At 9/20/05 01:11 PM, Andersson wrote:

At 9/20/05 01:32 AM, Jerconjake wrote: So, then, the Soviets still could have won, even without the Allies.

That's always a possibility, one of the reasons to why U.S.A. and Great Britain wanted to be there in German when Hitler was defeated was that they didn't want Sovjet to get any further.

It's pretty obvious that the Sovjetian army had intetions more than just to defeat Hitler.

What about the US lend-lease. That was a big help to the soviets. Without that or the Allies pulling German forces from the other side, I think the Soviets wouldve been wiped out.

At 9/20/05 08:50 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: I wouldn't have put it past Stalin to sacrifice even more of his men. But he was practically begging for the Allies to open up a second front on Europe.

That was like in 1942, 1943 when the writing was not yet on the wall. By the time the Allies finally opened a second front, things were all but over. The Germans lost the iniative, hte 6th Army was smashed, and a steady retreat was beginning.

Without any Allied intervention in Europe, the Germans may have beat Russia.

Im not so sure. The land war didnt matter. The only thing I could have seen mattering at all is the air war. Even then, Im not sure if American and British bombing made the difference in the war. It may have, it may not have. But it is pretty easy to say the ground war was just to try to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe.

At 8/29/05 09:59 AM, eazy-eeee wrote: The ALLIES only WON WWII because of the soviet army
that is false...canada help win many battles and with the help of brittain they retained vimy ridge from the germans against many odds

Newsflash: Vimy ridge was world war I. 5 points for effort though? Canada liberated Finland, and landed at juno and gold beach. The soviets killed 3 million German soldiers. nuff said.

At 9/20/05 01:15 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote:

At 9/20/05 01:11 PM, Andersson wrote:

At 9/20/05 01:32 AM, Jerconjake wrote: So, then, the Soviets still could have won, even without the Allies.

That's always a possibility, one of the reasons to why U.S.A. and Great Britain wanted to be there in German when Hitler was defeated was that they didn't want Sovjet to get any further.

It's pretty obvious that the Sovjetian army had intetions more than just to defeat Hitler.

What about the US lend-lease. That was a big help to the soviets. Without that or the Allies pulling German forces from the other side, I think the Soviets wouldve been wiped out.

Ah, but Lend-Lease does not require the US to be directly involved in the war. So even if the Americans were never at war with Germany, they could still supply the Soviets.
__________________________________________
______________________
And Geoff, Canada did not liberate Finland. Where the fuck did that come from?

At 9/23/05 01:40 AM, mofomojo wrote: I don't think anyone's ever thought of this but..

Why did nazi-germany ally themselves with a non-white nation? Aren't they supposed to be white-elitist or something?

I'm just going out on a limb here, but does this prove that Hitler did just persecute jews for gain of power? Or was really a racist?

Hitler never intended to kill or enslave all other races and leave only the white people alive/in control. That is why, for example, there were no gas chambers for black people in North Africa. In fact, what would be the point of having a glorious Third Reich if there were no inferior nations to compare it to? Delegations from these nations were supposed to view Berlin every year and return home to tell of its splendor.

Also, the Japanese were themselves racial purist fanatics. They believed that they were superior to all other peoples in Asia, and that this gave them the natural right to control it. Moreover, though never officially Fascist, they shared many political beliefs and goals with Germany, including a strong distaste for the United States and Communism.

The hatred of Jews in Germany was fueled by many complicated issues. In sum, they were:

- A belief in an international conspiracy of Jews to control the world (he who has money controls the world)

- A feeling that it was Jews who betrayed Germany in 1918 by surrendering WWI

- A feeling that the Jews were responsible for the rise of Communism

- A sense that Jews were undermining tradtitional European life

- General distaste, including the notions that Jews were greedy, untrustworthy, immoral and all the while looking down their noses at everyone else because they claim to be the chosen people.

At 8/29/05 09:59 AM, eazy-eeee wrote: The ALLIES only WON WWII because of the soviet army
that is false...canada help win many battles and with the help of brittain they retained vimy ridge from the germans against many odds

In a way it is true, I mean Franklin Roosolvelt's basic plan for winning WWII was to take Germany by the rear with a brute mass of Russian Troops. Everything else for him was secondary (Look at MacArthur).

At 8/12/05 04:24 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: I was watching something on the History Channel I thought was prety cool.

Any of you ever hear of these caves of billion and billion of dollars of gold from Japanese exploitations of the countries they counqueored burried in the Phillippennes I think? Its estimated there is like 100 billion dollars, 1945 money, buried in there. All I gotta say, damn. I wish I had it.

Id be filthy friggin rich.

IMAO. I remember my grandfather telling me stories of how he and his friends went to the Phillipines during, oh 1980s, to look for the so called "Yamshita's Treasure". They got pwned by the natives when they found out the gold they were taking out was 10% Gold.

IBut seriously, I hope that this treasure is true. It might help the philipines recover.

(I'm a half-pilipino)

lol... vimy ridge.... off by about 11 years there. The reason the Germany lost was because of their war on two fronts. Man, Hitler was an idiot! The idea of not making war on to fronts was pulished in "The Art of War" thousands of years ago by the chineese! Another thing. Germany could have averted D-day. Near normandy was a powerful panzer division waiting to strike. But since hitler was in direct command, and was sleeping in that morning, too late... PWNED!

At 9/24/05 03:27 PM, fudge_monkey wrote: lol... vimy ridge.... off by about 11 years there. The reason the Germany lost was because of their war on two fronts. Man, Hitler was an idiot! The idea of not making war on to fronts was pulished in "The Art of War" thousands of years ago by the chineese! Another thing. Germany could have averted D-day. Near normandy was a powerful panzer division waiting to strike. But since hitler was in direct command, and was sleeping in that morning, too late... PWNED!

At the time the Germans had lost the war there was only the one front. Besides, if Hitler had let the USSR sit for another one or two years, they would have invaded Germany.

The Panzer division you are referring to was the SS-Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler. It was committed to the battle late in the day, and actually reached the coast, but with terrible losses and without the possibility of support troops. The Liebstandarte was never going to prevent the inevitability of the Allies getting a foothold, no matter when it was committed.
__________________________________________
______

On another note, has anybody heard about the anthrax bombs Churchill ordered to bomb Germany with? That's right, one million of them. And you thought Germans were the only ones interested in genocide! Good thing the war ended before they were produced or else the world might see him for the worthless psycho that he was.

At 9/29/05 11:00 PM, Jerconjake wrote: On another note, has anybody heard about the anthrax bombs Churchill ordered to bomb Germany with? That's right, one million of them. And you thought Germans were the only ones interested in genocide! Good thing the war ended before they were produced or else the world might see him for the worthless psycho that he was.

YEh what a psycho! But wait a minute.... didn't the US drop an atom bomb, twice, on Japan? Hmmmm selective history there I believe. Do you have a respectable source on Churchill by the way? Because I doubt you have the right to insult him.

At 9/30/05 04:59 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: But wait a minute.... didn't the US drop an atom bomb, twice, on Japan? Hmmmm selective history there I believe.

Apples and oranges, bub.

You cant compare the two and I would be happy to illustrate, if need be.

At 9/30/05 04:59 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote:

YEh what a psycho! But wait a minute.... didn't the US drop an atom bomb, twice, on Japan? Hmmmm selective history there I believe. Do you have a respectable source on Churchill by the way? Because I doubt you have the right to insult him.

It's not hard to find. Here's one. And one more. And another. This isn't some fringe theory, it's fact.

Atomic bomb - BLAH BOOO WO-T BOOOOM !

RATING - PWNAGE

WWII should never have happened. If we had stayed in Germany after WWI and helped set up the government, a would-be painter, Hitler would have never been in power. Even if he had took power, we would have monitored him. Another thing is Britain and France giving into Germany's demand, giving them Czechoslavakia, nice job, cowards. This is why we have not left Iraq yet, does anyone want another world war? I don't, so, I'm glad we are helping the government become stable. Another opinion of mine is that World War I was Frances fault, we should have sided with Germany, but hey, that's just my opinion.

At 10/17/05 12:47 AM, Crontar wrote: WWII should never have happened. If we had stayed in Germany after WWI and helped set up the government, a would-be painter, Hitler would have never been in power. Even if he had took power, we would have monitored him. Another thing is Britain and France giving into Germany's demand, giving them Czechoslavakia, nice job, cowards. This is why we have not left Iraq yet, does anyone want another world war? I don't, so, I'm glad we are helping the government become stable.

The mindset was totally different at that time. Most people that weren't French felt bad for Germany because of the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. Part of the reason that Hitler was allowed to make Germany so powerful was because it was seen as a good thing in many circles, considering the hardship it had endured after WWI, not to mention that Germany served as a strong buffer between the Allies and the USSR.

As for the Munich Agreement that gave the Czech Sudetenland to Germany, it was part of the policy of appeasement. Had they not agreed with Hitler at Munich, it would only have served to start the war sooner.

It seems that some of you people need to get some of your history right, I as possibly many other people who posted so far, am a complete history freak, love it, and I love to watch the history channel. Anyways, lets start with the basics shall we? It all basically started because britan and france failed to stop hitler at the beginning, after giving him back some of his territory, he then went and pulled a blitzkreig on poland, which if you didnt know, atm Russia and germany had a cease fire pact, and shared poland in halfs at the time. After the invasion of poland Britan and france declared war, which btw got ALOT of countries out of depression if you didnt know, anyways after they took poland and various other countries that hitler believed belonged to him, he immediately went thru belgium, straight into france, pushing them out. France immediatley surrenders, so hitler moves onto Russia. Now if you know your history.. your a fool to invade russia.. y? the cold weather of course! Even though half of Russia was taken during the war, it is a fact that without russia we probably wouldntve won the war. Russia was KEY because if they DIDNT take out russia, then after britan and others got into france, they would have their asses a two front war, and according to all known records, no country has even been able to handle a two front war, just not possible. Now as for pearl harbor, yes we did have a warning but I dont ever recall in any history movie, video, book, or site, that they had any ACTUAL date in which it would happen, they just knew something would happen sometime. Originally the US wouldve gotten a warning just minutes before the attack, but the translation and the paper was VERY late to its destination, so really the president got the letter from japan AFTER they had attacked. Now obviously the ships at pearl harbor couldntve taken an attack by sea, but their was another fleet coming in very soon to help them out. The whole war with japan completely turned around on the Battle Of Midway, that was then when basically, the japanese navy was destroy, it was an all Air battle, no ship ever made contact. Now the reason why we bombed japan was for obviously, lives, in order to get into the heart of japan they would have to take out a key island, Okanowa, that wouldve costed 1 million american lives, not exactly a smart thing to do. So, we bombed Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, with warnings of course, but did you know we werent originally going to bomb Nagasaki? We actually had a choice between 5 different cities to bomb, but the problem was, the damn clouds. After the defeat of japan america actually got into the war over in europe, btw do not say americans did jack shit til japan attacked, they sent PLENTY of arms n such to britan with boats. Oh yes and for anyone who doesnt know, britan was the first to come out with RADAR, thats how they were able to attack hitlers air b4 it hit them( I wouldve used leuftwafe but im probly spelling it wrong), anyways Then came the invasion of Normandy, took place on June 6th, originally set for june 5th but cancelled due to bad weather, also named Operation D-Day. This was the key ending point for the war in europe, many soldiers from many countries died(life expectency was 7-10 seconds about). Russia was finally turning the tide of battle, making it a double front war again, as britan and american soldiers, plus others, marched towards Germany. Due to the fact that germany was going to lose, and that hitler had syphilis, he killed himself, germany was captured, and thats basically the war summed up. All together, I say all countries pulled their equal weight in this war, well.. maybe russia did a bit more... stalingrad was pretty horrible.., anyways thats about all id like to say for now, the history channel is good for u, watch it ^^.

Can we please let this topic die? Kids get taught about WW2 in schools and so think they're experts on the subject. Dear lord the inanity.

At 2/27/05 03:23 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 2/27/05 03:02 PM, ctrlkey wrote: REAL historians agree on the fact that victory would not of been possible if it wasn't for the Soviet Army. That is general accepted knowledge, NOt my opinion.

So they did a historian poll, and it was all the historians of time.

At 1945, the US army reached 12 million. We had atomic bombs, Air superiority over Germany, Naval superiority over Germany, and two fronts open up towards Germany. Normandy and Italy. All of which was accomplished without the help of Russia. We would have won, just would have been more costly.

I contend, that if we had not invaded on D-day, Germany would have taken over Russia.

And that Canada sucks.

It's interesting that you say Canada sucks considering we happened to loosen Germany's grip on Italy and liberated the Netherlands. In Italy, the Battle of Ortona is a testament to Canada's bravery against the odds, fighting an uphill battle against a greater force. Not to mention we stormed Juno Beach on D-Day.

And for the record, by 1939, Canada was a sovereign nation. Both the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and the British North America Act in 1867 essentially gave Canada the ability to govern itself. Prime Minister W.L.M. King decided that it was best to stand alongside Britain in the fray. Of course he also bought up all his land around his house so Jews wouldn't live there and got his ideas from seances with his dead mother, but that's beside the point.

At 10/18/05 11:35 AM, Slizor wrote: Can we please let this topic die? Kids get taught about WW2 in schools and so think they're experts on the subject. Dear lord the inanity.

I happen to enjoy discussions on the Napoleonic Wars and WWI more as well, but the Second World War is responsible for much as it stands today. Just look at the crisis in Israel. A direct result of WWII. We must discuss and learn from the past to keep from repeating our mistakes in the future.

Or so the USA would have us believe, the fact is that no one acts within the law during wartime, the object is to kill one another and only the people who don't win the war are made war criminals, oh yeah and deserters.

i agree that russia played a huge part in the war, but the west played a huge war as well. even if you discount all ground fighting done by the west everywhere in world war II, you still have to look at the air war. the west blew the crap out of germany with its bombers. this reduced the population that could fight, and destroyed important factories. if germany's factories had been fully intact, perhaps many of the russian battles, including the important battle of kursk would have turned in the german favor, just because there were several more tanks and airplanes produced. if the germans had just pushed a little farther, they would have taken moscow. i believe that without the west, that germany would have had more weapons of war, and russia would have had less. at the very least, it would have taken russia longer to destroy germany. this time may have given germany the ability to build the atom bomb. they wouldnt have had their factories destroyed, so they would have more resources and workforce to deploy to research. if germany had developed atomic weapons, the war would have been over. they would have launched a V-2 rocket with a nuclear warhead at london, and several others at russia. that would have ended everything. russia would have its huge tank army destroyed in a single day, and stalin would be dead.

oops i meant part in the war...

Lest we forget.

At 2/28/05 11:29 PM, DopplarEffekt wrote:

At 2/28/05 11:13 PM, SgtKrammer wrote: What do you guys and girls feel was the best weapon used in the war through any period?

I didn't know that people thought that weapons from World War II that killed millions of people were cool.

i do...
very cool

At 2/27/05 02:32 PM, ctrlkey wrote:

At 2/27/05 02:22 PM, Andersson wrote:

One of the reasons to why U.S.A. didn't join in the beginning was fear. They had just gone through the depression and they also had some political issues back home (The one about equal rights for all people whether they are colored or not).

EVERYBODY, went through a depression and political issues before the war. Almost ever major nation went through the same difficulties. So, that right there is a load of bs.

....omg dude america has went through alot it would have had alot more men die without america

To many people choose only one of the allies and try to say they did all the work. Germany could of kicked any one of the allies ass, it was a joint effort. people always say russia did all the work, becuase we all know loosing over 20 million men is a sign of winning a war, really boosts morale, and russia didnt engage with Japan very often (first time before invasion of poland happened and russia kicked japense ass). USA did alot of the work tearing down the japense (help form UK and Aussie of course) while Brits had to deal with the african campagin againt freaking Erwin Rommel (best ww2 in my opoion)(with USA help later). Russia had to deal with the bloodest battles that caused them MASSIVE casulties but slowly exploted that the german military was spread to thin. America also did massive percice bombing over berlin destroying the Third Reichs Industry (Brits did night bombing to prevent germans from rebuilding and non-specific target bombing). it was a joint effort from the big three, with out all three, germany would of kicked some serious ass. BTW i am related to the only field marshal to ever surrender in german history LOL. Friedrich Wilhelm Ernst Paulus IS THE BEST (ignore typos i am lazy)

At 2/27/05 01:31 PM, ctrlkey wrote: I dont think its cool how people died in the past. however, you HAVE to remember shit like that, eventually, WWII will be forgotten because generation of generation didn't bother learning the sacrifices that were made and the fear that caused them. People like that SICKEN me!

WW what?

Yeah, Rommel was one of the generals for Germany that was a true patriot. He risked his own life to try to stop Hitler from destroying the rest of Germany. Unfortunately, he failed to assassinate Hitler, and was subsequently killed.

At 12/15/05 01:48 AM, Zephon wrote: To many people choose only one of the allies and try to say they did all the work. Germany could of kicked any one of the allies ass, it was a joint effort. people always say russia did all the work, becuase we all know loosing over 20 million men is a sign of winning a war, really boosts morale, and russia didnt engage with Japan very often

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Russia diddo most of the work. Keep in mind that Germany was only fighting one major opponent before 1944 (Italy and North Africa were nowhere near the scale of D-Day or the east), and before 1943 the Allied bombing campaign hadn't gotten into full swing either.

By 1943 the Russians blunted the German army in such a way as to make it impossible for them to win, whereas without Russia, D-Day and North Africa would have seen much more determined and probably successful German resistance.

The fact is that all Allied forces were outmatched by Germany, which is why the Russians suffered such heavy casualties and why D-Day and its preparations were so extensive. Any time Allied forces engaged the Germans at anything like even strength, the Germans prevailed. So without the Russians to absorb the heavy losses, the Germans could have won the war.

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.