|
| Thread: I have some question about World War II | |
|
Anil
Known Hero
|
posted July 01, 2016 12:02 AM |
|
|
I have some question about World War II
1) Why Britain and France declare war on Germany in 1939? I think Poland was just excuse. There must be real reasons. Hitler had never wanted declare war on Britain and France.
2) Soviet Russia had offered a agreement to Britan and France against Germany. Why Britain and France had refused?
3) Why Britain and France didn't attack to Germany in 1939-1940?
4) Why Britain had never sign a peace treatry with Germany?
5) Why USA supported Allies before Pearl Harbor?
6) Why Russia coudn't beat Finland easily?
7) Why Russian casulaties so high?
8) Why Italy was too weak in WW2
9) Attack to Pearl Harbor was a good Idea for Japan?
____________
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted July 01, 2016 12:14 AM |
|
|
Anil said:
1) Why Britain and France declare war on Germany in 1939? I think Poland was just excuse. There must be real reasons. Hitler had never wanted declare war on Britain and France.
I guess they couldn't take any more of Hitler's expansion politics? He did take Austria before the war with Poland.
Anil said:
2) Soviet Russia had offered a agreement to Britan and France against Germany. Why Britain and France had refused?
Likely because Russia, which was USSR back then, was a communist state, which was an enemy in their eyes.
Anil said:
7) Why Russian casulaties so high?
Hitler did issue orders to attack USSR and sent a lot of forces to attack it. A lot of machinery (aka tanks) were used on both sides. Plus, Stalin was a naughty leader and anyone that didn't like him was sent to gulags.
Anil said:
8) Why Italy was too weak in WW2
I don't think they were weak. It's just they didn't do much, since they weren't nearly as aggressive as Germany.
Anil said:
9) Attack to Pearl Harbor was a good Idea for Japan?
It was to scare the US first, I think. What better way than to surprise and lower the enemy's morale?
That's what I think. Not certain about other questions, though.
|
|
Anil
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2016 01:08 AM |
|
|
Why Germany was more big threat than Russia for Britain/France ?
Russia had more troop,tank,gun,aircraft,howitzer. Also Russian tanks were better than German tanks. But Russian casulaties are incredibly high. And Russia had coudn't beat to Germany without Britain-USA.
____________
|
|
Homer171
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2016 06:57 AM |
|
|
Anil said:
6) Why Russia coudn't beat Finland easily?
They did not beat us, we lost Karjala but we got our liberty. If you look at the numbers what died in each side, it's crazy. We called it: Suomalainen sisu / Finnish "guts". There are several factors: We where defending our homeland, the spirit of our country men was high. Families, homeland comes in more important than your own life, if you lose, you have nothing.
Another advantage was weaponary, weather and location. Not every russian had even a rifle. Second round Talvisota / Winterwar was hard for both sides, soldiers freezed to death but again Finland gained some edge here. We had bunkers, snipers from what you have heard legendary tales. We knew the landscape better and used it, shoot the enemy officers from afar.
Lastly is the spiritual side. Now, listen up. I have heard from war veterans: That, there where no man who did not pray when the things get bad in the pit's they where fighting in. I have read some of the text what priests speak to the men and they certainly lifted those mens fighting spirits. Home, Faith and for the Fatherland was the shout in their mouth and hearts. As a christian I see great hope in this. Don't think God will choose sides in wars like these but the conviction of the fellow man, what they where fighting against where noble. For our families, for our relion, for our freedom we will fight.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted July 01, 2016 07:18 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 07:22, 01 Jul 2016.
|
Anil said:
1) Why Britain and France declare war on Germany in 1939? I think Poland was just excuse. There must be real reasons. Hitler had never wanted declare war on Britain and France.
2) Soviet Russia had offered a agreement to Britan and France against Germany. Why Britain and France had refused?
3) Why Britain and France didn't attack to Germany in 1939-1940?
4) Why Britain had never sign a peace treatry with Germany?
5) Why USA supported Allies before Pearl Harbor?
6) Why Russia coudn't beat Finland easily?
7) Why Russian casulaties so high?
8) Why Italy was too weak in WW2
9) Attack to Pearl Harbor was a good Idea for Japan?
1. Not really, Poland was the excuse and nothing else. Hitler was tolerated even after that.
2. Which proposal you are talking about exactly?
3. Because they hoped to turn Hitler on the USSR and kill two birds with one stone after that.
4. Not sure what you are referring to.
5. The support was mostly logistical and mainly for Britain. Why? For multiple reasons, including the hope that the war will be over before they have to intervene directly. Pearl Harbor was an excuse and propaganda material though, at that point they were ready to join even without it.
6. Mostly because of the Stalin purges.
7. Same as 6. The Wehrmacht was arguably the best fighting force worldwide at that time while the Red Army began the war disorganized and undertrained. When Stalin reinstated the competent commanders and the Soviets gained some experience fighting such an enemy, the tide turned.
8. Poor command, mostly. When they fought under German supervision they actually performed decently.
9. Certainly not. Some high-ranking Japanese officers warned that Japan doesn't have the resources for a prolonged fight against the US even before Pearl Harbour but ultimately got ignored.
Quote:
And Russia had coudn't beat to Germany without Britain-USA.
Actually it could (and it's not Russia but the USSR), it would have taken a bit longer though.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 01, 2016 08:18 AM |
|
|
1- They wishfully thought Hitler would just stop and be happy he got away with Austria and Czechoslovakia. When Poland was invaded, everybody was clear that he was not going to stop.
2- Soviets signed a pact of non-aggression with Hitler in the beginning, even sharing Poland with them. Soviets joined the allies after Germany broke the pact.
3- Same as the reasons above. Even after Britain declared war, during the first months, there was no real attack on Germany, British planes were dropping messages like "Come to your senses, we can still avoid a massive scale confrontation" (I'm paraphrasing, of course.) The destruction WW 1 brought was still fresh as a memory. Nobody was eager to repeat that.
4- In the beginning, Hitler hoped the Brits would stay out of his way but of course, that was not going to happen while he was conquering continental Europe piece by piece.
5- Although there were lobbies that supported Germany in the U.S., the mainstream politics of the state, both ideologically and strategically, supported the Allies and significantly Britain. Both because of mutual interest and also common sense, I guess. Hitler Germany is not something you'd welcome, especially if you're a democracy.
6- I don't know much about that part.
7- Germans were superior in technology and airforce, Russians had the advantage of climate (they were used to the cold and knew how to deal with it) and hordes of infantry they can stack up from the motherland. That meant some of that infantry had to be sacrificed as cannon fodder though. Also, the Nazi Regime saw the Slavic races as inferior people and they were less hesitant about things like executing prisoners or bombing towns off the map when it was the Russians they were fighting with.
8- Italy was not technologically advanced as Germany or the Allies, nor did it have the decisive motivation Germany had. It also wasn't an infantry storage such as Russia.
9- Yes, it made perfect sense from their point of view, the war between U.S. and Japan was mainly going to be a sea war in the Pacific, it was about capturing strategical islands, positioning your aircraft carriers in the right spots... They wanted to cripple the Americans by eliminating their naval force with a surprise attack from the start.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted July 01, 2016 08:56 AM |
|
|
I don't agree with some of this. Germany showed the practical application of its imperial ambitions before Poland with Czechoslovakia and Austria, yet the politicians in the West sat idly and never did anything beyond hollow "messages" how wrong the whole thing is. Poland was not the turning point either, it was the attack on France which sobered up the politicians who wanted to turn Hitler east and dispose of both him and Stalin.
On technological level, the Wehrmacht had advantage in some areas - mainly the airforce - but on the ground the Soviets quickly brought about equally advanced and even superior equipment. The German tanks were actually inferior to T-34 before the modernization of the Pz-IV series and the introduction of Pz-V and Pz-VI (which appeared late and were very expensive to produce). At the beginning of the war the Germans had the advantage of better training and better command but when they lost these, they started losing the war. The trend of huge Soviet losses - with killed and captured in the millions - continued until the battle of Stalingrad, after that the losses on each side more or less equalized.
For the Japanese offensive in the Pacific, most of the modern historians agree that the attack on Pearl Harbour had much greater symbolical than practical effect. There were no US carriers stationed there, only line ships and smaller crafts which means that strategically this strike did little to affect the ability of the US fleet to lead campaigns in the area, from long range. There were warnings that Japan just does not have the economic potential to handle a clash with the US for more than a few months but they were overwhelmed by the surge of imperial zeal.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 01, 2016 09:17 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:21, 01 Jul 2016.
|
Zenofex said:
I don't agree with some of this. Germany showed the practical application of its imperial ambitions before Poland with Czechoslovakia and Austria, yet the politicians in the West sat idly and never did anything beyond hollow "messages" how wrong the whole thing is. Poland was not the turning point either, it was the attack on France which sobered up the politicians who wanted to turn Hitler east and dispose of both him and Stalin.
On technological level, the Wehrmacht had advantage in some areas - mainly the airforce - but on the ground the Soviets quickly brought about equally advanced and even superior equipment. The German tanks were actually inferior to T-34 before the modernization of the Pz-IV series and the introduction of Pz-V and Pz-VI (which appeared late and were very expensive to produce). At the beginning of the war the Germans had the advantage of better training and better command but when they lost these, they started losing the war. The trend of huge Soviet losses - with killed and captured in the millions - continued until the battle of Stalingrad, after that the losses on each side more or less equalized.
For the Japanese offensive in the Pacific, most of the modern historians agree that the attack on Pearl Harbour had much greater symbolical than practical effect. There were no US carriers stationed there, only line ships and smaller crafts which means that strategically this strike did little to affect the ability of the US fleet to lead campaigns in the area, from long range. There were warnings that Japan just does not have the economic potential to handle a clash with the US for more than a few months but they were overwhelmed by the surge of imperial zeal.
Well, Poland was the turning point in the sense that they finally declared war, but as I said, they didn't go "we're all in, you mf" in the first place, they declared war hoping it would cool Germany off and that didn't happen. I agree that the occupation of France carried things to a much more devastating level but the question was "why did they declare war, was Poland an excuse" and I think the answer to that is "to stop Germany from invading further."
When it comes to comparing Soviet and German technology, it's not just about how efficient the tanks were, but also how many tanks plus mobile armed vehicles, cannons, mortars each side had. And airforce really matters when the Soviets were almost defenseless in the air if the weather was convenient for the Germans. If the Soviets didn't have the numbers to entrap the German military in the cold for months, their tanks wouldn't have saved them is my point. German ground forces were cold, hungry and they kept demoralizing and to stall them like that required constant reinforcements, tanks didn't do that. But I guess, it can be seen as a matter of interpretation.
When it comes to Pearl Harbor, keep in mind that the plan wasn't 100 percent successful, a lot of ships the Japanese assumed that would be there, were not due to some last minute change. I don't think bombing your enemy's naval force prior to a sea war can be called "mostly symbolic." It was a military target not some skyscrapers.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Avonu
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Embracing light and darkness
|
|
posted July 01, 2016 09:33 AM |
|
|
Anil said:
1) Why Britain and France declare war on Germany in 1939? I think Poland was just excuse. There must be real reasons. Hitler had never wanted declare war on Britain and France.
Because France and United Kingdom signed [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance]a pact with Poland[/a] and each country wa obligated to help another if Germany attack. It was signed mainly to stop Hitler from futher demands of new lands but it didn't quite work.
Anil said:
2) Soviet Russia had offered a agreement to Britan and France against Germany. Why Britain and France had refused?
Because after WWI USSR was ignored by global powers. It didn't help that UK and France helped White Army against Red army during Russian Civil War.
Also Hitler has much of UK and France support at beginning of his reign because they thought he will stop any Soviet invasion to the West Europe (which Stalin has planned).
Anil said:
3) Why Britain and France didn't attack to Germany in 1939-1940?
They did. They enter Saarland in 7 September 1939 and attack of main forces was planned to 17 September. However in this day Poland was attacked by USSR (fallowing Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact) and it was over.
Their forces also fought Germans in Norway in 1940 but lost.
Anil said:
4) Why Britain had never sign a peace treatry with Germany?
Because it all worked well for Chamberlain, didn't it? Also Winston Churchil become Prime Misnister in 1940 and he was against it.
Anil said:
5) Why USA supported Allies before Pearl Harbor?
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease] "If there was no practical alternative, there was certainly no moral one either. Britain and the Commonwealth were carrying the battle for all civilization, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, led in the late election by their president, wished to help them."[7] As the President himself put it, "There can be no reasoning with incendiary bombs."[/url]
Anil said:
6) Why Russia coudn't beat Finland easily?
Because of Stalin. Red Army was purged from high ranked officers and new ones didn't have experience to command whole units ar divisons.
Stalin thought (as Hitler' generals too) that Germany would be ready to attack USSR in c.a. 1943-44 but Hitler was Hitler.
Anil said:
7) Why Russian casulaties so high?
Same as above.
Stalin also wanted to portect some not so stategic places (Stalingrad, Leningrad) for all costs for ideologic reasons. Hitler wanted to conquer them for the same reasons.
Anil said:
9) Attack to Pearl Harbor was a good Idea for Japan?
It wasn't but sooner or later they would fight with US Navy anyway (as their expansion will cross US sphere of influence). Attack was planned to cripple US Navy and buy time for Japan (a year at maximum, as Yamamoto stated) to conquer what thay could but didn't quite worked (it didn't help that Yamamoto was ambushed and killed nearly a year and half after attack on Pearl Harbour).
____________
"When someone desires information, they come to me."
"Details are everything."
Pipiru piru piru pipiru pi!
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted July 01, 2016 10:28 AM |
|
|
Anil said:
8) Why Italy was too weak in WW2
Italy wasn't weak in itself.
The period of Fascism brought upon a slew of reforms and policies that strengthened the state, like the concession of lands to farmers and the incentives to the growth of cities, bringing the industrial sector in the hands of the state, while also improving education state-wide and preparing a new generation of nationalistic citizen that would do whatever the state required them to do, all of this to achieve a complete independence from foreign countries.
And that's how we survived the Great Depression, since we were more stable than the rest of the world.
The Italian military had some of the best infantry troops available, the "Bersaglieri" were one of the best corps, as well as the parachute corps, of which the "Folgore" brigade was regarded as one of the best squads by both the Axis and the Allies, there was even a saying: "The German soldier amazed the world, the Italian soldier amazed the German soldier".
What actually made Italy regarded weak, and what made us ineffective was, as always, bad generals and bad administrators, while Mussolini had some great ideas for reform the other members of the administration and the officers were utterly incompetent, they slowed down the development of our own tanks, favouring old, lighter and overall weaker tanks, they planned massacres, on our side though, and they basically botched entire invasions.
And that was always an habit of ours since the unification, the Italian army always had problems with generals, some may remember how we completely sent our troops to die during WWI, and let's not forget how we sent under-equipped troops in Russia, because somehow, Russia wasn't that strong according to our officers...
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
Anil
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2016 02:23 PM |
|
Edited by Anil at 14:23, 01 Jul 2016.
|
Homer171 said:
Anil said:
6) Why Russia coudn't beat Finland easily?
They did not beat us, we lost Karjala but we got our liberty. If you look at the numbers what died in each side, it's crazy. We called it: Suomalainen sisu / Finnish "guts". There are several factors: We where defending our homeland, the spirit of our country men was high. Families, homeland comes in more important than your own life, if you lose, you have nothing.
Another advantage was weaponary, weather and location. Not every russian had even a rifle. Second round Talvisota / Winterwar was hard for both sides, soldiers freezed to death but again Finland gained some edge here. We had bunkers, snipers from what you have heard legendary tales. We knew the landscape better and used it, shoot the enemy officers from afar.
Lastly is the spiritual side. Now, listen up. I have heard from war veterans: That, there where no man who did not pray when the things get bad in the pit's they where fighting in. I have read some of the text what priests speak to the men and they certainly lifted those mens fighting spirits. Home, Faith and for the Fatherland was the shout in their mouth and hearts. As a christian I see great hope in this. Don't think God will choose sides in wars like these but the conviction of the fellow man, what they where fighting against where noble. For our families, for our relion, for our freedom we will fight.
I examined Winter war. Russian casulaties five times more than Finland. That's incredible. I think this is semi Finnish Victory.
Britain and France didn't declare war on Russia but they wanted support to Finland over Norway-Sweden is it true? They coudn't support to Finland because they coudn't capture Norway.
____________
|
|
Anil
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2016 03:09 PM |
|
Edited by Anil at 16:23, 01 Jul 2016.
|
Zenofex said:
Anil said:
1) Why Britain and France declare war on Germany in 1939? I think Poland was just excuse. There must be real reasons. Hitler had never wanted declare war on Britain and France.
2) Soviet Russia had offered a agreement to Britan and France against Germany. Why Britain and France had refused?
3) Why Britain and France didn't attack to Germany in 1939-1940?
4) Why Britain had never sign a peace treatry with Germany?
5) Why USA supported Allies before Pearl Harbor?
6) Why Russia coudn't beat Finland easily?
7) Why Russian casulaties so high?
8) Why Italy was too weak in WW2
9) Attack to Pearl Harbor was a good Idea for Japan?
1. Not really, Poland was the excuse and nothing else. Hitler was tolerated even after that.
2. Which proposal you are talking about exactly?
3. Because they hoped to turn Hitler on the USSR and kill two birds with one stone after that.
4. Not sure what you are referring to.
5. The support was mostly logistical and mainly for Britain. Why? For multiple reasons, including the hope that the war will be over before they have to intervene directly. Pearl Harbor was an excuse and propaganda material though, at that point they were ready to join even without it.
6. Mostly because of the Stalin purges.
7. Same as 6. The Wehrmacht was arguably the best fighting force worldwide at that time while the Red Army began the war disorganized and undertrained. When Stalin reinstated the competent commanders and the Soviets gained some experience fighting such an enemy, the tide turned.
8. Poor command, mostly. When they fought under German supervision they actually performed decently.
9. Certainly not. Some high-ranking Japanese officers warned that Japan doesn't have the resources for a prolonged fight against the US even before Pearl Harbour but ultimately got ignored.
Quote:
And Russia had coudn't beat to Germany without Britain-USA.
Actually it could (and it's not Russia but the USSR), it would have taken a bit longer though.
2) Russia offered a teatry to Britain nad France in 1938 against Germany. Britain and France rejected.
3) I think this is weak possibility because Germany signed non aggression pact with Russia. Germany should beat France firstly.
4) Germany offered peace treatry to Britain after the fall of France. Rudolf Hess tried this but Britain rejected.
9) If Japan declared war on only Britain and Netherland what would happen? I think America was going to declare war on Japan. Because USA didn't want more Strong Japan. USA has Huge trade capacity with Malaya and Dutch East Indies. Japan needed plenty of rubber from Malaya and Oil from Dutch East Indies. As a result. Attack to Pearl Harbor was a good idea.
------------------------------
Russian technologies were easily better than German Technology during WW2.
Britain and France didn't attack to Germany (Saarland wasn't a big attack) because they aren't ready for fight i think. Also they thought defense is more easy than attack i think.
Are you sure? Were stalingrad and Leningrad strategic places?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Italian_War
I have never seen a great Italian victory in WW2.
____________
|
| |
|
|
