World War II

[Bjornebye]

They started it.

[magicrat]

Maybe.

 

Most countries tend to put themselves at the center of events which then leads people to believe in things like the point you made. Britain’s involvement in WWII was not as important as most British people believe. Britain was fairly quickly and successfully chased out of Europe, subjected to an extensive bombing campaign with a view of isolating and pacifying it and that’s it. In the meantime, it was comprehensively defeated in Asia, often by numerically inferior Japanese forces like in Singapore. When the US realized the Soviets are defeating Nazi Germany, it used Britain as the launching pad for the invasion.  The rest is national myths, different from country to country. I bet the French believe their resistance movement played an important role, Slovaks that their uprising was crucial and so on.

 

Most people in Britain don’t know anything about the WWII in other countries (they are certainly not alone in this) and I don’t see why would informing them that it was the Red Army which defeated Germany be belittling the hardships endured by the war generation.

 

No one is in denial the the Russians suffered more dead than any other nation in WW2, 20 odd million from memory and stopping the Germans at Stalingrad turned the tide on the Eastern front. My point was had Brittain not held out Russia would have gone too. Lets not forget supply convoys from the West were vital to the Russian effort 

[SasaS]

.My main point is not that they suffered more than anyone, it is rather that their army beat the Germans, which is often neglected, Soviets were certainly helped by the Allies, but if you look at German military casualties and number of troops engaged etc. it is clear where the war was won. And as we still live in the post WWII Pax Americana world, this fact is deliberately neglected by the Western (British, especially American) media and historians, whilst the war effort of other nations is over-emphasized.

Regarding Britain, if it had been occupied, which was much more difficult to do than in France, as it is an island and easier to defend, I don’t think it would have brought down the USSR as well. Britain mainly fought to maintain its role as the American chief ally in Europe and persuade the US to enter the war in Europe while it still was one, had it capitulated, Americans may have embraced Nazi Germany as the party to deal with in Europe. This would have indeed made the situation more complicated for the Russians, but I don’t think they would have been defeated.

[neko]

There was a Pacific theatre in WW2 as well, remember.

 

Stretched out over thousands of miles of ocean, that was almost entirely won by the Americans despite their 'Germany first' policy.

[magicrat]

.My main point is not that they suffered more than anyone, it is rather that their army beat the Germans, which is often neglected, Soviets were certainly helped by the Allies, but if you look at German military casualties and number of troops engaged etc. it is clear where the war was won. And as we still live in the post WWII Pax Americana world, this fact is deliberately neglected by the Western (British, especially American) media and historians, whilst the war effort of other nations is over-emphasized.

 

Regarding Britain, if it had been occupied, which was much more difficult to do than in France, as it is an island and easier to defend, I don’t think it would have brought down the USSR as well. Britain mainly fought to maintain its role as the American chief ally in Europe and persuade the US to enter the war in Europe while it still was one, had it capitulated, Americans may have embraced Nazi Germany as the party to deal with in Europe. This would have indeed made the situation more complicated for the Russians, but I don’t think they would have been defeated.

 

It was on the verge of being defeated as it was . Poor timing with the onset of winter is all the stopped the Germans

With no Western front and allies Russia would have capitualted

[Kevin D]

I'm not surprised at all.

A weak shite like Chamberlain is replaced by a rotund, cigar smoking brandy soak who appeals to the working classes sense of unattainable upper crust eccentricity... he makes a few flowery speeches from the safety of his underground drinks cabinet in Whitehall... while the bulk of the dirty work is done on the continent by the continent (except the French, whom he wants to save regardless, because of Champagne), he lucks out with Germany's fancifully grandiose plan to invade Britain by air, and the subsequent "so few for so many" magnificent men in their flying machines carry the day with relatively little collateral damage when you compare with the millions that died in the East on a convenient, 24/7, 6-year conveyor belt of human fodder.

Famous victory.

Well, at least sounded like it on BBC radio.

Bob's your uncle.

Winston's your winner.

I think Chamberlain has been given a far rougher time from history, than he deserves. After the First World War, he was clearly shaken and bent over backwards to avert another conflict. Given the Second World War was the biggest human catastrophe ever, I think his efforts to try and and avoid it all costs make sense and are laudable. It's also worth pointing out that 2 million people were waiting in the pouring rain in London to welcome him back and some 80% of the country approved of the work he had done in Munich. The reason that we ended up at war anyway, was because he dealing with the biggest criminals who ever lived. Edward Murrow once said that "Difficulty is the excuse history never accepts", but how do you legislate for the other side being criminally insane?

[SasaS]

It was on the verge of being defeated as it was . Poor timing with the onset of winter is all the stopped the Germans

With no Western front and allies Russia would have capitualted

 

 

But there was no western front in December 1941...or during Stalingrad, even Kursk, if we disregard invasion of Sicily.

 

Germans suffered from extended supply lines and logistical problems. They were punching well above their weight throughout the WWII, contrary to what is usually depicted in films, with the firepower being with the Germans, and the Allies a plucky underdog. 

[magicrat]

But there was no western front in December 1941...or during Stalingrad, even Kursk, if we disregard invasion of Sicily.

 

Germans suffered from extended supply lines and logistical problems. They were punching well above their weight throughout the WWII, contrary to what is usually depicted in films, with the firepower being with the Germans, and the Allies a plucky underdog. 

In 1941 the Luftwaffe were heavily occupied in bombing Brittain, invasion preparations for Sealion underway and the battle for North Africa in full swing I would argue they were definitely fighting on more than one front .Their supply lines were stretched massively in the East but if they had knocked Brittain out of the war or made peace then Russia was doomed . It was only Hitlers ego and meddling in military strategy that saved them anyway. To unleash Barbarossa in late June was ludicrous and was a massive risk they would get caught by the weather.

[SasaS]

North Africa was definitely a side show, Africa Corps was there to do what they can, compared to the numbers on the Eastern Front, it was a joke. 

Bombing Britain, OK, I'll give you that, it must have made a serious dent in Luftwaffe's resources in 1940, but it was largely over or seriously downscaled by June 1941. There was also invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia in April 1941, which I'm sure is seen in the SEE as a major event influencing the outcome of the war.

[Frank Dacey]

They launched Barbarossa in late June because they had to ride to the rescue of the Italians in the Balkans. The original attack was due to start a couple of months earlier. Hitler wasn't worried about the delay because he was a massive gambler. He'd lucked out in 1939 and 1940 and thought he was invincible. He made mistake after mistake on the Eastern front. Indeed it's possible to argue that he never got another major decision right. In addition, he prioritised the Final Solution over transport for the Front. Yes, the Russians bore the brunt of defeating the German Army but it's also fair to point out that it was an army deprived of much of it's artillery support and air support which was tied up defending Germany against allied bombing raids.

Hitler is an exception to the rule that most historical figures are not caricatures. Chamberlain is a fascinating character, clear and decisive and without him in power in the 30s it's unlikely we would have won the Battle of Britain.

[s(k)aturation]

It'd been better if we'd lost then we could have shown that Tory cunt Churchill what for.

(Anyone who insists on downing a bottle of champagne a day and at the same time is a master brick layer is OK by me).

 

Downing St, eh?

[s(k)aturation]

I think Chamberlain has been given a far rougher time from history, than he deserves. After the First World War, he was clearly shaken and bent over backwards to avert another conflict. Given the Second World War was the biggest human catastrophe ever, I think his efforts to try and and avoid it all costs make sense and are laudable. It's also worth pointing out that 2 million people were waiting in the pouring rain in London to welcome him back and some 80% of the country approved of the work he had done in Munich. The reason that we ended up at war anyway, was because he dealing with the biggest criminals who ever lived. Edward Murrow once said that "Difficulty is the excuse history never accepts", but how do you legislate for the other side being criminally insane?

 

I agree, KD.

I was probably being a bit harsh on Nev for satirical effect in that particular post.

Give me Chamberlain over Churchill anyday.%3

[magicrat]

North Africa was definitely a side show, Africa Corps was there to do what they can, compared to the numbers on the Eastern Front, it was a joke. 

 

Bombing Britain, OK, I'll give you that, it must have made a serious dent in Luftwaffe's resources in 1940, but it was largely over or seriously downscaled by June 1941. There was also invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia in April 1941, which I'm sure is seen in the SEE as a major event influencing the outcome of the war.

 

 

You started by crediting the Russians with winning the war,  I'm sorry that's just too simplistic ,

They certainly hastened the end of the war but their advance in the East was helped immensely by Allied bombing and then the bridgehead in Niormandy. That said who knows what might have happened had it dragged on. The Germans were certainly developing a nuclear weapon and had the delivery system in the V2 with the intercontinental V3 under development. I think instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Americans may have used the bomb in Europe first.  

[s(k)aturation]

No one won the war, really.

It was an as-you-were with the Allies (in effect, USA) annexing half of Germany... and Russia the other half, along with the rats and mice called E Europe.

Quite simply, Hitler was replaced by Stalin (although he would prove a much more difficult nut to crack, which in a way was good for business anyway) as the Soviets succeeded Germany as the perennially essential enemy of good.

And that was much more convenient, because Communism was a far more "natural" enemy for America, who at least no longer ostensibly looked like the hypocrites they were in the 30s... when massive US government-bedfellow companies like Westinghouse etc were secretly, and not so secretly, facilitating German rearmament.

If you were being conspiratorial, you might say the US were arming someone so they could eventually go to war with them, when it suited, in order to create a new, bigger enemy.

No, never, surely?

[Preston Red]

You started it!

 

No we didn't!

 

Yes you did when you invaded Poland!!!!

[SasaS]

You started by crediting the Russians with winning the war,  I'm sorry that's just too simplistic ,

They certainly hastened the end of the war but their advance in the East was helped immensely by Allied bombing and then the bridgehead in Niormandy. That said who knows what might have happened had it dragged on. The Germans were certainly developing a nuclear weapon and had the delivery system in the V2 with the intercontinental V3 under development. I think instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Americans may have used the bomb in Europe first.  

 

I started by expressing amazement at how little awareness / acceptance there is of the fact that the Eastern Front was the main battlefield  of the "European theater". This is where the war has been fought for 3 years before the Allied invasion and this is where Germany lost this war. My other points were that Allied invasion in June 1944 was not so much about defeating Germany, which was already facing a certain defeat by the Soviets, but about preventing that all of Europe is overrun by the Red Army and especially, preventing that Soviets become the sole beneficiary of captured German technology.

 

 Since you mentioned going nuclear, my other point is that forcing Japan to capitulate by using the atomic bomb was probably also linked to shocking advances Red Army was making in Manchuria (it captured the area the size of Western Europe or even bigger in just a couple of days). As the war in the Pacific theater was largely about (imperialistic) control of Asia, Americans were afraid all their war effort would be jeopardized or even undone by the emergence of a new player able to influence China, and they were right, as only five years later they had to fight a new war.

[s(k)aturation]

Indeed.

Inconvenient truths weren't first expostulated by Al Gore.

[s(k)aturation]

Well that's cast rather a gloom over the evening...

 

[magicrat]

I started by expressing amazement at how little awareness / acceptance there is of the fact that the Eastern Front was the main battlefield  of the "European theater". This is where the war has been fought for 3 years before the Allied invasion and this is where Germany lost this war. My other points were that Allied invasion in June 1944 was not so much about defeating Germany, which was already facing a certain defeat by the Soviets, but about preventing that all of Europe is overrun by the Red Army and especially, preventing that Soviets become the sole beneficiary of captured German technology.

 

 Since you mentioned going nuclear, my other point is that forcing Japan to capitulate by using the atomic bomb was probably also linked to shocking advances Red Army was making in Manchuria (it captured the area the size of Western Europe or even bigger in just a couple of days). As the war in the Pacific theater was largely about (imperialistic) control of Asia, Americans were afraid all their war effort would be jeopardized or even undone by the emergence of a new player able to influence China, and they were right, as only five years later they had to fight a new war.

 

I don't think we fundamentally disagree as to what the Russians but you can't underestimate  what went before or the support they had from the Western Allies . It's true there is a public perception that they only played a minor role,

Churchill was very worried about what he later said was the "curtain coming down in the East" but Stalin berated him from 43 onwards to invade France and was scathing about the delays. He would hardly have done that had he wanted to sweep through Germany alone and the DD landings were vital in shortening the war. By 1944 it became vital to overrun the secret weapon installations and launch sites for teh V weapons. There was much more driving the invasion than a fear of the Soviets land-grab the imperative was still to defeat Hitler as quickly as possible

 

As for Japan I am not as well read on that or the Manchurian campaign but I am still convinced that the Americans dropped the bomb to avoid the necessity of invading the home islands with the massive losses that would have entailed . Roosevelt was dead and Truman wanted it done and dusted quickly .   

[s(k)aturation]

I don't think we fundamentally disagree as to what the Russians but you can't underestimate  what went before or the support they had from the Western Allies . It's true there is a public perception that they only played a minor role,

Churchill was very worried about what he later said was the "curtain coming down in the East"

 

Yes, never mind Neville Chamberlain, who was actually trying to prevent a war...

 

... Winston Churchill, who lived for running wars at a safe distance, was the appeaser with the most blood on his hands of all time perhaps, in terms of turning a blind eye to arguably, in the 1940s, the most prolific mass murderer in history - Stalin).

 

But in the words of Basil Fawlty, our Winny mentioned the war and got away with it alright.

 

And he "worried" about the Iron Curtain later.  Much much later in fact, if at all, once it was all too late and he a doddery ineffectual aristocratic foie gras lapper once more.

[SasaS]

I don't think we fundamentally disagree as to what the Russians but you can't underestimate  what went before or the support they had from the Western Allies . It's true there is a public perception that they only played a minor role,

Churchill was very worried about what he later said was the "curtain coming down in the East" but Stalin berated him from 43 onwards to invade France and was scathing about the delays. He would hardly have done that had he wanted to sweep through Germany alone and the DD landings were vital in shortening the war. By 1944 it became vital to overrun the secret weapon installations and launch sites for teh V weapons. There was much more driving the invasion than a fear of the Soviets land-grab the imperative was still to defeat Hitler as quickly as possible

 

As for Japan I am not as well read on that or the Manchurian campaign but I am still convinced that the Americans dropped the bomb to avoid the necessity of invading the home islands with the massive losses that would have entailed . Roosevelt was dead and Truman wanted it done and dusted quickly .   

 

Well, yes, I used a hyperbole to emphasize my point, of course all of these played a part. I do believe the Vs were not so important as the fear of a red menace.

 

I thought for years that USSR's declaration of war in 1945 was just a token gesture until I read about the extent of their involvement against Japan.

[Alan Sex]

[s(k)aturation]

A cold day in hell, Alan?

[cloggypop]

[Alan Sex]

A cold day in hell, Alan?

The one with the big howitzers is quite proud of them. I would go all blitzkrieg on them, to be honest.