Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
World War 2, was it a War between Good versus Evil or Evil Versus Evil?
Options
Comments
-
-
anthony4335 wrote: »I don't know if anyone has pointed this out. Hitler's drive for expansion was planned for the east and not the west. Only for old treaties that protected Poland by France and Britain ,did it come to a declaration of war (Yes the treaty which the Checzs was ignored by Britain). The good vrs bad thing is only a fairy tale, it just turned out that the German leadership was rotten to the core. But you have to remember the concentration camps and the plight of the Jews was ignored by the west as anti semitic fealing ran high in the US, and might have swayed the general public to support Hitler. However if any country can pull the moral high ground that would be britain, while slow to act and come to the aid of friends, they did not falter, even when so close to defeat.
Like anything to do with politics nothing is simple or has a single pin point cause, so to use such a simple description would not do it justice or would it do justice to the german people, as it would white wash them with the Nazi stigma.
The one irony I do find with the war ,is that it was declared to protect the state of Poland, any yet Poland lost out at the end of the day.
Sorry, this is boards.ie. to suggest Britain did anything in the war other than bomb Dresden and plan to invade Ireland is a banning offence:rolleyes::D
Meanwhile we're all off to put another wreath on sean Russel's statue and pat ourselves on the back for staying ot of the war. :rolleyes:0 -
Shutuplaura wrote: »Has anyone read the below though - aparently its a controverial new history of World War Two which seems to be causeing a bit of a stir in the states.
http://www.latimes.com/features/books/la-bk-kurlansky9mar09,0,6763134.story
I'm not sure if it was mentioned before, it may have been the book that prompted this whole discussion so apologies it it has or its old new to everyone. Baker seems to think that the allies were very keen on a war and were no driven by high minded anti-fascism or a desire to protect the jews of Europe. It sounds interesting and thought provoking - has anyone read it?
I haven't heard of this book but I will definetly be reading it soon, I just read the link you posted very interesting.0 -
The important thing is to make a clear distinction between a free Britain and it's army. The British didn't contribute greatly to general victory; a physically free Britain did so immensely. Anything who thinks success in the war hinged on British military 'might' is deluded; equally, anyone who thinks an unoccupied Britain was not crucial to the war is just as much so.0
-
TerrorFirmer wrote: »The important thing is to make a clear distinction between a free Britain and it's army. The British didn't contribute greatly to general victory; a physically free Britain did so immensely. Anything who thinks success in the war hinged on British military 'might' is deluded; equally, anyone who thinks an unoccupied Britain was not crucial to the war is just as much so.
if you mean land army then I'd agree. Whilst not pivitol, The role of the Royal Navy keeping the shipping lanes open was a significant factor.0 -
Advertisement
-
Britain had plans to invade Ireland,only because Dev told them to do so.The plan was that if the Germans invaded Ireland or made an attempt to do so,the British and later American millitary would come down from the North and defend Ireland.
Someone said in a previous post that Ireland wouldnt enter on the Germans side,but that was a possiblity as the Church were pro-Fascist.They pleade to Dev to send troops to Spain to fight for Franco,but it was only O'Duffy and his BlueShirts who went.
Germans main war effort as pointed out by others was to the East and to stop Communism.They wanted nothing to do with Britain or France(they probably would have attacked France eventually,though).Their lands were taken off of them at the end of WW1,they wanted them back and even to this day,they still do.Instead of going to war,they are buying up land in Poland.
What the Germans did to the Jews was wrong but outside of Denmark,no country in Europe attempted to stop Hitler's gathering of them.France and Britain sent the Jews to Hitler.
All the other leaders committed atrocities aswell.Hitlers is low compared to Stalin as we all know.But the British committed countless atrocities throughout Africa,and so did the French.The US have killed millions throughout the world since WW2 and nobody even compares it to what Hitler did.The US let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour so they could enter the war and then in Hiroshima and Nagasaki overshadowed anything that Hitler did to the Jews.But because the Jewish control the media,thats never been put down as a tragedy,and when you starting talking about WW2,we think of the Holocaust.
I'm not defending what Hitler did to the Jews but when put into context,its meagre compared to the rest0 -
...got bit confused first, ...they wanted them to fight for Franco, not France
Anyway, as I said earlier a more than couple of times, nothing is so simple and we are not living in black and white world.
So let's bring it back to start, the question was:
World War 2, was it a War between Good versus Evil or Evil Versus Evil?0 -
Damn spelling!
evil vs evil or good vs good if you think about it0 -
Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization Nicholson Baker
The book is a history of World War II that questions the commonly held belief that the Allies wanted to avoid the war at all costs but were forced into action by Hitler's unforgiving crusade. It is written in a mostly objective style, largely consisting of official government transcripts and other documents from the time. He cites documents that suggest that the leaders of the United States and the United Kingdom were provoking Germany into war (showing, for example, that Britain bombed Germany before Germany bombed Britain) and that the leaders of those two nations had ulterior motives for wanting to participate. In the epilogue to the book he suggests that the pacifists (who are often vilified by WWII historians) had it right all along, stating: “They failed, but they were right.”0 -
True there was a debate on the subject in Germany.Actually, the German general who was in favour of building the bombers was killed in a "freak air crash" 1935 IIRC.
The German decide against strategic bombing partly on a resources issue and the German military saw the more important role of the air force as part of the blitzkrieg.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »then why keep appeasing Hitler? why were the Allies so unprepared fo war? France was invaded and Britain came very close to being invaded. If they wanted war, they certainly went about it in a very poor manner.
Why keep appeasing? after the first world war most people did not want another war. The English and the French wanted to be seen as doing their best to avoid another war. As Britain was no condition to fight a war for an economic or military point of view.
Britain never came close to being invaded. The German navy was never up to the job. Most of is modern ship were lost in the Norwegian campaign. The Americans with a large navy and more resources took 2 years to build up the necessary forces to cross the channel and almost failed.
The German aim in the battle of Britain was to force the British out of the war to allow them to concentrate on the coming war with Russia not to invade Britian.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »It did nothing except open up a new front,
The British and French did not open a second front.
The Americans did and it would have been simpler if the Germans were not in France at the time.
No it did nothing to stop the German invasion of RussiaFratton Fred wrote: »preventing the planned German invasion of Russia,Fratton Fred wrote: »preventing the Germans from having domination of the seas,
It made it easier for the Germans dominate the seas with U-boat bases and air bases in France.Fratton Fred wrote: »providing supplies to Russia to help keep them in the war
The Americans provided most of the aid to Russia not he British. Much of it did not work in Russian conditions.Fratton Fred wrote: »and give a base to launch an attack on Germans western front in the eventual push for the defeat of Germany as well as providing airbases to bomb Germany's factories and fuel supplies.
German war production increased during allied bombing. Bombing of Fuel production only reduced German fuel production for july 1944.
The big fuel problem for the Germans was the loss of the Romanian Oil Fields when overrun by the Red army.
Mostly the bombing killed mainly civilians and made the German people more will to fight to defend their homes and families and fight to the end.Fratton Fred wrote: »In fact, I think it is safe to presume that without a western front, Germany would have defeated Russia, then turned it's attention west and we'd all be speaking German today, minus our jewish and non white friends.
You're right, nothing much really :rolleyes:
It is debatable how useful a second front was as the Germans were already losing the war on the eastern front by the time the second front was opened.
There are a lot of Jews in France that would not have died if the French had to gone to war.Fratton Fred wrote: »http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1604621.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/1457035.stm
you might like to read these two articles than contain the actual facts around Britain's use of anthrax, then you might like to come up with links to back up the rest of the rubbish in your post.
I read them.
In 1981 Robert Harris, who later wrote the best-seller Fatherland, produced a BBC Newsnight segment on Churchill's plans to launch poison gas and bacteriological (anthrax) attack on Germany. There was public outcry. He defended himself in this article in The New Statesman, published ...
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.htmlFratton Fred wrote: »back up the rest of the rubbish in your post.
Are by options rubbish because I do not agree with you?
It is useful to look at history from more that one point of view.
My analysis what happen at the time may be wrong or right, but I am sure that calling other peoples point of view rubbish contributes nothing to the debate.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »who was Mussolinin fighting in Greece and Africa, not the British surely
Don't forget Britain had a lot of men in the far east as well.
The Greeks.
Britain had a lot of men in the far east and the Japanese defeated them.0 -
-
The US let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour so they could enter the war and then in Hiroshima and Nagasaki overshadowed anything that Hitler did to the Jews.But because the Jewish control the media,thats never been put down as a tragedy,and when you starting talking about WW2,we think of the Holocaust.
I'm not defending what Hitler did to the Jews but when put into context,its meagre compared to the rest
The Americans did back the Japanese's in to a corner by cutting off their oil giving them the choice of accepting American control or fighting.
The American knew they would attack, but it seems unlightly they that they knew it would Pearl harbour.
Pearl harbour was too shallow for torpedo attack and the Americans viewed the Japanese's as not being capable of such a long range operation.
The number killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very small compared to the holocaust.
Jewish control the media ?0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Sorry, this is boards.ie. to suggest Britain did anything in the war other than bomb Dresden and plan to invade Ireland is a banning offence:rolleyes::D
Meanwhile we're all off to put another wreath on sean Russel's statue and pat ourselves on the back for staying ot of the war. :rolleyes:
Given the state Ireland was in it was in no position to help either side.
Why should Ireland get involved in a power struggle between the major powers.0 -
-
The Americans did back the Japanese's in to a corner by cutting off their oil giving them the choice of accepting American control or fighting.
The American knew they would attack, but it seems unlightly they that they knew it would Pearl harbour.
Pearl harbour was too shallow for torpedo attack and the Americans viewed the Japanese's as not being capable of such a long range operation.
The number killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very small compared to the holocaust.
Jewish control the media ?
Ya,I know.But the Americans did it to get public approval of entering the war.
They broke Japanese codes and moved out all their aircraft carriers from Pearl Harbour.
So?They didnt care,they only wanted to get attacked so they could enter the war.
Long term effects from radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki outweighs the Holocaust.
Ya,kinda obviously.Even outside of papers and news stations,the amount of actors and actresses who are Jewish and shape public opinion like anyone in that position is capable of doing.I mean movies like Schindlers List have a huge effect on public opinion.I've never seen a movie on Hiroshima and Nagasaki though0 -
Are by options rubbish because I do not agree with you?
It is useful to look at history from more that one point of view.
By rubbish I mean err, rubbish.
why not take off the blinkers and admit that Britain was right to enter the war and it was a good job they did, why is that so hard for you?0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »By rubbish I mean err, rubbish.
why not take off the blinkers and admit that Britain was right to enter the war and it was a good job they did, why is that so hard for you?
Its hard to admit because its not true. Why can't you see that Britain's involvement in the war was disastrous and ended quickly at Dunkirk, leaving France to the fascists? And that it was the Russians who defeated the Germans, the war had turned on the Nazis long before the Americans and British landed on D-day. And btw, its not just the British that were at fault, the French were just as much to blame, in case you feel that because we are Irish we can't be free from bias on a matter that involves Britain. That is what you were suggesting in an earlier post, wasn't it?0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't agree with the ' Jewish consiracy ' stuff to secretly inflitrate and dominate the world's media, banking etc. Indeed it's a form of suspicious rascism that Jewish people have suffered from for thousands of years. However I do agree with the Holocaust Industry theory put foward by acclaimed Jewish writer Norman Finkelstein ( both of his parents survived concentration camps in WW2 ) which states that the U.S. Jewish establishment exploits the memory of the Nazi holocaust to further the aims and terrorism of the Israeli state.Ya,kinda obviously.Even outside of papers and news stations,the amount of actors and actresses who are Jewish and shape public opinion like anyone in that position is capable of doing.I mean movies like Schindlers List have a huge effect on public opinion.I've never seen a movie on Hiroshima and Nagasaki though
But I do agree with you Titan on movies like Schindlers List having a huge effect on public opinion, no movies on the ethnic cleansing, mass murder and Palestine suffering since 1948 etc. Obviously, it's not PC to bring up such matters in Hollywood, accusations of Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism by the Holocaust industry will see to that.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Its hard to admit because its not true. Why can't you see that Britain's involvement in the war was disastrous and ended quickly at Dunkirk, leaving France to the fascists? And that it was the Russians who defeated the Germans, the war had turned on the Nazis long before the Americans and British landed on D-day. And btw, its not just the British that were at fault, the French were just as much to blame, in case you feel that because we are Irish we can't be free from bias on a matter that involves Britain. That is what you were suggesting in an earlier post, wasn't it?
So what were the British doing between Dunkirk and D-Day according to your history book, or leaflet? I realise that sometimes there is a problem with book-binding, where the pages fall out, or even whole chapters. The best thing to do is check the page numbering.0 -
" This was not a playground scrap, and should not be taken in context with little distractions like Vietnam or Iraq. ". More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than in Europe in WW2 *, so much for your theory on little distractions like Vietnam or Iraq. The millions killed in Iraq and Vietnam are ofcourse much smaller than the total in WW2, but to describe the massive death and destruction on those millions of people as little distractions just shows the hypocrisy of the poster.Manic Moran wrote: »Firstly, I wouldn't go complaining too much about Dresden, the Blitz, or anything else of the nature. It's just the way wars were fought back then, considered taking to the maximum level, just like some nuclear missiles today are aimed at cities.
Secondly, I think you're underestimating the sheer size of WWII. The German Army lost over 4 million personnel killed or missing. Not wounded. Not captured. Dead. This was not a playground scrap, and should not be taken in context with little distractions like Vietnam or Iraq. It was a no-holds-barred, do whatever it takes to win, and every single thing in your country to include its population is a military resource to be expended in defeating the enemy, fight to the finish. I have no reason not to believe that 200,000 military were killed by the Western Allies.
NTM
" a no-holds-barred, do whatever it takes to win, and every single thing in your country to include its population is a military resource to be expended in defeating the enemy, fight to the finish. ". Sentiments I'm sure Bin Laden would fully agree with to try and legitimise his actions.
Zebra stated that " The USSR, which really defeated Germany (killed 3,600,000 compaared to 200,000 killed by US/Britain/France), ". I'm not having a go at Zebra but he didn't state whether whether the 200,000 mentioned was just military personnel or included civilains, hence I asked "I don't know if anyone could produce the stats". But since 40,000 innocent civilains were murdered in Dresden alone, I don't think I might be far off the mark in questioning if more innocent Germans civilians were killed by US/Britain/France than German military personnel.
* See Ten Thousand Day War: Vietnam : 1945-1975: by Michael MacLear, regarded by many as the best book on the Vietnam War.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Its hard to admit because its not true. Why can't you see that Britain's involvement in the war was disastrous and ended quickly at Dunkirk, leaving France to the fascists? And that it was the Russians who defeated the Germans, the war had turned on the Nazis long before the Americans and British landed on D-day. And btw, its not just the British that were at fault, the French were just as much to blame, in case you feel that because we are Irish we can't be free from bias on a matter that involves Britain. That is what you were suggesting in an earlier post, wasn't it?
So the battle of Britain never happened, the battle of the Atlantic never happened, D-Day never happened, the wole Enigma thing was made up by the British Media I suppose, not to mention Narvik, El Alamein and the Russian convoys?
you may want to check out your facts there :rolleyes:
and it is not because People are irish they have trouble admitting it, it is because they are anti everything British. usually acusing anyone who is not of being a West Brit blah blah blah. There are only a handful of posters I would put in this category0 -
McArmalite wrote: »" This was not a playground scrap, and should not be taken in context with little distractions like Vietnam or Iraq. ". More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than in Europe in WW2 *, so much for your theory on little distractions like Vietnam or Iraq. The millions killed in Iraq and Vietnam are ofcourse much smaller than the total in WW2, but to describe the massive death and destruction on those millions of people as little distractions just shows the hypocrisy of the poster.
What hypocrisy? The simple fact of the matter is that no war either before or since has ever come close to the total involvement on the planet. My terminology was specifically chosen to convey what is currently all but incomprehensible due to a total lack of anything even similar to relate to.
Over 2 million soldiers fought in Stalingrad alone. Just one city in one country in one theater of the war. If you tally up all the soldiers on both sides of the Vietnam conflict at its height, you fall short of this number. I am reminded of The Hitch-hiker's quote...
"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindboggingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."
Same idea. I do not question the intensity of the combat in Vietnam from the perspective of those involved, only the size.
Weight of ordnance dropped is not a suitable indicator as it does nothing but indicate that more modern 'planes can carry bigger loads. If I fly a B-52 squadron out to the Sahara and carpet-bomb the desert, does this mean I've just had a more major war than the Falklands? The measurement takes no effect of the commitment of or by the nations involved.Sentiments I'm sure Bin Laden would fully agree with to try and legitimise his actions.
Probably. But in WWII there was no expectation of a 'fair play' consolation prize for those who lost, or an intervention by those who think the other guy is being naughty. These days, we occasionally give weight to 'international opinion'. If most of the planet is at war, 'international opinion' kindof takes a back seat.But since 40,000 innocent civilains were murdered in Dresden alone, I don't think I might be far off the mark in questioning if more innocent Germans civilians were killed by US/Britain/France than German military personnel.
Note that this is a slightly different issue to the hypothesis that you had originally posed: "And of the 200,000 killed by US/Britain/France, I don't know if anyone could produce the stats, but since 40,000 innocent civilians were murdered in Dresden alone, I'd say the majority of the 200,000 were innocent civilians and not German military." The implication of your original post being that you thought that between military and civilian, the Western Powers in total killed 200,000 Germans, split between 40K civilians in Dresden, and the other 160,000 being split between 'civilians killed not in Dresden' and 'military killed'.
To answer your second, rephrased question, I've spent a little time hunting around. The answer, apparently, is 'no' although the ratios are such that the Western Powers killed more civilians per German military killed than the Soviets did. The Germans lost over 5million military killed, 1.5 million civilians, making it a 5:2 ratio overall, but as near as I can tell, the Western Powers came to 3:2, assuming the 200,000 military killed is correct to include not just the Western European campaign, but also North Africa and Italy. The problem is that I can't find any figures specifically addressing the results of the Western Allied bombing raids, only totals from all raids, which, of course, will include the efforts of the none-too-small Red Air Force. (Another example of Western history ignoring Soviet contributions: They didn't have as many large bombers as the US or UK, but they had plenty of smaller ones, and they used them.). Neither have I been able to find a breakdown of 'civilians killed by Western land forces' vs 'civlians killed by Red Army.' My estimates come from basically tallying together what I can find from major individual operations, and adding a bit.
Frankly, I question these figures, as there are some 50,000 Germans buried in military cemetaries in Italy, capturing France in 1940 cost them over 40,000, over 20,000 are buried in Normandy, knock off another 13,000 dead in North Africa, that leaves under 70,000 for the entirity of the rest of the Western Front, not forgetting we need to account for 'missing, not buried' in the Italian and French cemetary numbers. Probably won't bring the total much abover 250,000-270,000, but I would need to hunt around. I'm curious now.
NTM0 -
Ya,I know.But the Americans did it to get public approval of entering the war.
TrueThey broke Japanese codes and moved out all their aircraft carriers from Pearl Harbour.
On 7 December 1941, the three Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers were USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Lexington (CV-2), and USS Saratoga (CV-3).
Enterprise: On 28 November 1941, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel sent TF-8, consisting of Enterprise, the heavy cruisers Northampton (CA-26), Chester (CA-27), and Salt Lake City (CA-24) and nine destroyers under Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., to ferry 12 Grumman F4F-3 Wildcats of Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 211 to Wake Island. Upon completion of the mission on 4 December, TF-8 set course to return to Pearl Harbor. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found TF-8 about 215 miles west of Oahu.
Lexington: On 5 December 1941, TF-12, formed around Lexington, under the command of Rear Admiral John H. Newton, sailed from Pearl to ferry 18 Vought SB2U-3 Vindicators of Marine Scout Bombing Squadron 231 to Midway Island. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found Lexington, heavy cruisers Chicago (CA-29), Portland (CA-33), and Astoria (CA-34), and five destroyers about 500 miles southeast of Midway. The outbreak of hostilities resulted in cancellation of the mission and VMSB-231 was retained on board [they would ultimately fly to Midway from Hickam Field on 21 December].
Saratoga: Saratoga, having recently completed an overhaul at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, Washington, reached NAS San Diego [North Island] late in the forenoon watch on 7 December. She was to embark her air group, as well as Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 221 and a cargo of miscellaneous airplanes to ferry to Pearl Harbor.
Yorktown (CV-5), Ranger (CV-4) and Wasp (CV-7), along with the aircraft escort vessel Long Island (AVG-1), were in the Atlantic Fleet; Hornet (CV-8), commissioned in late October 1941, had yet to carry out her shakedown. Yorktown would be the first Atlantic Fleet carrier to be transferred to the Pacific, sailing on 16 December 1941.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-9.htmLong term effects from radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki outweighs the Holocaust.
Hiroshima killed approximately 70,000 people. estimates state up to 200,000 had died by 1950.
Nagasaki Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000.
6 million approx died in the HolocaustYa,kinda obviously.Even outside of papers and news stations,the amount of actors and actresses who are Jewish and shape public opinion like anyone in that position is capable of doing.I mean movies like Schindlers List have a huge effect on public opinion.I've never seen a movie on Hiroshima and Nagasaki though
Yes there are a lot of Jews in the entertainment industry.
for years Jews were banned from most profession and so are concentrated in a small number of professions.
Simply because there are a lot of Jews in the media does not mean they think the same or are following a common agenda.
an example of this is the Jewish movement against Zionism
True Torah Jews Against Zionism
True Torah Jews is a non-profit organization of Orthodox Jews dedicated to informing the world that all Jews do not support the Zionist state
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »So the battle of Britain never happened, the battle of the Atlantic never happened, D-Day never happened, the wole Enigma thing was made up by the British Media I suppose, not to mention Narvik, El Alamein and the Russian convoys?
Yes, they happened but were side show that did not affect the out come of the war.Fratton Fred wrote: »you may want to check out your facts there :rolleyes:
and it is not because People are irish they have trouble admitting it, it is because they are anti everything British. usually acusing anyone who is not of being a West Brit blah blah blah. There are only a handful of posters I would put in this category
I am Irish.
Yes I think the British Empire war a bad thing.
My point is British involved in world war 2 bankrupted Britain killed many British and damaged their long term interests.
if I was making ant-British argument I would say British involved was good, because of the damage done to Britain.
On an other British conflict the British were right to defend the Falklands.0 -
Yes, they happened but were side show that did not affect the out come of the war.
QUOTE]
How could none of the above have affected the outcome of the war? My late father was an artillery gunner on the Atlantic convoys. Three of the ships that he was on were sunk by U-boats and he sank a few U-boats in return. If it were not for he and his colleagues, no food or military supplies would have arrived from the US and we would have all been wearing jack-boots.
Side-shows indeed!0 -
Yes, they happened but were side show that did not affect the out come of the war.
I am Irish.
Yes I think the British Empire war a bad thing.
My point is British involved in world war 2 bankrupted Britain killed many British and damaged their long term interests.
if I was making ant-British argument I would say British involved was good, because of the damage done to Britain.
On an other British conflict the British were right to defend the Falklands.
Breaking the enigma codes was a turning point in the war, as was the British and Canadian Navy protecting the convoys. Yes the supplies came from the US, but the US didn't bring them. Take a look at the battle of the Atlantic, this was no "SideShow" as you put it.
The Battle of Britain and the invasion of Greece and Crete both held up the German attack on Russia and therefore played a major part in the outcome of the war, again, this was no side show. Incidentally, there were something like 15,000 British troops, ignoring the Royal Navy, involved in the battle for Crete alone. There were also a few in North Africa as well, in fact 12,000 of them are buried in Alamein. You may wish to amend post 104.
I fail to see how these events are a matter of opinion, they are fact, they happened and they were major events, to cal them a side show is a nonsense.0 -
Advertisement
-
I can see the argument of the Battle of the Atlantic not being a sideshow, at least from the point of view of the British, but it does rather pale in comparison to the Eastern Front in terms of effect. Most everything does, at least until you get to the Pacific Theatre in terms of its ability to turn the tide. North Africa was certainly a sideshow in the Great Scheme of Things. I mean, in the three years, the Germans had, commited what, all of four and a half divisions? 15th, 21st, 90th Light, a parachute brigade, and one or two others. Not like that's a major drain on the German military when you look at how much was fighting in Russia at the same time. Even the Italians had as many men in Russia as they had in the Western Desert, and the Italians made up the bulk of the Axis forces in Africa.
NTM0
Advertisement