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
-
-
Anytime I've heard it portrayed it is as something else. Good grief, even Basil Fawlty portrayed it as starting because Germany invaded Poland (don't talk about the war!).
True, but poor old Basil had got a bump to the head and was crazier then his usual self !!!
Fair enough Brian, fair enough. Your a 100% right that " offical reason for going to war was to defend Poland " , I jumped the gun and wrote about the saving mankind bit which the whole thing was portrayed after the war. My apologies.brianthebard wrote: »Zebra3, I wasn't saying that I believe Britain cared about Poland, just stating that the offical reason for going to war was to defend Poland, not to stop the concentration camps.
Mac, I think you know yourself that the Nazi's had more than one way of killing people and not being able to go to a concentration camp by train would have been a minor inconvience.
My point been, when you have one set of Imperialists, France, Britian, claiming to be defending small nations etc while they in turn have colonies all over the globe is hypocritical and hides their real reasons for declaring war on Germany. I say their real reasons for declaring war on Germany leading to WW2 where little different from WW1, i.e. fear of a colonial rival.0 -
McArmalite wrote: »Fair enough Brian, fair enough. Your a 100% right that " offical reason for going to war was to defend Poland " , I jumped the gun and wrote about the saving mankind bit which the whole thing was portrayed after the war. My apologies.
My point been, when you have one set of Imperialists, France, Britian, claiming to be defending small nations etc while they in turn have colonies all over the globe is hypocritical and hides their real reasons for declaring war on Germany. I say their real reasons for declaring war on Germany leading to WW2 where little different from WW1, i.e. fear of a colonial rival.
See when you state the facts like that you can actually come up with some decent answers!
I agree with you completely that it was hypocritical of britain and france. However neither country had any colonies in Europe at the time and Germany hadn't made any push into any other continent, so I imagine it was a genuine fear of attack on their own countries (which did happen, whether it was their own fault or not is another issue) that forced France and Britain into ww2. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »thank god they did though.
" britian the nation that likes to pump itself up with the conceited lies that it alone defeated Germany in WW2 " -:D:D 0 -
McArmalite wrote: »" britian the nation that likes to pump itself up with the conceited lies that it alone defeated Germany in WW2 " -:D:D
more constructive ****e I see.:rolleyes:0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Where the sh*** did you get that from?
Do you see the death camps, concentration camps as figments of imagination?
Who bloody killed most of the Soviets approx. 20 million casualities, the Finns ?
Yes the Khmer Rouge killed their own people but so did Germany.
I'm quite aware of the Nazi death camps but Britain and France are guilty of this too, Britain of course were the first to bring out interment camps
Who killed the bloody soviets was your question. I would say Stalin killed the bloody soviets, he actually killed somewhere between 60 and 70 million Russians by the time of his death. Your point being
Why the fu** would they care about Austria, they were pro Germany and ended up fighting with Germany
One third of Waffen SS were Austrian. They still elect Nazis for God's sake.
AFAIK actually Churchhill did care a hell of alot more about Eastern Europe than Roosevelt. He pushed for the Italian front and also wanted to go through Balkans.
All Stalin wanted was them to commit to Western Front through France and leave the East to him.
Of course they cared about themselves. Every country has to look out for it's own interests.
Americans never like to take large casualties, as in Okinawa and thus they opted to drop atomic weapon.
Japan would not have surrendered easily and the loss of life would have been huge both to Japan and to USA if conventional campaign was mounted.
Also I believe it proved deterrent to USSR and Stalin.
So the Americans shouldn't have bothered inventing or devleoping the Atomic bomb?
The worry was that the Germans woudl get their first and do you think Hitler would have refrained from using atomic weapons if he had them?
You're right i don't care about Austria, what i do care about is why Britain and France weren't suspicious of Germany gaining all this territory without a supposed Army, maybe if Britain had acted at that time they might have made some progress but they didn't
You say America were right to drop the atom bomb beause it would reduce the cassualties of BOTH Americans and Japanese, i can really only count the American, while the Japanese lives who are still suffering to this day, well the remaining, and as for USA well all i can say is they had a better chance of reducing the casssualties by invading Japan then they would by dropping two atomic bombs on it. Oh and yes it did prove to be a deterrent against the Soviets for about 4 years
You do know theres a difference between getting there before the nazis and being there after the nazis. the bomb was invented in 1945, Germany had pretty much lost the war by then meaning the worry that Germany would create it's own was over, however as i mentioned above they didn't have to drop the thing on Japan so cruely, maybe if they had warned Japan beforehand they would have got a better surrender, or maybe they should have dropped a third one on Russia and killed more innocent Russia leaving the total of Russian killed between Lenin era and Stalins death to be about maybe 90 or 100 million considering 80 million had died during the times between Lenin and Stalin. I know it wasn't really relevant i stop now0 -
-
-
-
-
Where the sh*** did you get that from?
Do you see the death camps, concentration camps as figments of imagination?
Who bloody killed most of the Soviets approx. 20 million casualities, the Finns ?
Yes the Khmer Rouge killed their own people but so did Germany.
I'm quite aware of the Nazi death camps but Britain and France are guilty of this too, Britain of course were the first to bring out interment camps
Who killed the bloody soviets was your question. I would say Stalin killed the bloody soviets, he actually killed somewhere between 60 and 70 million Russians by the time of his death. Your point being
Why the fu** would they care about Austria, they were pro Germany and ended up fighting with Germany
One third of Waffen SS were Austrian. They still elect Nazis for God's sake.
AFAIK actually Churchhill did care a hell of alot more about Eastern Europe than Roosevelt. He pushed for the Italian front and also wanted to go through Balkans.
All Stalin wanted was them to commit to Western Front through France and leave the East to him.
Of course they cared about themselves. Every country has to look out for it's own interests.
Americans never like to take large casualties, as in Okinawa and thus they opted to drop atomic weapon.
Japan would not have surrendered easily and the loss of life would have been huge both to Japan and to USA if conventional campaign was mounted.
Also I believe it proved deterrent to USSR and Stalin.
So the Americans shouldn't have bothered inventing or devleoping the Atomic bomb?
The worry was that the Germans woudl get their first and do you think Hitler would have refrained from using atomic weapons if he had them?
You're right i don't care about Austria, what i do care about is why Britain and France weren't suspicious of Germany gaining all this territory without a supposed Army, maybe if Britain had acted at that time they might have made some progress but they didn't
You say America were right to drop the atom bomb beause it would reduce the cassualties of BOTH Americans and Japanese, i can really only count the American, while the Japanese lives who are still suffering to this day, well the remaining, and as for USA well all i can say is they had a better chance of reducing the casssualties by invading Japan then they would by dropping two atomic bombs on it. Oh and yes it did prove to be a deterrent against the Soviets for about 4 years
You do know theres a difference between getting there before the nazis and being there after the nazis. the bomb was invented in 1945, Germany had pretty much lost the war by then meaning the worry that Germany would create it's own was over, however as i mentioned above they didn't have to drop the thing on Japan so cruely, maybe if they had warned Japan beforehand they would have got a better surrender, or maybe they should have dropped a third one on Russia and killed more innocent Russia leaving the total of Russian killed between Lenin era and Stalins death to be about maybe 90 or 100 million considering 80 million had died during the times between Lenin and Stalin. I know it wasn't really relevant i stop now
Riddle you conveniently just nitpick my arguments.
You have come up with some surprising statements during this thread.
A while back you stated the Khmer Rouge were worse than the Nazis but then when I call you on it you ignore that point.
It seems Stalin is responsilbe for all the Soviet dead.
Stalin did kill millions of citizens of the USSR including family members and inlaws, but the invading German forces and their subsequent push back to Germany resulted in another 20 odd million dying so stop trying to massage those figures into the entire number he had executed or deported to gulags.
You also mention the French and British had internment camps or rather death camps. I don't think you will find anything in history to rival what the Germans and their cohorts put together to systematically exterminate certain peoples based on political believe, race and/or religion.
And yes I know about the concentration camp concept developed by the British in South Africa.
Did I ask whether you care about the Austrians ?
I had countered with why should the Allied countries care about Austria not you.
I could say it seems now they don't even care about their own citizens but that's another argument.
During the 1930s a lot of people both in France and Britain ala Chamberlain, misguidly thought that Hitler would be staisfied with a form of limited expansion.
Yes they sold out the Czechs to try and appease him.
They thought that by apeasing him they would prevent a second European war.
You seem to forget both of these countries lost an entire generation of young men in the trenches in WWI. Take a trip around samll rural French villages or visit a country chruch in England to see the war dead lists.
They didn't want war.
Saying that, people like Churchhill were sounding off about Hitler for years and saw the writing on the wall.
You seem to believe that the causalites the US got duing Okinawa etc would not happen during invasion of home islands of Japan and so they should have carried out conventional invasion.
BTW the aim of a side during a war is to win and not take too many casualties but maybe it is different in your world.
You also seem to believe that because the Nazis were affectively beaten by 1945 they should have stopped development of the atomic bomb.
You know they just didn't turn up one day in 1945 and hey presto Ferri and guys came up with the Bomb. They had been working on it for years and it was finished during mid 1945.
Then you have some weird notion that they how they should have maybe telegramed Tojo and asked him to watch out for a big mushroom cloud on the southern horizon becuse they were going to give display of their new weapon.
Yeah right he would then surrender unconditionally.
The one question i would have is was it necessary to drop a second or was it just to prove that they had the capability and it wasn't a fluke.
I have never agreed with and have always condemmed what US did in Vietnam, Central America, South America, Iraq or through their proxy dictatorships in Africa.
Likewise I would not agree with what Britain did all the years before WWII or after WWII in the likes of Kenya or Ireland.
But the one thing I will give them their dues for is the fact they probably made my live possible in this country by standing against both the twin treaths of European fascism and communism during 1940s.
Maybe Riddle you should take a trip to the likes of Auswitz and then you will see where I am coming from.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement