feel so protective of russia, i ask why did russia not help the england and france when germany attacked france? because stalin thought that if both sides weakened themselves, all of europe would become weak, and ready to be taken.

Because I don't think Russia was ready. It wouldve attacked Germany eventually, but, like France and the UK it was not ready to fight.

At 12/16/05 01:07 AM, mayeram wrote: did you know that earlier in the war the west actually tried to start a second front in france? i bet you didnt, since you think the west could have. the entire operation was a disaster, the men all were killed or became POWs those beaches were REALLY well defended.

It cannot be stressed enough, although it's already been said, that Dieppe was not by any means a serious attempt at opening a second front. It was at best a learning experience for the real invasion.

you discount several campains by the west that took many german men away from russia. if the west hadnt been fighting in africa, russia would have been taken by germany

Couldn't disagree more. Africa did not drain a sufficient amount of German forces to stop them launching major offensives in the east. In fact, the eastern front drained more men away from the west than the other way around. Also, the Allies landed in Sicily a few days after the Germans had already lost the Battle of Kursk, which was the battle that ensured that they would lose the war.

At 12/16/05 01:10 AM, mayeram wrote: if you feel so protective of russia, i ask why did russia not help the england and france when germany attacked france? because stalin thought that if both sides weakened themselves, all of europe would become weak, and ready to be taken.

While that is certainly what Stalin had in mind, one does not have to be protecting Russia to state fact. I'm sure you're aware that England was also considering a plan to attack the Russians in Finland, so it's not like the western Allies were looking out for Russia either.

At 12/16/05 02:59 AM, Jerconjake wrote: I'm sure you're aware that England was also considering a plan to attack the Russians in Finland, so it's not like the western Allies were looking out for Russia either.

Exactly. I know that after the war had ended, Churchill was adament that the Allies keep fighting against Russia.

cool i took a look at it but since i am a opened minded person. well kind of world war2 history you want to talk about

I'm interested to know people's opinions on how the Germans could have won the war. Assuming that all their resources and troop levels and whatnot were the same as they were historically, how would you have won the war?

At 2/27/05 12:57 PM, Andersson wrote: And they dropped papers there everyday, one week from the drop, to the drop, there it stood on several languages that they were going to drop the atomic bomb there. They used Hiroshima as a statement, why Japan should surrender. USA dropped flyers for a week before they dropped the bomb saying that they would drop an none-tested heavy air-to-ground bomb there, and that the people who lived there should move out from there (They did the same thing before they bombed Nagasaki). So it's not only USA's fault, even if some people think so.

People always think it's the victims fault, at that time noone had ever heard of such a thing. Plus we were at war with them u dont just go over there say "we're going to drop a bomb on you if u dont leave" and expect someone to take you seriously. At that time is was all about standing ground (the Coldwar happend shortly there after). And even now ppl say "Hey! those ppl in new orleans should have moved they knew it was coming." But no one knew how devestaing tha was going to be and what a disater that was. Yea i just got distracted and lost my train of thought but im sure you get what im saying an where im going with the whole thing

Carrying my argument on from the Tony Blair topic, I don't believe you can blame Nevillie Chamberlain, a man who truthfully wanted to prevent another horific world war from occuring, for actually being the main factor in starting World War II.

Public Opinion was very much against a war from the start after having lived through the horrors of WWI. They also felt sorry for Germany, and supported appeasement.

By what type of evil voodoo was this topic resurrected?

At 5/14/06 04:04 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: Carrying my argument on from the Tony Blair topic, I don't believe you can blame Nevillie Chamberlain, a man who truthfully wanted to prevent another horific world war from occuring, for actually being the main factor in starting World War II.

Public Opinion was very much against a war from the start after having lived through the horrors of WWI. They also felt sorry for Germany, and supported appeasement.

Hitler knew this and took advantage of it. You can pin the war on Chamberlin because it was his fault. Mein Kampf was a best selling book, yet apparently nobody except Churchill read it. Churchill realized what Hitler was trying to do.....

At 3/5/07 12:10 PM, fastbow wrote: Hitler knew this and took advantage of it. You can pin the war on Chamberlin because it was his fault. Mein Kampf was a best selling book, yet apparently nobody except Churchill read it. Churchill realized what Hitler was trying to do.....

You are assuming that everyone in the British government, bar the unbelievably clever Winston Churchill (who, I discovered the other day, started writing his memoirs in 1941) didn't know that there was a war coming. I think this is really naive to be honest. I believe that Chamberlain and the government were honestly trying to avoid yet another bloodbath, that they definitely saw coming, while simultaneously buying time for Britain to arm to a sufficient level.

HIstorians in the 50's and 60's may have blamed Chamberlain, as was the popular thing to do, but the modernist view is that his choices were guided by factors that he could not control. He did everything he could to try and avoid war, but he was also preparing us for war.

Churchill, the 'Greatest Briton', may have been a good war leader, but that's all. Aside from that, he was a terrible person.

At 3/6/07 10:18 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: You are assuming that everyone in the British government, bar the unbelievably clever Winston Churchill (who, I discovered the other day, started writing his memoirs in 1941) didn't know that there was a war coming. I think this is really naive to be honest. I believe that Chamberlain and the government were honestly trying to avoid yet another bloodbath, that they definitely saw coming, while simultaneously buying time for Britain to arm to a sufficient level.

Ok. I still blame Chamberlin. He could have stopped appeasing Hitler. He didn't. Also, England did not really begin agressively arming themselves until 1939. They were unprepared for war...

To all of you that say that the US really didn’t make a difference in WWII I want to ask about Japan. What would have happened to the Soviet Union if it had had to fight a two front war with Germany attacking from the west and Japan attacking from the east? Would the Soviet Union have still won? I think they would have at least lost much more land (including Moscow and Stalin) and many more people.

I don’t know if everyone knows this, but I read recently that Hitler and Himmler had decided to do to the soviets what they were doing to the Jews. First they would kill most of the Russian population. Then they would enslave the few remaining and allow the Russians that looked Arian to join the new German empire. Himmler basically had a plan to turn the new German empire into the old Roman Empire. They would have a few German land owners that were totally stinking rich, and a large group of Russian people working under them as slave labor.

It’s pretty scary; it is all laid out what they were going to do to Russia very systematically. German efficiency would have effectively wiped out the Russian people until there were only a few slaves left.

At 3/6/07 10:27 AM, fastbow wrote:

Ok. I still blame Chamberlin. He could have stopped appeasing Hitler. He didn't. Also, England did not really begin agressively arming themselves until 1939. They were unprepared for war...

The problem with your view is that it is very two-dimentional, and very reliant on the advantage of foresight. In hindsight, it is very easy to blame Chamberlain for failing to act against Germany sooner.Never mind that Britain was not ready to fight Germany for most of the 1930's - not Chamberlain's fault, merely a result of the attempted disarmament of the European powers after the First World War. Now at the time, what the German's wanted was not unreasonable - Versailles had been hard on Germany, there's no doubt about that.

Another factor to take into consideration is that Germany was not the only threat. The main threats to Britain in the 1930's were Italy and Japan, so we needed to build more ships and more planes, not spend money on improving our standing army. With those threats to think about, appeasing Germany in order to buy time still seems like the right course of action.

Public opinion also dictated Chamberlain's actions in this period. The majority of public opinion was against war. 11 million people signed the peace ballot.

Heavy rearmement started in 1936.

At 3/6/07 12:24 PM, mayeram wrote: To all of you that say that the US really didn't make a difference in WWII I want to ask about Japan. What would have happened to the Soviet Union if it had had to fight a two front war with Germany attacking from the west and Japan attacking from the east? Would the Soviet Union have still won? I think they would have at least lost much more land (including Moscow and Stalin) and many more people.

The Japanese army faction were actually in favour of invading north into Russia, but in reality the Navy faction won over and they went south. I recall that Japan did send a small detachment into Russia, but they were soundly beaten. Even if the US hadn't inerevened, the Japanese would still have followed their Southern Invasion route, putting pressure on the British. Without US support, it is almost certain that all British posessions in the area would have fallen.

I don't think any

At 2/27/05 01:16 PM, ctrlkey wrote: you place a huge big star on for the U.S.A. I see your probably American and in the American textbooks history is altered.

The ALLIES only WON WWII because of the soviet army. HItler was divided on two fronts and the soviets outnumbered them greatly. they destroyed the germans, raped their women and took back everything that was theirs. If it wasn't for the Soviets, the Allies might not of been victorious in WWII.

WHY DON'T YOU GO RESERCH! THE USA was supplying the Russian Army, with everything from weapon's to food. once we entered the war with troops it was our generals who planed the strategies, and it was our men that fought and took control of Germany. Russia was just fighting for there lives trying to keep on to there own land.

no matter how you look at it if it was not for the USA , Germany would have controlled all of Europe.

The japanise were hungry for more land and power. What do you think they would have gone after next after they had taken all of the pacific islands, china, and india? If we hadnt resisted, it is sure that they would have taken these areas much faster, and then russia would have a much stronger japan against it and a large germany after it after having taken england and africa because if we hadnt have helped, england wouldnt have recieved any supplies from america.

In addition you have to look at the decrease in supplies givin to russia from america which would have made the fight even harder for russian people.