World War 2, was it a War between Good versus Evil or Evil Versus Evil?

Amazotheamazing · 05-05-2008 5:27pm

Nordwind wrote: »

And let's not forget that Britain were the first ones to introduce concentration camps.

Hope that helps.

And the Chinese invented gunpowder, really makes you wonder...

Tigrrrr · 05-05-2008 5:28pm

Its not a case of good versus evil. The axis was not one unfified bloc, nor were the allies. Despite the legend of "Ein Volk", the German people were not one bloc either, no more than were the Soviets, the British or any of the belligerent nations. So we cannot talk in terms of good versus evil. In fact, I think these terms should be completely banned from intelligent discourse on most wars and conflicts! For this reason.

Hitler might be accused of being the most evil war leader from this period, more simplistically still, I'm sure many would call him the most evilest man everest. He was a screwed up guy with some terribly cruel, and yes evil, policies, but he also had some terribly good, sensible ideas too that brought about a lot of success for Germans and happiness for its people, however short lived that may have been depending on their personal circumstances. The same goes for Tojo and for Mussollini.
Churchill's motives were always selfish, and when looked at in their own right, horrifying. particularly so in relation to carpet bombings on civilians at Dresden, refusal to entertain the idea of negotiations throughout the war, the invasion of Iran, deliberately sinking a French fleet of sailors off Algeria, and so on. It can be reasonably argued that non British people didn't matter to Churchill, he displayed little or no humanity to people outside of his own charge during his war years. On the American side, there was the militarily unnecessary bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Both sides in wwii were undoubtedly guilty of terrible war crimes, but none in fighting for what they believed in, which was sometimes rather virtuous, can be described as out-and-out evil.

Fratton Fred · 05-05-2008 10:04pm

brianthebard wrote: »

If Britain, France and the league of nations had got the finger out after Germany's march into the Rhineland the whole war could've been avoided. So its hard to see the Allies in a good light when they repeatedly bowed to Germany's demands. In more ways than one, The Allies were as responsible or moreso than Germany for WWII.

can you explain your logic? Britain and France tried hard to stay out of the war by using diplomacy, the policy of appeasement was pretty popular at the time as most people still remembered the carnage of WWI. Eventually they got involved after the invasion of Poland.

how does this make them as responsible or moreso than Germany for WWII? if your referring to the reperations after WWI then I would agree but your posts have a "Damned if they do, damned if they don't " ring to them, what, in your opinion, should they have done?

Nordwind wrote: »

And let's not forget that Britain were the first ones to introduce concentration camps.
Hope that helps.

That is completely irrelevent to this topic. Are you suggesting that because Britain used concentration camps in the Boer War they should have stayed out of WWII?

Fratton Fred · 05-05-2008 10:10pm

Tigrrrr wrote: »

Its not a case of good versus evil. The axis was not one unfified bloc, nor were the allies. Despite the legend of "Ein Volk", the German people were not one bloc either, no more than were the Soviets, the British or any of the belligerent nations. So we cannot talk in terms of good versus evil. In fact, I think these terms should be completely banned from intelligent discourse on most wars and conflicts! For this reason.

Hitler might be accused of being the most evil war leader from this period, more simplistically still, I'm sure many would call him the most evilest man everest. He was a screwed up guy with some terribly cruel, and yes evil, policies, but he also had some terribly good, sensible ideas too that brought about a lot of success for Germans and happiness for its people, however short lived that may have been depending on their personal circumstances. The same goes for Tojo and for Mussollini.
Churchill's motives were always selfish, and when looked at in their own right, horrifying. particularly so in relation to carpet bombings on civilians at Dresden, refusal to entertain the idea of negotiations throughout the war, the invasion of Iran, deliberately sinking a French fleet of sailors off Algeria, and so on. It can be reasonably argued that non British people didn't matter to Churchill, he displayed little or no humanity to people outside of his own charge during his war years. On the American side, there was the militarily unnecessary bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Both sides in wwii were undoubtedly guilty of terrible war crimes, but none in fighting for what they believed in, which was sometimes rather virtuous, can be described as out-and-out evil.

I'd have to disagree. I find it very hard to consider Hitler and the Nazis as anything but Evil. OK, they built some nice roads and improved the standard of living for Germans, but only for white, hetrosexual, able bodied, christian Germans. All those who were not were rounded up.

As for Churchill, there are numerous threads about Churchill, you might like to read them, and then maybe a book or two about Churchill before you judge him so easily.

Tigrrrr · 06-05-2008 12:21am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'd have to disagree. I find it very hard to consider Hitler and the Nazis as anything but Evil. OK, they built some nice roads and improved the standard of living for Germans, but only for white, hetrosexual, able bodied, christian Germans. All those who were not were rounded up.

You'll notice I did acknowlege that the magnitude of Hitler's domestic successes as a leader varied depeding on an individual's personal circumstances. As it happens, most Germans were white, heterosexual (publicly anyway), able bodied and Christian... thus (partially) his success, perhaps.

As for Churchill, there are numerous threads about Churchill, you might like to read them, and then maybe a book or two about Churchill before you judge him so easily.

If you want to question a particular aspect of my knowledge of Churchill or what I've posted, then do so. I've been reading history books on this topic from a pretty young age, but thanks.

jmayo · 06-05-2008 11:55am

Tigrrrr wrote: »

...
Hitler might be accused of being the most evil war leader from this period, more simplistically still, I'm sure many would call him the most evilest man everest. He was a screwed up guy with some terribly cruel, and yes evil, policies, but he also had some terribly good, sensible ideas too that brought about a lot of success for Germans and happiness for its people, however short lived that may have been depending on their personal circumstances. The same goes for Tojo and for Mussollini.
Churchill's motives were always selfish, and when looked at in their own right, horrifying. particularly so in relation to carpet bombings on civilians at Dresden, refusal to entertain the idea of negotiations throughout the war, the invasion of Iran, deliberately sinking a French fleet of sailors off Algeria, and so on. It can be reasonably argued that non British people didn't matter to Churchill, he displayed little or no humanity to people outside of his own charge during his war years. On the American side, there was the militarily unnecessary bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Both sides in wwii were undoubtedly guilty of terrible war crimes, but none in fighting for what they believed in, which was sometimes rather virtuous, can be described as out-and-out evil.

I am glad that some of the people here were not leaders during WWII.
They would have refused to make the tough choices necessary to defeat the Germans/Japanese and even worse they would make decisions that would have resulted in a lot more dead for their own side.

Obviously they would have refused to bomb German cities lest civilians were killed. Of course those civilans were taking absolutely no part in the German Reich and the German war machine.
And at the same time it was ok for the Germans to drop V1 and V2 indiscrimaantly on their own cities :rolleyes:
They would possibly have left the French fleet fall into the hands of the Germans becuase they trusted their Vichy friends so much.
Then they would have carried out a conventional invasion of Japan main islands where they would have to fight entire population that had been convinced to fight to the bitter end for their emperor. So what if you losing a few divisons a week and you are street fighting for 10 years. :rolleyes:

I thought the aim of war is to elimiate the enemy and try and keep your own casulties down, not go easy on your enemy who actually will stop at nothing to defeat you.

BTW Hitler (who was a vegatarian and loved dogs) was not the inventor of all the evil schemes used by the Reich. Often these ideas came from lowly officals and military officers (it was actually Doctors that came up with the idea of exterminating mentally and physically handicapped children). These ideas were passed up the chain where someone like Himmler or Boorman put them into action and brought them to the attention of Hitler for his signoff.

Regarding Churchill nobody could ever say he was the caring about the enemy or indeed his Allies.
He did not even care about the Commonwealth nations as he affectively almost left Australia defenseless against the Japanesse threat in WWII and used them as cannon fodder in the Dardanelles in WWI.

brianthebard · 06-05-2008 9:05pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

can you explain your logic? Britain and France tried hard to stay out of the war by using diplomacy, the policy of appeasement was pretty popular at the time as most people still remembered the carnage of WWI. Eventually they got involved after the invasion of Poland.

how does this make them as responsible or moreso than Germany for WWII? if your referring to the reperations after WWI then I would agree but your posts have a "Damned if they do, damned if they don't " ring to them, what, in your opinion, should they have done?

Well you asked not to simplify it so much so I thought I'd remind you that if Germany hadn't been treated as badly by the treaty, or if Germany had been invaded in WWI, or if Britain and France hadn't followed a policy of appeasement then there may not have been a war.

Fratton Fred · 07-05-2008 5:18pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Well you asked not to simplify it so much so I thought I'd remind you that if Germany hadn't been treated as badly by the treaty, or if Germany had been invaded in WWI, or if Britain and France hadn't followed a policy of appeasement then there may not have been a war.

At some point, Britain and France had to get heavy with Hitler, as you say that point probably came too late, but hindsight is a wonderful thing

Zebra3 · 07-05-2008 8:09pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why simplify it? The allies won, the world is undoubtedly a better place for it. Maybe if Britain were not involved you would see it that way. Lets face it, all those involved had chequered colonial pasts, but only one side wanted the extermination of all those that did not match their ideals.

Was it good V Evil? maybe not, maybe right v wrong is a better way to put it. As for indo china, yes, I'm sure they are a lot happier than they would have been under Japanese rule.

You're "sure" that Japan taking Indo-China would have been worse for the locals than the latter day near genocide-bombimg of the region by America?

jmayo wrote: »

Your chip on shoulder is showing :rolleyes:

Did I ever say the UK and USA defeated Germany or Japan on their own ?
The USA provided aid to keep Britain afloat and then provided aid to USSR.
The Uk and it's comonwealth (ANZACs, India, Canada, South Africa) forces kept peppering away, sometimes very unsucessfully, at both the Germans and Japs.
The USSR provided the manpower to soak up much of the German war machine on the Eastern front. Their losses were colosal and probably a level that the USA or UK could not afford to lose.

The reason I said we should simply bring it back to basics is because this like a lot of other threads has degenerated into knocking the USA or Uk by some posters who have major chips on their shoulders.

Yes both of those countires have been involved in some real dirty wars and they have done things that were/are appalling to other peoples, races and countries.
But in WWII they were ffing boy scouts in comparison to the methods used by the Axis forces in particular and indeed the USSR.

To fight regimes like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan you sometimes have to get down and dirty with them and that's what the Allies had to to do.

So we're all agreed it wasn't a war between good versus evil, it was evil versus even more evil?

McArmalite · 08-05-2008 12:24pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

So we're all agreed it wasn't a war between good versus evil, it was evil versus even more evil?

Well said Zebra, well said.

Riddle101 · 08-05-2008 4:19pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

You're "sure" that Japan taking Indo-China would have been worse for the locals than the latter day near genocide-bombimg of the region by America?

So we're all agreed it wasn't a war between good versus evil, it was evil versus even more evil?

I have no problem with that

Agent Smith · 08-05-2008 4:24pm

Riddle101 wrote: »

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

I remember reading somewhere That an Expected Invasion of Japan would cost upwards of a Million Casuailtys

Kaiser_Sma · 08-05-2008 4:44pm

it wasn't evil vs. evil, it was an evil ideology executing a war of aggresion in a preceviably evil fasion, with a relativly responsible ideology executing their opposition in a superficially good fasion but with varying degrees of moral efficiency, owing to the various stresses, strategic and otherwise.

Fratton Fred · 08-05-2008 11:19pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

You're "sure" that Japan taking Indo-China would have been worse for the locals than the latter day near genocide-bombimg of the region by America?

i'm pretty confident, yes. The Japanese werern't adverse to a bit of genocidal slaughter themselves.

Zebra3 wrote: »

So we're all agreed it wasn't a war between good versus evil, it was evil versus even more evil?

in as much as any war is, I suppose it was. I was trying to think of an exception to that, but I can't.

Like I said, thank god the less evil ones won though, I'm sure you'd agree with that.

Shutuplaura · 09-05-2008 1:16pm

I haven't read this thread becasue 5pages of the same old same old doesn't really appealy to me - no offense to anyone who contributed by the way its just ts been trashed to death. 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?

Belfast · 12-05-2008 12:39am

Riddle101 wrote: »

I look back at WW2 and i think to myself. Which side really was the good side in that war. I mean in my opinion there was no good side, it was just a conflict between Evil.

This is why i think there was no good side:
-Germany started the war not to mention the holocaust
-Italy was really in in the war for greed and to take over lands
-Japan attacked cause just as much if not more atrocities then Germany
-France and Britain allowed Germany to invade half of Europe before doing anything to stop Hitler and even then they did little, not to mention they refused to recognise Tito as leader of Yugoslavia even though he led Yugoslavia to Independence.

Stalin murdered 20 Million Russians in atrocities and Russia of course was known for it's ruthlessness
-USA dropped the Atom Bomb on Japan and invented Weapons of Mass destruction
To Be Honest, I have lost faith in the idea that the Allies were doing a good cause in WWII by starting and is why i prefer the countries who stayed Neutral in the War like Ireland, Spain and Switzerland. What do you think?

It was pointless for Britain and France to declare war on Germany over Poland as they were in no position to help it.
The French declaring war on Germany helped the Germans.
The conquest of France provided much of the horse drawn transport used during the invasion of Russia not to mention the extra food , Gold and vital raw materials it gained. It also resulted in many French Jews going to the death camps.

Britain by going to war with Germany did noting, but get Britain bomb and bankrupt the country.

Churchill had a plan to bomb Germany with Anthrax spores, if he had done some much of Germany would be uninhabitable to this day. An island off Scotland was bombed with Anthrax spores (to test the weapon) is still uninhabitable today.

The British had planned the carpet bombing of German cities before the war on the principle that if they killed large number of civilians ( against all the rules of war at the time) the civilian population would would demand peace and end the avoiding the trench fighting of the Great war.

Germany never built the large strategic bombers that the British did as they regarded the bombing civilian target as Terrorism and intended to put allied bomber crews on trial after the war for war crimes.

Britain deported Russians and Ukrainians to the USSR after the war including some who had left Russia after the civil war and some who had League of nation passports. The British knew Stalin war shooting them or sending then to the Gulags for 20 years.( not may survived)
"The Minister and The Massacres" by Nikolai Tolstoy

When the Germans asked Stalin about red cross parcels for Russian POWs in Germany Stalin replied that here were no Russian POWs in Germany only traitors to the motherland and they should all be shot at once.

Before the war the German policy toward Jews was to steal as much as possible from the before they left. The war stopped this as is was not possible to emigrate under wartime conditions.
The war may well have contributed to the decision to kill them.
Russia had invaded Poland in cooperation with Germany and invaded Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, Finland. Britain and France did not declare war over this.

The war time bombing of German civilians cities Killed 2,500,000 civilians.
German bombing of Britain killed 60,000 civilians

Chinese burst the banks of the yellow river to stop a Japanese advance and killed 200,000 of their own people.( This was more that were killed by the 2 atomic bombs)

The main aim Hitler before the War was to create and German Empire in between the Rhine and the Urals to create Lebensraum for the 1,000 year Reich. This was not a direct threat to Britain or France.

Hitler did not think he would have to fight the English until at least 1946 if at all. This is why the Germany naval was so small in 1939. The Germany navy's “Z plan” called for the German navy to be ready for war by 1946.

The American sent German Jews to Germany 1944 in exchange for American who were in Germany when war was declared. The American about the death camps at the time as the allies had broken the German Enigma codes. Some of the Germans sent back to Germany were kidnapped by the Americans for south and central America. One German kidnapped from Guatamala had been out of Germany so long he thought the Kaiser was still in power.

This is an interesting account of the Americas bombing a German U-boat flying red cross flags while rescuing 400 survivors for the British liner Laconia.
The Laconia Incident
http://www.uboat.net/articles/index.html?article=33
The Americans interned all of the Japanese on the west cost of America including some who were American citizens.
Film by Alan Parker on the subject
Come See the Paradise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_See_The_Paradise

for many the outcome of the war was not all that positive
“Victims of Yalta" by Nikolai Tolstoy

on a side note by the time the war end in Europe the American atomic bomb project had failed due to lack of Uranium 235. It was only possible to build 3 atomic bomb by July 16, 1945 because of a large stock pile of Uranium 235 captured from the Germans.
So the Atomic bombing of Japan was done with German Uranium 235.

Riddle101 wrote: »

USA dropped the Atom Bomb on Japan and invented Weapons of Mass destruction

Weapons of Mass destruction were around long before this in the from of diseases like smallpox, anthrax etc. and poison gas

Ultimate WWII was just another war in a long series of imperial wars that took place in Europe for longer that anyone could remember.

Had the British and French stayed out of the war like the Americans did until the end of 1941 or stayed out completely it could have saved a lot of lives and the Germany would still have lost due to lack of resources in the Fight with Russia.

the_syco · 12-05-2008 12:49am

Belfast wrote: »

Germany never built the large strategic bombers that the British did as they regarded the bombing civilian target as Terrorism and intended to put allied bomber crews on trial after the war for war crimes.

Actually, the German general who was in favour of building the bombers was killed in a "freak air crash" 1935 IIRC.

Belfast · 12-05-2008 12:53am

Shutuplaura wrote: »

I haven't read this thread becasue 5pages of the same old same old doesn't really appealy to me - no offense to anyone who contributed by the way its just ts been trashed to death. 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?

this gives some Economic backround
A Low Dishonest Decade: The Great Powers, Eastern Europe, and the Economic Origins of World War II, 1930-1941 by Paul N. Hehn

Fratton Fred · 12-05-2008 9:01am

Shutuplaura wrote: »

I haven't read this thread becasue 5pages of the same old same old doesn't really appealy to me - no offense to anyone who contributed by the way its just ts been trashed to death. 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?

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.

Fratton Fred · 12-05-2008 10:05am

Belfast wrote: »

It was pointless for Britain and France to declare war on Germany over Poland as they were in no position to help it.
The French declaring war on Germany helped the Germans.
The conquest of France provided much of the horse drawn transport used during the invasion of Russia not to mention the extra food , Gold and vital raw materials it gained. It also resulted in many French Jews going to the death camps.

Britain by going to war with Germany did noting, but get Britain bomb and bankrupt the country.

It did nothing except open up a new front, preventing the planned German invasion of Russia, preventing the Germans from having domination of the seas, providing supplies to Russia to help keep them in the war 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. 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:

Belfast wrote: »

Churchill had a plan to bomb Germany with Anthrax spores, if he had done some much of Germany would be uninhabitable to this day. An island off Scotland was bombed with Anthrax spores (to test the weapon) is still uninhabitable today.

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 bck up the rest of the rubbish in your post.

brianthebard · 12-05-2008 1:34pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It did nothing except open up a new front, preventing the planned German invasion of Russia, preventing the Germans from having domination of the seas, providing supplies to Russia to help keep them in the war 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. 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:

Although its hard to really understand Hitler's war aims, (since they seem to have changed so often) it is fair to say that there is a good chance he would never have bothered to attack France and Britain if they hadn't declared war on Germany first. His biggest aim had always been lebensraum to the east, with ultimate if far fetched goal of creating a second 1000 year reich. To back this up consider the different tactics employed against the people west of Germany compared to the east-French (non-jewish/homosexual/communists) people were treated quite fairly, whereas those of Russian or slav extraction were brutalised. Hitler hoped to reach some sort of agreement with the (non-Russian) Allies after the war, but planned to place the slavs under the heel of Germany. The western front was an expensive nuisance to Hitler. But of course, there's no way the Axis could have been defeated without old Blighty, huh? :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred · 12-05-2008 2:19pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Although its hard to really understand Hitler's war aims, (since they seem to have changed so often) it is fair to say that there is a good chance he would never have bothered to attack France and Britain if they hadn't declared war on Germany first. His biggest aim had always been lebensraum to the east, with ultimate if far fetched goal of creating a second 1000 year reich. To back this up consider the different tactics employed against the people west of Germany compared to the east-French (non-jewish/homosexual/communists) people were treated quite fairly, whereas those of Russian or slav extraction were brutalised. Hitler hoped to reach some sort of agreement with the (non-Russian) Allies after the war, but planned to place the slavs under the heel of Germany. The western front was an expensive nuisance to Hitler.

I wouldn't disagree with you, but without the second front Germany would have swept through Russia. The Allies diverted a lot of troops and provided much needed supplies to Russia without which Russia may have fallen.

brianthebard wrote: »

But of course, there's no way the Axis could have been defeated without old Blighty, huh? :rolleyes:

Exactly, McArm.. sorry Brian

brianthebard · 12-05-2008 3:09pm

If Hitler hadn't procrastinated for three weeks and delayed the attack on the USSR they wouldn't have lost either, it had nothing to do with the Allies, who were pretty much in the bag by the time Germany attacked the USSR anyways.

Fratton Fred · 12-05-2008 3:36pm

brianthebard wrote: »

If Hitler hadn't procrastinated for three weeks and delayed the attack on the USSR they wouldn't have lost either, it had nothing to do with the Allies, who were pretty much in the bag by the time Germany attacked the USSR anyways.

this arguement could go on all day and it's pointless anyway because we will never know what would have happened for certain.

brianthebard · 12-05-2008 3:40pm

Roffles. does that mean you'll stop going on about how wonderful the allies were and how we should be grateful to them for two world wars?

Fratton Fred · 12-05-2008 3:46pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Roffles. does that mean you'll stop going on about how wonderful the allies were and how we should be grateful to them for two world wars?

you're putting words in my mouth, I think we should be grateful they won that's all.

Riddle101 · 12-05-2008 3:52pm

It did nothing except open up a new front, preventing the planned German invasion of Russia, preventing the Germans from having domination of the seas, providing supplies to Russia to help keep them in the war 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. 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

It may have opened up a second front but Britain did little to help Russia fight back, once the Battle of Britain was over Britain stayed were they were and Hitler just left them because they were at bay. If anything it was Mussolini constantly screwing up in Africa and Greece and Hitler having to divert soldiers to Mussolini rather then sending them to Russia that caused Germany to screw up with Russia, then of course you've got the fact that Stalin moved all the factories behind the Ural Mountains and built up his attack from then and of course once the winter came Germany was f**ked, Russia launched their own attack which was later called the Battle of Stalingrad and started pulvarising the German's who were eventually surrounded and surrendered and of course Hitler(Who refused to allow his soldiers to retreat) was very annoyed. Plus Britain was pretty f**ked as well.

Fratton Fred · 12-05-2008 4:00pm

Riddle101 wrote: »

It may have opened up a second front but Britain did little to help Russia fight back, once the Battle of Britain was over Britain stayed were they were and Hitler just left them because they were at bay. If anything it was Mussolini constantly screwing up in Africa and Greece and Hitler having to divert soldiers to Mussolini rather then sending them to Russia that caused Germany to screw up with Russia, then of course you've got the fact that Stalin moved all the factories behind the Ural Mountains and built up his attack from then and of course once the winter came Germany was f**ked, Russia launched their own attack which was later called the Battle of Stalingrad and started pulvarising the German's who were eventually surrounded and surrendered and of course Hitler(Who refused to allow his soldiers to retreat) was very annoyed. Plus Britain was pretty f**ked as well.

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.

anthony4335 · 12-05-2008 4:34pm

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.

ejmaztec · 13-05-2008 8:25pm

brianthebard wrote: »

But of course, there's no way the Axis could have been defeated without old Blighty, huh? :rolleyes:

I know that the answer to this question is yes and am surprised that anyone would ask it in the first place. Is this one of those David Irving moments?

World War 2, was it a War between Good versus Evil or Evil Versus Evil?

Comments