|
| Thread: WWII : Who Saved The World |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted February 10, 2004 07:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I strongly disagree!
I still think the CCCP's contribution was still the greatest!however,they did get a lot help from USA...
among other things the pathetic Sherman tanks...
but okay,thats another story...
the fact remains,the CCCP had the grandest part in defeating the axis.
so if the questin is,who saved the world,I'd say it was Jossif (Vissorionovits Dzugasvili) Stalin...
Hmmmmm.... Define precisely what this "grandest part" would be?
Truth be told, Russia had enough trouble in 1941 and 1942 confining German advances even with western allied support (don't forget, it was British convoys that brought the supplies to the Russian ports), throw in a lack of strategic bombing, therefore possible higher german production and certainly more planes (thereby negating Russian air supremacy), more troops on the eastern front in general and the possible intervention of the Japanese in Asia and frankly not even Russia would have stood up to Germany.
Also having established that, it's difficult to put a greater value on Russian efforts simply because they engaged and destroyed more German formations. For one thing Russia could not have done this without the allied efforts. Which did more damage? The west that reduced the Germans to a manageable size, or the East that destroyed the greater portion of that manageable size? Hard to say, so I'll sit on the fence and say both 
Stalin on the other hand can by extention of his policies pre-war could almost be accused of nearly costing the allies the war, thereby, under the defenition of the thread loosing the world. For starters his purges of the army can be directly linked to the poor performances of his armed forces in 1941. Secondly, though it never happened to any massive degree, Stalin's attitudes to the minorities in Soviet Russia (despite being a Georgian himself) drove many of those people's into the arms of the wermacht. It was only German racial attitudes that stopped these being ready recruits for Hitler's war.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Pitsu
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2004 09:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Stalin on the other hand can by extention of his policies pre-war could almost be accused of nearly costing the allies the war, thereby, under the defenition of the thread loosing the world. For starters his purges of the army can be directly linked to the poor performances of his armed forces in 1941.
The poor performance can be a morale issue, but I think there was something more important. Certainly wasn't Soviet Union not prepared for a war. The problem was that he was preparing for an attack, not for defence. Stalin did not believe that Hitler dares to attack him, therefore did not pressure on defences. Especially after Molotov-Rippendorf pact. However, Hitler knew Stalin's plans ("communists" really didn't hide the plans to take over the world) and he HAD to attack first. From WWI it was clear that war at both East and West borders is difficult for Germany. Unfortunately for Gemany it he had to do it again, either because the war in West did not go as quickly as planned or the danger from East grew too fast.
Anyway, is you ask who "saved" the world in WW II, I would cast my vote for Germany. Hitler would happyly have ruled the world with no doubt, but if he would not have balanced Stalin, a colossal imperium would have born. Though not nazistic but despotic. (I prefer not to use communism for Stalin's regime, IMO it was purely despotism and idea of "communism" was just a way to fool people).
Please, do not tell that I am a nazist of Hitler lover, I just believe the world to be in more colors than black and white and also believe that if two devils fight who has the right to kill a little trapped angel, the angel may finally survive both.
Quote:
Stalin's attitudes to the minorities in Soviet Russia (despite being a Georgian himself) drove many of those people's into the arms of the wermacht. It was only German racial attitudes that stopped these being ready recruits for Hitler's war.
I do not think that "minority" is the correct word, at least not at national level. It was more "the people with possible anti-regime connections". In principle, vast majority of people (including russians) could not be sure that nothing bad happens to them. And about being ready for Hitler's reqruit: at least in Baltic countries the most important was that we remain independent (i.e will not be a province in an emperium). Does Hitler rule in Moscow or Stalin in Berlin that was secondary problem. Without a bayonet on neck (or on the neck of beloved ones) a few went to run storm to Moscow or Berlin.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 11, 2004 09:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The problem was that he was preparing for an attack, not for defence. Stalin did not believe that Hitler dares to attack him, therefore did not pressure on defences.
I'm going to have to disagree there, Stalin knew without a shadow of a doubt that sometime hitler would strike east, Mein Kampf you can be sure was read closely by the KGB. I doubt even Stalin was that niave as to believe that a simple non-agression pact signed to please temporary situations was ever going to last that long.
Plus Russia was unprepared for war in 1941, Stalin still had inexperienced or political officers leading his armies thanks to his suicidal coups of recent years. That alone is proved by Russia's woeful performance in Finland that only just brought about the advances in winter technology in time for the end of 1941.
Quote:
I do not think that "minority" is the correct word, at least not at national level
Used in terms of Russia's population to the population of say Latvia, Estonia or Georgia, it has relevance. I was talking about the respective people's in comparison to the entire population of Russia.
Quote:
And about being ready for Hitler's reqruit: at least in Baltic countries the most important was that we remain independent (i.e will not be a province in an emperium). Does Hitler rule in Moscow or Stalin in Berlin that was secondary problem. Without a bayonet on neck (or on the neck of beloved ones) a few went to run storm to Moscow or Berlin.
It's no criticism, just stating a fact, a lot of studies after WWII reckon that something close to a million people that were in "Russia" (ie as was in 1941) would have been prepared to serve in the Wermacht during WWII had Hitler not treated the area's people like worse than animals. As it was recruitment drives were often highly popular anyway. I agree that their motives were not "pro-nazi" in the majority of cases, (a famous Albanian SS formation for example mutinied in 1944 in France when they found out about massacres in their country), but nonetheless, the result would probably have been much the same. Whatever the motives of those that did join and those that might have joined, the truth is more that Hitler and the Germans had absolutely no intention of freeing any of the Eastern nations from Russian dominance, quite the opposite.
Interesting theory on the Germans, but I personally rule them out for the reason you noted, that if they had suceeded in their aims, the world would have been just as lost than if they failed. Also their motives were nothing like (in reality, propaganda is obviously different) saving the world either, or Eastern Europe, but to set it aflame with war then build an empire there. For all the truth of the comment on Russia, another truth is that in "saving" the world, Germany managed to kill over 13 million civilians in Eastern Europe alone. It pains me therefore to attribute the saving of the world to Germany as much as it does to Russia.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
silx87
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 12:58 PM |
|
Edited By: silx87 on 26 Feb 2004
|
Quote:
Hmmmmm.... Define precisely what this "grandest part" would be?
as grandest part,I meant the largest portion of german armies
Quote:
his purges of the army can be directly linked to the poor performances of his armed forces in 1941.
I agree with this...the purges was a poor,paranoid decision...however this was not the only issue that could have cost them the war.
mostly I agree with pitsu,Stalin was indeed preparing for an offensive rather than a defensive war...1939-41 Stalin was sending troops and supplies to the border preparing to destroy Germany and conquer pretty much the whole of Europe.I think this is actualy the major thing that caused the CCCP difficulties for the 1st few years,that germanys forces were able to knock out pretty much the whole army that was prepared to fight the war...
this forced the russians to some desperate fighting tactics(I.Rosloi in the Caucasus in 1943) which generally was a waste of manpower...
Quote:
Secondly, though it never happened to any massive degree, Stalin's attitudes to the minorities in Soviet Russia
I disagree...I DID happen to a massive scale!
especially the cossacks and tartars in the caucasus and in that area generally...
The civilian losses for the CCCP in WWII was over 10,000,000 - these ppl were not killed by Hitlers armies,but they died because of Stalin.
Quote:
Anyway, is you ask who "saved" the world in WW II, I would cast my vote for Germany.
this is also a good point!
Stalins army in 1941 was more than enough to cover pretty much most of Europe.(about ...150hours)
so we could maybe even say Hitler saved the world from Stalin!
Quote:
I'm going to have to disagree there, Stalin knew without a shadow of a doubt that sometime hitler would strike east, Mein Kampf you can be sure was read closely by the KGB. I doubt even Stalin was that niave as to believe that a simple non-agression pact signed to please temporary situations was ever going to last that long.
I disagree here...
The KGB,Mein Kampf,this is irrelevant...
there is without a doubt proof that in 1941 Stalin was preparing to attack!
Kudrjavtsev sent millions of topografic(?) maps to the border!both russian and german soldiers have verified it!
there was a reaason why he did this!He was indeed preparing to strike at Hitler,just that Hitler beat him to it...after Hitler attacked in 1941,there was an average of 1 map per 50,000 soldiers in the russian army...this was not because the russians had no maps,but because they torched the maps so they wouldn't be captured by Hitler...
there is yet more proof if u have time to look for it...
Quote:
Plus Russia was unprepared for war in 1941, Stalin still had inexperienced or political officers leading his armies thanks to his suicidal coups of recent years. That alone is proved by Russia's woeful performance in Finland that only just brought about the advances in winter technology in time for the end of 1941.
unprepared?
Hitler had a little over 3,000 tanks in the east in 41...Stalin had several times that...
most of Hitlers tanks in the east at that time were Panzer I,Panzer II and T38 with some Panzer III's...
the russian tanks at that time were BT7,T34,KV1,KV2(although they stopped making those in 42) and the "obsolete" T35!
from the USA Stalin recieved over 300,000t of Aluminium,over 300,000 Studebecker and Dodge trucks and over 50,000 Willys jeeps(which at that time were the best in the world) among other things...
So if there was anyone unprepared for the war in the East,it was the Hitler!
EDIT:btw,Pitsu, have u read V.Suvorov?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 02:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
as grandest part,I meant the largest portion of german armies
Which helpfully ignores the fact that this would have been impossible without the US/UK and others already reducing the German war economy to ruin.
Quote:
mostly I agree with pitsu,Stalin was indeed preparing for an offensive rather than a defensive war...1939-41 Stalin was sending troops and supplies to the border preparing to destroy Germany and conquer pretty much the whole of Europe.I think this is actualy the major thing that caused the CCCP difficulties for the 1st few years,that germanys forces were able to knock out pretty much the whole army that was prepared to fight the war...
I'm guessing this comes from Suvarov right? He's an interesting authour, but his conclusions lack depth and logic. For one thing, no-one in their right mind would have trusted Hitler entirely enough to simply prepare only for an offensive war. It was suicide to do such a thing, Stalin wasn't entirely stupid. Allow me to give you an example of Suvarov and his supporter's logic:
They made the claim that Stalin had trained, or was training well over a million paratroopers for the outbreak of war. This outbreak, we are told would have been sometime within perhaps a week or month of the true outbreak. This, we are told would have destroyed german communications behind their lines and seized vital bridges. At that stage of 1941, even throwing every bomber plane into use to transport the troops, he could never have dropped more than 100,000 troops in one lift anyway. And of those planes, no more than enough to transport 30,000 (and that's being generous) existed in the Western military district. Interesting figures, but idiotic logic to support them.
Quote:
I disagree...I DID happen to a massive scale!
especially the cossacks and tartars in the caucasus and in that area generally...
Perhaps a couple of hundred thousand to you is a massive scale, it is however a tenth at least of what the Germans estimated might have willingly served. Nor do I need much information on who did thank you, I could give you a list of divisions, strengths and so on, so I am aware that units served in both the Wermacht and SS, but this was a fraction of what might have served, which was my point.
Quote:
The civilian losses for the CCCP in WWII was over 10,000,000 - these ppl were not killed by Hitlers armies,but they died because of Stalin.
Rubbish. Hitler liquidated whole towns and villages in Russia and the eastern countries during the war. He formed special units to wipe out the Jewish population and any partisans in the wake of the Wermacht's drive east. He carted off civilians for slave labour without feeding them most of the time. It's very hard to say how you feel Hitler did NOT kill millions of Russian civilians during WWII.
Quote:
I disagree here...
The KGB,Mein Kampf,this is irrelevant...
Interesting claim, so you believe that Stalin would be stupid enough to trust the man who made his expressed claim for the last 10 years to remove the Russians from European Russia and colonise it with Germans? You think all that is irrelevant? Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay....
Quote:
there is without a doubt proof that in 1941 Stalin was preparing to attack!
There's possible proof of which it's hard to analyse because the records Suvarov based his book on are not exactly viewable atm.
Quote:
unprepared?
Hitler had a little over 3,000 tanks in the east in 41...Stalin had several times that...
Russian tanks were outdated in the main and little more than usless given Russian strategy in the opening weeks of the war. They did posess some decent armour, the T34 and KV series for example, but of the thousands in Russia on the eve of war, the T34 made up barely a hundred. The majority of Russian tanks hadn't even been given radios!
You might wish to look at: http://www.orbat.com/site/history/historical/russia/wfront.html
As it lists the Russian army as having only 3345 tanks themselves on the immediate western front. Of these, only 500 or so were of the types you mention. It's obvious that in reserve and other areas Russia had many more, but certainly, the T34 and KV series was a rarity in the opening months of the war rather than what you are claiming.
On the other hand the German tanks were emminently suited to their task and crewed by experienced men who were confident in victory. The German wermacht enjoyed close support from Stuka dive bombers, something the Russians entirely lacked during the first few weeks. The Germans had elite commanders like Rundstedt and others leading their army, the Russians political saps like Budenny. If they were unprepared it was for the war not ending by 1941's close, the Germans did not expect russia to survive long enough to last to the winter. Germany was prepared though, a glance at her strategies, her tactics, her air-force redeployment theme and so on indicates that the Germans fully expected to win and win well. They merely misjudged the combination of Hitler's manic inteferences, Russia's ability to fight the war and the Russian winter.
I still find it interesting how an army that was overrun with almost nonchalant ease in months, capturing over a million Russian troops (most of which wouldn't return home either), was driven almost to the gates of Moscow and, had it not been for the winter of 41/2 and allied support, probably wouldn't have managed to hold the enemy back can be classified as "prepared".
I find Suvarov most interesting, even if his "proof" is a little unprovable. I imagine it shows that Stalin was thinking about a short war to capture some territory in eastern europe, but I severely doubt he could have taken the whole of europe, or was he planning to in 1941.
Oh and on german tank numbers, all I could find was totals produced up to that period. They list the Panzer III as having well over 1000 produced up to that period. Even allowing for losses and deployment elsewhere, it's to be assumed that Panzer IIIs were more numerous than T34s. Hardly deserving of the "some" comment you attach to it, and not to the T34. You missed out the Panzer IV also, which was well in production and service by then. By T38 I assume you meant 38T (the Czech tank) of which they had quite a number, and the tank was, although obselete mostly by then, was no more obselete than the majority of russian tanks. As for the Panzers I and II, they mostly filled out light tank roles by then, therefore they were far from obselete in such a role.
As for US support, it's fun how you sweepingly dismiss the US involvement as being less than russia's in one breath and attribute great things to US supplies in another... It's true that both US and British supplies helped the Russians immensely, but you can be assurred that they would NOT be doing this in the event of Russian invasions of most of Europe as Suvarov claimed. Also this US/UK support came AFTER the German invasion, it has no bearing on Stalin's ability to prepare for war in the slightest...
Oh and I haven't read all of his work, but I have had it quoted chapter and verse like a bible to me by someone who's belief in the theories in it border on the fanatical.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Pitsu
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 08:48 PM |
|
Edited By: Pitsu on 26 Feb 2004
|
Quote:
I'm guessing this comes from Suvarov right? He's an interesting authour, but his conclusions lack depth and logic.
I have not read Suvarov. At least I do not recognise this name. But maybe the sources I have used to build up my visions have read him. In general I am not very interested in history at all. Thus, I admit of being quite ignorant (especially in facts).
Lack of depth and logic? Lack of western or russian logic or both?
Quote:
For one thing, no-one in their right mind would have trusted Hitler entirely enough to simply prepare only for an offensive war. It was suicide to do such a thing
Would USA conquer Russia in next month and no-one would dare to begin an open war agains USA. Of course, house keepers are needed, but not a special defence army if you have proven your strength. If you are talking about 43/44, then, absolutely, Hitler was thinking more about defence.
Quote:
Interesting figures, but idiotic logic to support them.
It might have been true on paper. As you said Stalin's team was rather unexperienced, and one that show it is that such things were taken seriously. I do not remember the year, but once in Estonia we had pretty much the only airport that could have been used to send bombers to Berlin skys. Stalin gave an order to use heavy bombers, despite that specialists said the airport suitable only for small light-bombers. Two heavy bombers were crashed before generals agreed gravitation being more important that Stalinīs ideas.
Quote:
there is without a doubt proof that in 1941 Stalin was preparing to attack!
AND REPLAY
There's possible proof of which it's hard to analyse because the records Suvarov based his book on are not exactly viewable atm.
If war with Finland would have given better results for Stalin, I am not sure that Germany would have started Russia-Germany war. If you say that Russia (umm, on any reason I preffer to use Russia not USSR) was in fact weak and not well-armed, I agree, but the wish was there. And if we look for example at baltic states and half of Poland then the wish had also some success. You might be even correct that he did not want occupy the Europe. Installing loyal coverments to West-Europa countries would have been more than enough.
Quote:
Russian tanks were outdated in the main and little more than us....majority of Russian tanks hadn't even been given radios!
Agree, but would it be so also if germans would not have attacked and a year would have passed?
Quote:
...1941's close, the Germans did not expect russia to survive long enough to last to the winter.
Agree, Germans underestimated Russia. But if you look at their success in the beginning, the victory may feel obvious even for an experienced strategican.
PS. Sorry, I feel even myself that today my English is extraordinary strange...
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 09:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Lack of depth and logic? Lack of western or russian logic or both?
Well basically they mostly rely on the theory that the Russians would be so pre-occupied preparing to invade the whole of mainland europe that they would do stupid things like build an almost entirely bomber based airforce, ignore German/Nazi ideals and build up, build massive numbers of tanks solely designed to fight in western europe, drop hundreds of thousands of paratroopers (for which they clearly had no ability to deploy), deploy airborne tanks (that, unlike the British glider based Tetarch were literally meant to be dropped on their own with some limited glider capacity, something even the authors admit was of dubious sense).
In my experience, the Russian army, nor Stalin simply wasn't that stupid or mad enough to trust Hitler.
Quote:
Would USA conquer Russia in next month and no-one would dare to begin an open war agains USA. Of course, house keepers are needed, but not a special defence army if you have proven your strength. If you are talking about 43/44, then, absolutely, Hitler was thinking more about defence.
The theory set out by Suvarov and those who wrote based on him was that Stalin and the Russian army were so busy preparing to invade Europe that they neglected to train their army in defensive tactics entirely and deployed their army offensively in such a manner that it left them open defensively. In 1941 that is, just prior to the German invasion.
Quote:
It might have been true on paper
Oh I don't doubt that Russia might have had a million paratroop trained infantry, Stalin set up parachuting schools for civilians as a sport after all. However, he simply didn't have the means to either land them all, or support them. The blatant obviousness of this couldn't escape even Stalin.
Quote:
If you say that Russia (umm, on any reason I preffer to use Russia not USSR) was in fact weak and not well-armed, I agree, but the wish was there. And if we look for example at baltic states and half of Poland then the wish had also some success. You might be even correct that he did not want occupy the Europe. Installing loyal coverments to West-Europa countries would have been more than enough.
The USSR ( ) was weak at the time of the invasion, not drastically so, it's numbers and ability to give land for time made it strong, but not strong enough to fight the whole of Europe alone. I personally think that if he was planning a offensive war it would have been limited yes. And as you said, Stalin was more for installing communist regimes and using them to control countries with Russian advisors than he was out and out occupation and Russian rulership.
Quote:
Agree, but would it be so also if germans would not have attacked and a year would have passed?
Probably not, the T34 would have seen greater usage in Russia, the Panzer IV and III greater use in Germany. Also the tiger would have been introduced by late 1942, though the panther would not of because the Panther came from seeing the T34 in action.
Quote:
Agree, Germans underestimated Russia. But if you look at their success in the beginning, the victory may feel obvious even for an experienced strategican.
Indeed, but they certainly underestimated the will of the Russians to fight back in the winter of 41, the T34 specifically and the depth of the country they invaded.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 13, 2004 03:52 AM |
|
|
War Is War
I protest war at most of my given opportunities. More often than not, I find most people will argue over who saved the world in this war and that conflict.
I have returned from a trip to Milwaukee to see an old friend and I find myself haunted by the thread I created to see who sacrificed the most and who truly was brave while others sought to flee the coming nazi war-machine. As I waited at an airport terminal in Las Vegas many people sat by for the next available flight to Chicago. Two people came walking up and sat down in front of me complaining that they were about to have a heart attack from running through the airport so as not to miss their flight. One was an old man and the other was his wife, just as old and out of breath as her husband. I asked if they were going to be ok and the old man coughed and wheezed a thumbs up to me. I don't remember how we started to talk about it, but I came to ask what his plans were for the 60th aniversary for "d-day", and if he was planning to visit the memorial in Washington D.C. He told me he had no plans of any kind. He simply said that there was no reason to see it or celebrate the occasion. I asked, "why not?" He told me that he was an airborne soldier for the army sent to drop in over France behind the lines to help with the invasion. I said that this was a very brave thing that he did and that the world at large thanks him for what he did. He shook his head and disagreed. I gave a puzzled look and he leaned forward to tell me that neither he nor anyone fought for any of these celebrations and great thanks that so many people wanted to give. He said that they did it because they had to. He said they "weren't trying to save the world, but that they were trying to help the people being enslaved and killed by the German Nazi's". So I said, "what about the Japanese? They weren't enslaving people and killing jews." He said, "They picked the wrong country to mess with." He said they were "given a long time to choose sides and finally decided to agree with J.F.K.'s father." I remembered that J.F.K.'s father gave a speech saying that democracy was finished. I could tell he held a lot of resentment towards the Japanese while he told me that we americans were simply doing our part for the European effort.
As I sit idly by, some 60 years after it all occurred I continually find I am unable to justify that any one country actually saved the entire world from those german nazis that sought to have themselves writing the history books of a postwar era.
I don't think any country can claim that they saved the world. This is especially the case for the united states. I live here and anyone asking would be more than likely told that we saved the world through our endless persuit of freedom.
I have recently viewed a televised show about the Warsaw uprising in Poland. It was a reminder to me that war is war no matter how you slice it. The resistance fighters in Poland fought courageously while the Soviets sat and watched from across the river. Churchill and Roosevelt had already agreed to let Stalin have a large portion of eastern Europe. Poland was one of the bloodiest locations for the second world war and yet the three great powers sat by and did little or nothing. Some have said Roosevelt to be the greatest president while others have said Chruchill to be such but this is clear evidence as to the contrary. I hadn't thought them to be the greatest, only that they were both great world leaders that helped the humanitarian effort for the long run. World peace was trying to be achieved by a flawed being called mankind. There were many great and heroic achievments by the allies throughout the war, but this is not to say that many mistakes weren't made along the way.
As I grow older I realize that what many americans did in the courageous fight for freedom, many more non-americans did just as well with as much fury, perserverence, and courage as all persons posess. This is what I think. I think the world is full of persons who long for their own freedom and happiness. I think they long, just as I do, to enjoy life. They don't want to miss it. They want to see it, feel it, laugh at it, dance with it, sing with it, and embrace love in the many forms that it can take.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
viking
Known Hero
Rock'n'Roll
|
|
posted June 13, 2004 04:59 AM |
|
|
USSR won
____________
One powerful hero is good, two is better
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted June 13, 2004 03:32 PM |
|
|
USSR won? One could put up a strong argument that the USSR lost the worst. They lost 25 million people, much more than any other country.
One country didn't beat the Nazis and the Japanese, it was a team effort. Without the US, Nazis would have won. Without Britain, Nazis would have won. And without USSR, Nazis would have won.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 13, 2004 04:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
USSR won? One could put up a strong argument that the USSR lost the worst. They lost 25 million people, much more than any other country.
Percentage wise thought they did not loose the most, that was Poland that lost some 10% of their entire population during the war. Also on another side aspect Russia became a world superpower due to the war, so I don't think they have as strong a case on that as say Poland or others.
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted June 13, 2004 05:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
USSR won? Quote:
Yup and they also took berlin. They clearly won, even in H3 terms. They took the german capitol and defeated its hero.
Thats the true truth. But probably not the way history books will be written.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 13, 2004 05:58 PM |
|
|
|
The allies could have taken it easily had they not had their hands tied by their agreements with the Russians.
|
|
snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted June 17, 2004 04:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So I said, "what about the Japanese? They weren't enslaving people and killing jews." He said, "They picked the wrong country to mess with."
Hi Consis,
I would just like to clarify that the Japanese did enslave and kill many people. I do not know if the main reason for the American to fight the Japanese is due to "They picked the wrong country to mess with.", nor the deployment of the A-bombs was the best option, but the American did played a major role in ending the Asian-Pacific war.
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 17, 2004 06:56 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 10 Aug 2005
|
Snogard,
Hello for our first discussion. This is our first meeting, therefore I welcome you with kind greetings.
Edit: After further rsearch, I now agree with snogard's above post.
Along my travels in search for air superiority evidence I found a term that was clearly defined to me while being very subjective worldwide. The term is "slavery". As you can imagine, as an american, this term is very closely related to african american citizens and their plight since long before our civil war times.
I learned, however, that many of the Asiatic nations to include China, India, Pakistan, Japan(prior to WWII), North Korea, Soviet Union(now called Russia), use a very different twist of the word. These are countries that accept labor camps as a form of punishment. Also, criminals of these labor camps were and are today being forced to work in large factories. These factories give the countries using them an edge in the world export markets. As you can imagine this is a very serious thing.
Today's China and yesterday's Japan used such labor camps. In america we call this slavery but in these countries they call them labor camps for law-breaking criminals.
If we compare today with yesterday(prior WWII) then we can clearly see that this is not sufficient reason to go to war with someone. It is not sufficient today because China has such camps, and it wasn't sufficient then because Japan had such camps. Were the criminals being treated like slaves? This is a very good question.
As for your comment about the Japanese murdering people, I completely agree. Americans also have strong reservations regarding their attack before they declared war. Because of this very minor detail, we call Pearl Harbor a massacre. Old timers will likely want to kill me for such an attitude but I believe in war, all is fair if war is upon you. To me war becomes survival of the fittest, not the most justified. I know this because we literally obliterated Japan's people more so than any other country. Of all the blows dealt by the americans, this was our most gruesome act.
It has since become a wake up call to the entire world. No longer can we conjure up wars of convenience with delusional commonly accepted warring protocol. The very thought is nauseating. This is a new era with a very real possibility of human extinction.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
posted June 18, 2004 03:12 AM |
|
|
Hi, thanks!
Sorry, I am not too sure what exactly you were trying to say, or how my statement appears to be very subjective (I am not arguing that my statement is not subjective, I just want to know why you think it is subjective). What I was trying to say in my previous post are just simply that the Japanese did enslave (comfort women, for example) and kill (the Nanking Massacre, for example) many people, and I think that the American played a major role in ending the War (at a huge price as you said, nevertheless), and thus ending the sufferings of the people in (mainly) Eastern and South-Eastern Asia -- that?fs all, nothing too profound.  I think we have rather different perspectives with regard to the ?gJapanese enslaving and killing people during the WW2?h.
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted June 18, 2004 04:21 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 10 Aug 2005
|
Elaboration....
In my country people use terms loosely, and many times for extreme definitions, to define their own positions(ie. opinions). I disagree with this. I think people should use more closely related terms for their arguments.
For example, if someone was anti-american in the 50's and 60's then they would be called a "communist".
Today we see that China uses labor camps as a means to punish the many of its unlawful persons. Many americans call the Chinese a "country embracing slavery" because of this. This is a very harsh term by american perception, as I'm sure everyone knows. Terms like this can be a contributing factor for going to war.
You said that the Japanese enslaved and murdered people. I agree because I think the Japanese were behaving like a historic empirical country. I think the term "empire" is a more closely related term when describing the Japan of prior WWII. If you look at other empires you will see that they too would have questionable military engagements in which the world at large would question their motives while the people being attacked would call them only the most harsh of words.
My point is that I find the Japanese (of prior WWII) no more "murdering & enslaving"(as you say) than that of many other historic countries expanding their empires as well.
There are many exceptions in which a country can and should be labeled as atrocious. Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Nazi Germany, and Ghengis Khan's Mongolian people of the step are good examples of true countries embracing the harshest of behaviors.
? Does that help clarify ?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted June 18, 2004 05:17 AM |
|
|
That was fast!!
Yes, thanks clarifying. I think I see your point though I couldn?ft agree with it. If I understood you correctly, you were actually saying that the term ?gmurdering and enslaving?h should never be used in the context of a war fought to expand empires? In that case, I would say, that also qualifies as an ?gextreme definition?h. I merely used that term in its broadest sense, and it wasn?ft intended to define any position. What other terms would you use to describe the atrocities the Japanese armies did to, say the civilians in China during WW2? What do you call a man who under the motive of increasing his wealth, plotted and killed his neighbours so that he could rob their houses? I understand (and agree) that you were trying to say that the reason, or at least part of the reason, for the Japanese to convict such atrocities is different from that of, say the Nazis, but the horrifying activities and effects were similar.
I totally agree with you on the importance of definition of terms; many misunderstandings arise from different definitions (interpretations) of terms.
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted June 18, 2004 06:05 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 18 Jun 2004
|
Snogard,
Did you know that General MacArthur ordered all of his troops to remove the emperor's flower symbol after the war out of respect for the Japanese fighting spirit that he witnessed during the campaign? (First of all please everyone who thinks MacArthur to be mentally insane refrane from bashing him for this instance) He did. He felt the battles were honorable bewteen Japanese and Americans. Considering that the Japanese military was sorely outclassed in armament, soldier/pilot training, and technology, the common Japanese soldier fought bravely, and in some cases to very end. I think it was partly because of this spirit that President Truman dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He knew that mainland Japan would never surrender and most likely fight to the last standing peasant. Although, yes the Japanese people were being lied to by their government that the americans would torture them horribly before putting them to death. But still one cannot ignore the entirety of congruos discipline and honor that the common Japanese soldier displayed. Many americans, as I have shown in my quoting of a WWII veteran, feel that the Japanese did a very dishonorable thing by attacking before the declaration of war. It has been well over 60 years since Pearl Harbor and yet a few Japanese pilots, still living, that participated in the Pearl Harbor attack came back. Some of them came to the Pearl Harbor memorial. One said to an american navy seaman that he was "sorry for bombing his ship". I watched as the american was overcome with tears and reached out to the Japanese airman to hug him. The two men were very old and you could clearly see that the events of that time were never forgotten.
1. What makes a man fight in war?
2. What makes a man apologize for a battle fought 60 years ago?
3. What makes a man forgive another for attacking his countrymen?
These are the kinds of questions I constantly ask myself. As for war, Snogard, I have never liked it. I am the american that many foreigners claimed america to be. I have no stomach for such brutality. I don't know what people think of war today but I will not sit by and let them so easily categorize it as "convenient, easy, right, correct, woefully malicious, evil, honorable, or otherwise". I know that war is something that is all encompassing. There is no such thing as an unimportant war, nor is there such a thing as a heroic war. Every day you'll hear some american blatently boast of how we saved the world by helping stop Hitler, control Stalin, blah blah blah.......
We dropped the bombs. We killed in a manner that did not distinguish between race, color, nationality, sex, or religion. Only a fool would believe that only japanese citizens were in the cities that were hit by the bombs. What do I think of war? I loath it and all my opinions and ideas are in an effort to restrain it in every possible capacity. This is not yesterday anymore. There is no such thing as a country who saved the world. For if someone says America did, then ask them about the women, children, elderly, dogs, cats, birds, and all life that was utterly obliterated to nothing more than a shadow of ashes when we dropped those damnable bombs.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted June 22, 2004 03:16 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 21 Jun 2004
|
The Common Russian Soldier
I have finished viewing an excellent program on the history channel detailing the Russian tanks and their drive to Berlin at the end of the war.
What struck me as amazing were the stories from the remaining living Russian tank operators. I heard some things from them that I did not expect. These very old men that looked like they have seen more in life than I may ever have the good fortune to, sat and did an interview with an english intepreter present. They were talking about the war. Here and many other places online, I hear nothing from Russians but that they won the war and saved the world, which is very similar to what many young americans say too. But these old men, who were once a soldier in the "Red Army", had a different point of view. They were asked many questions and did not hesitate for any answer.
~ When asked if they ever thought that Russia might lose the war, or have any chance of it, they all said that it never entered their minds. One said that the talk of the time was about Napolean and his army trying to take over. He said that everyone was saying that the Germans will soon meet the Russian winter.
This was true but I was a little taken back because we americans cry at only a few soldiers being lost in any war. Yet these Russian people were not worried they would lose. Technically speaking, they came very close to losing until they built the new factories in Siberia and the victory at Stalingrad. The program also showed how the Russian women would work very hard in these abhorrent factories, just like the american women did, while the men were off fighting the war.
~ When asked about Berlin they all had the same response. I do not know if they knew each other in real life or had planned to say the same thing but it was with a deadly calm serious face that they looked the interviewer in the eyes and said that the Germans fought to the very last standing man, woman, old man, and boy. The old Russian soldiers said they fought for every block, every street, every house, and every window until none was left standing. Then one soldier said, (translated)"I had seen all of my cities burned, buildings destroyed, and the people killed. When we took Berlin I was not wide-eyed."(translated)
According to the program the Russians lost a total of 400, 000 men overall in the campaign to take Berlin alone.
~ The soldiers were also asked what it was like to operate the tanks that gave them a great advantage in the war. When asked they would smile, say, and show the way they thought of the fellow comrades that operated the tanks with them. They said the commander would use taps to the back of the driver's head and shoulders to tell them which way to turn and drive. They described the friendships they made with each other within the tank. They said they were like brothers and that they cared for each other greatly.
One thing had occured to me while viewing the program. I continually heard them refer to themselves as "Russian" and not "Soviet" soldiers. But at the time, I believe they were called Soviets. It made me think about what the common Russian soldier was like and what he was fighting for. I don't think they fought for Stalin. I think they fought just as we americans fought, to save their people and the world from the Fascist Nazi Germany run by Hitler and Hemmler. It made me feel warm to know that the Russian people were fighting for the right reasons and that they had a good strong heart filled with courage and strength. I feel comforted even though we are two countries worlds apart, that we are both human and that freedom can only be attained from the backs of the hard working, honest, laborer with a heart of gold and strong courageous spirit.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
| |
|
|
