CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Happy Birthday World War II!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Happy Birthday World War II!

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
Really, no mention of this anywhere? Yesterday marked the 70th anniversary of the start of WWII. A ceremony was held in Poland yesterday, but Putin is playing the revisionist history game "What, Stalin...he wasn't so bad! You guys should thank us for taking out Hitler!"

Just think, if it weren't for this event, I wouldn't be playing Call of Duty: World at War today and be called a "faggotniggernoob". We've come so far.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...rld-war-stalin
post #2 of 46
WWII didn't start until 1941 when WE got involved. USA!
post #3 of 46
Soviet Union pretty much much won the land war in Europe by itself. Off the top of my head, and forgive me if I'm mistaken but out of every 8 German casualties in the war 7 were caused in the Eastern front. The belittling of this contribution and the disclaimer 'Stalin was just as bad if not worse than Hitler' that follows almost every mention of the Soviet Union's contribution to the Allied victory is a sad remainder of the Cold War. It should be be forgotten as quickly as possible and if I were a Russian I'd be pissed off too.

There is a time to study and comment on Stalin's policies and the damage they caused to the people of the Soviet Union and of its neighbors. This is not it. This is a time to remember the millions of the dead and reflect on their sacrifices.
post #4 of 46
You know why nobody is celebrating the anniversary of World War II? Because for the last sixty years people have refused to just shut the fuck up about it.
post #5 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
You know why nobody is celebrating the anniversary of World War II? Because for the last sixty years people have refused to just shut the fuck up about it.
The money that's been made off the films, books, ancillary merchandise in this country based on that war has probably generated enough revenue to have covered the costs of the war itself by now.
post #6 of 46
I celebrated by killing nat-zies in the new Wolfenstien game. It was glorious.
post #7 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
The money that's been made off the films, books, ancillary merchandise in this country based on that war has probably generated enough revenue to have covered the costs of the war itself by now.
To paraphrase Zero Punctuation, the Medal of Honor and Call of Duty series have now been going on longer than World War II ever did.
post #8 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Soviet Union pretty much much won the land war in Europe by itself.
Come on now, the US and Britain tied up plenty of German troops that could have been diverted to the Eastern Front and totally shifted the balance against the Soviets.
post #9 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Come on now, the US and Britain tied up plenty of German troops that could have been diverted to the Eastern Front and totally shifted the balance against the Soviets.
Yup. The Soviet couldn't have won without a second front, and vice-versa. The USSR only had that. Manpower. There so many factors that contributed to the Nazi defeat.

Sure, Stalingrad was important, but Rommel's defeat in Egypt was as important. If not for that, Germany would have had the oil it needed, bypassing Stalingrad and razing Moscow.

My favorite article of Russian revisionism. Poland started WWII by not giving up part of it's land to satisfy German claims.

Oh Russia!
post #10 of 46
If you want to get technical it was a combination of American Manufacturing (a novel concept these days) prowess and the Soviet leadership's willingness to sacrifice every man, woman, child and dog for the "motherland".

The Germans, frankly, had better toys. It's actually amazing what they were capable of producing (and in the numbers they did especially once the heavy bombing of Germany itself started) with what they had. America, while may not as technologically savvy as the Germans in some regards, could crank 'em out. It was a numbers game on both sides: one in manpower and one in manufacturing.
post #11 of 46
Actually, German tanks were no match, firepower-wise, for Soviet tanks. Their munitions could barely make it through the armor.

And yes, denying the sacrifices made in Stalingrad is grossly revisionist, but so is claiming that the Soviets won the war for Europe. And frankly, a lot of the "noble sacrifices" at Stalingrad were ENTIRELY due to Stalin, such as refusing to allow evacuation by civilians until far too late due to national pride. Stalin WAS just as bad as Hitler, let's not pretend otherwise. They were both awful, awful, awful human beings.
post #12 of 46
oldie but a goodie.
WW2 as RTS Chat log
post #13 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
Actually, German tanks were no match, firepower-wise, for Soviet tanks. Their munitions could barely make it through the armor.
Germany had a hard time getting alloys later in the war to make steel. The armor of their later tanks (like the Tiger II) were seriously degraded as a result. The Panther was a marvel of engineering and forced the Soviets to design tanks equipped with guns designed around Field Artillery pieces. Even those tanks had a hard time outmatching the pure firepower, fire rate and range of the Panther.


Quote:
And yes, denying the sacrifices made in Stalingrad is grossly revisionist, but so is claiming that the Soviets won the war for Europe. And frankly, a lot of the "noble sacrifices" at Stalingrad were ENTIRELY due to Stalin, such as refusing to allow evacuation by civilians until far too late due to national pride. Stalin WAS just as bad as Hitler, let's not pretend otherwise. They were both awful, awful, awful human beings.
Those sacrifices weren't noble in the least but they were strategically advantageous. Germany's manpower supply was limited. The Soviets, frankly, couldn't give two shits about losses. The Eastern Front was a classic example of a War of Attrition and without it a "second front" led by American forces couldn't have been possible IMHO and would have prolonged the war itself.
post #14 of 46
Thread Starter 
Wow that link was funnier than I thought it would be. Best part:

tru_m4n: OMG OMG OMG i got all his stuff!
tru_m4n: NUKES! HOLY **** I GOT NUKES
post #15 of 46
To put things in perspective: The Battle Of The Bulge, the bloodiest and most famous battle of the Western Front cost the Germans about 80000 casualties. The same number the Germans suffered during the third battle of Kharkov, one of the many of similar size and intensity fought in the eastern front.

I'm not trying to diminish anyone's part in this. Just keep some perspective on what happened.
post #16 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
oldie but a goodie.
WW2 as RTS Chat log
IMO the visuals help a bit:

post #17 of 46
America also had the advantage of not having its industrial facilities be the subject of virtual round the clock carpet bombing.
post #18 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
America also had the advantage of not having its industrial facilities be the subject of virtual round the clock carpet bombing.
Even factoring that in it is amazing what the Germans were able to accomplish..especially after the full scale bombing campaign.

Here's a great example of the manufacturing prowess of the United States: The M1 Carbine was adopted in 41 and didn't enter service until a year later. Of the nine companies that manufactured the M1 only 1 had previous experience manufacturing firearms (Winchester). By the end of the war over 6 Million M1's had been produced.



I'd like to thank my father and his 1000+ book Military History library for filling my head with a lot of this stuff.
post #19 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
oldie but a goodie.
WW2 as RTS Chat log
In the same vein, WW2 summed up in comic form.
post #20 of 46
Stalin didn't win the land war, Hitler lost it. Europe was the Reichs on a platter as long as he left that gigantic fucking bear alone and didn't do a Napoleon. If he'd concentrated all his forces on the Uk there's every possibility we'd all be living in some Man In The High Castle nightmare at this point.

Not taking away from the truly epic sacrifces made by Russians in turning the tide of the war, but the European land war really was Hitlers to fuckup, which he did royally thanks to his special blend of hubris and outright batshit megalomania.

ETA: Oh and just 'cause
post #21 of 46
I never fully comprehended how bad things were in the Asia/Pacific theatre during WWII until moving there years ago. Alot of Asian countries have a seperate section in their national history museum dedicated to when they were occupied by the Japanese.
post #22 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
Not taking away from the truly epic sacrifces made by Russians in turning the tide of the war, but the European land war really was Hitlers to fuckup, which he did royally thanks to his special blend of hubris and outright batshit megalomania.
Of course, Mussolini didn't help much in that regard. His land war against Greece was so disastrous that Hitler had to move several divisions to help pacify that front. Those divisions incidentally at the time were being moved into position in preparation for the land war against Russia, the result of which could be argued delayed the start of Operation Barbarossa by several weeks until they could be re-fitted and moved back into position.

At least that was from what I read, perhaps our members who's more familiar with the history of Greece at the time of the war could give us more details about that.

In any case the delay pretty much resulted in the winter catching up with the German army just at the outskirts of Moscow. Had Operation Barbarossa started earlier as the German High command planned, it could also be argued that they could have taken Moscow and made things even harder for the Russians.
post #23 of 46
And Greece would have fared much better had the high command decided to tighten up the front beforehand by giving up some territory. Anyway I guess that that holding on against the Italians from Oct. 28 1940 and the Germans and Bulgarians from April 1941 until the end of May was as good as could be expected.
post #24 of 46
All these "what if" scenarios arent really complete without figuring in US involvement, and its motivation anyway. Even if Hitler had not attacked Russia, and if Stalin hat not attacked Germany (which btw is another big if) once he had his yard in order, would Hitler have gotten away with swallowing continental europe?

I am actually inclined to think that wouldnt have been the case anyway, simply because the USA wouldnt have wanted another world power to rise out of europe. While its all nice and dandy to claim the USA got involved for nice and noble reasons, as a matter of fact the roots of the cold war were already there, a sense of competition between superpowers, and the technologically advanced germany spreading out throughout much of europe wasnt something the USA, and likely not Russia either, considered a good idea.

So while a couple of numbers may have changed, I believe the last chance to really stop the end result of the war would have been to stop after taking France, and stay the hell away from everything else. Blitzing Poland and France was so fast, its likely Hitler could have gotten away with it if he were a capable politician afterwards. At that point, the world was shocked by the speed and power of that advance, and probably would have swallowed it eventually.

One way or the other, yes, the pacific war was actually something I dont think could be avoided. Japan was a war waiting to happen, and its occupation of various countries in asia is something that isnt really taught in western schools enough. I know a lot of people with a rather good education who still dont really know what made Japan the "evil" guys, and why the pacific war was actually a bigger thing than the european.
post #25 of 46
You also have the fact that instead of Russia, if Hitler would have gone the route of the middle east and secured the oil fields, there pretty much would have been no stopping him.

A few years back I picked up a copy of How Hitler Could have Won World War 2 on the discount shelf and it's frighting to learn how close he could have came to winning that war.

Given that a land war in the UK was suicide I would go with the thought that he would not have invaded so fast, he'll just bombed and V2'd the hell out of them for a long while before forcing their surrender.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Hitler-Cou.../dp/0812932021
post #26 of 46
Was the US really a super power before the war though? I always thought one of the themes of the war was the decline of Britain as a world power and the ascent of the United States.

And yes, had Hitler been just a hair less egotistical and a hair more sane, the whole war would have gone quite differently.
post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Was the US really a super power before the war though?
In terms of potential, sure. But it took the massive industrial push that WWII demanded and the complete exhaustion of all the other world powers to put the US on first position.

After all that, taking into account the remarkable advantages the US had in manpower, raw material and a strategic position so safe that made projection of power almost completely safe, coupled with the complete devastation of everyone else, becoming a superpower was an almost automatic outcome.
post #28 of 46
Right, I was just questioning Khaunshar's assertion that the US motivation for entering the war was not wanting another super power in Europe. If they weren't a super power themselves yet, they were hardly in a position to feel competitive.
post #29 of 46
If anything the US was dragged kicking and screaming into WWII by Roosevelt and Churchill. Especially for Churchill the morning of Dec. 7 1941 must have been the happiest time of his life.
post #30 of 46
The US also had industrial practices in place which was geared towards mass production for a while before WWII. It pretty much dated back to the US Civil War from the production of the Springfield rifle.

What they learned there from the mass production of the rifle was pretty much soon adopted industrial companies in the US to churn out their consumer goods quickly and cheaply. So much so that practice was called "war practice" by some of those companies that adopted it.

So in a way, the US was always ready to crank up production for a major war. Of course this doesn't mean that the US was always going to be a superpower because of it. The War being forced on to it made them put that potential that stelios mention before towards that direction and things gestated from there.
post #31 of 46
My Dad fought in WW2 and so I feel compelled to remind everyone this is an American website, and for us World War 2's birthday is 12/7/1941
post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
If anything the US was dragged kicking and screaming into WWII by Roosevelt and Churchill. Especially for Churchill the morning of Dec. 7 1941 must have been the happiest time of his life.
The thing is at that time the US had only declared war on Japan and had it been left at that it would have been just a slinging match between those two countries.
However Hitler had to declare War on the US as well due to the Axis Pact between Japan and Germany which meant that the US now can formally engage against Hitler as well.

In a way it's tell that even though that it was Japan that attacked the US and brought them into the war and is of the most immediate threat to them, the US decided to put the goal of defeating Japan as secondary to that of defeating Germany first.
post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
My Dad fought in WW2 and so I feel compelled to remind everyone this is an American website, and for us World War 2's birthday is 12/7/1941
My Grandfather fought in the war. I live in America. I'm British. The WORLD war started in 1939.

You were being ironic, right?
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackstar View Post
My Grandfather fought in the war. I live in America. I'm British. The WORLD war started in 1939.

You were being ironic, right?
Yes, I was being ironic, presenting a Stephen Colbert style America-centric world view and taking it to an absurd extreme. The facts are correct, for the USA the war started 12/7/41, and my father did fight in the war, but my tone was in jest.
post #35 of 46
And then there is this gem from Pat Buchanan:

Quote:
Did Hitler Want War?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.

What cause could justify such sacrifices?

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative “to stop Hitler” after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.

If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?

After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.

The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary’s ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.

Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?

Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland’s turn, then Russia’s, then France’s, then Britain’s, then the United States.

We would all be speaking German now.

But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.

Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.

As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?

Winston Churchill was right when he called it “The Unnecessary War” — the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.
So basically if if the Allies let Hitler, who is really just misunderstood, take what he wanted unopposed, WWII wouldn't have been so bad. That is probably the wrongest thing both morally and factually that I've read in recent memory.
post #36 of 46
For fucks sake.

I want to carpet bomb Pat Buchanan right now.

And what is he implying with this gem?
Quote:
Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.
Did the allies actually force good ol´peace loving Hitler to commit genocide on the Jewish population because they went to war with him?
post #37 of 46
Pretty much, yeah. It's all because of Churchill's warmongering and FDR's communism, basically.
post #38 of 46
What an idiotic claim from Pat. The genocide of the jewish people had begun, if somewhat secretly to the world, before 1940, camps were already planned, in building or built, and frankly I fully concur that you cannot let a madman take a few countries within a handful of weeks, and get away with it hoping he magically stops.

"Oh hell, its just France!" isnt something that should work outside Buchanans head.

Besides, think back if you can to the live of 1940ish. Virtually no TV, very little (and heavily controlled) radio, a couple newspapers. People had to rely on their government a lot for news, and my grandmother has on occasion described it as feeling very unsure when you heard that a week ago something big happened somewhere, because you had no idea if you would hear anything else from it before the repercussions hit you.

In such a climate, you suddenly have one country that started and lost a war just a few decades earlier pull off a feat of military might (the Blitzkrieg through France and Poland) that was deemed utterly impossible before. Hitler just rewrote the european map within a few weeks.

If that isnt a wakeup call that something really dangerous is brewing, and that now wars can be fought and won with barely a week of time to react to them, what is.

What an idiotic piece of revisionist history.
post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Pretty much, yeah. It's all because of Churchill's warmongering and FDR's communism, basically.
I think we as people should recognise the mistakes of the past and apologise to Hitler. I'm sorry Hitler!
post #40 of 46
I'm somewhat reeling from that revisionist history of the cause of the war from Buchanan. Where did he pull this out from? It's like some 70 years carefully compiled history of the war was just thrown to the wayside just to prove some point of his.

EDIT: Darn it, Khaunshar beat me to it.
post #41 of 46
Apparently this is a mere continuation of his point of view.....
post #42 of 46
Pat Buchannan is a dispicable racist old bastard (Or, 'Basterd', if you will) , who MSNBC trots out as an expert to comment on our black president. They just chuckle when he says horrible things
post #43 of 46
And to close this thread in a happy way here's a very NSFW treat for you all.
post #44 of 46
So instead of conquering Europe, Hitler would have been handed it piece by piece. Nice.
post #45 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
And to close this thread in a happy way here's a very NSFW treat for you all.
Hahah ok that one really got me unprepared
post #46 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khaunshar View Post
Hahah ok that one really got me unprepared
Better unprepared than unprotected I guess.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Happy Birthday World War II!