Der Alte
Banned
Nein, nur im Westen.
Napalm the bocage!
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
I seem to remember something about the German POW's in the British zone keeping their command structure. Stalin was convinced that the Western allies were going to arm the German Army and attack the Soviets..
samneanderthal
Active member
I never understood why after attacking Poland (the casus belli for the allies), Finland, Romania, Lithuania, etc, financing Hitler in 1939, 40 and half of 41, Churchill & Roosevelt ran to Stalin's help as soon as the USSR was invaded. They should have left the two gigantic tyrants bleed each other for years.
I also think that had the US given priority to the Pacific and fought on only one front (like Stalin always did), it could have defeated Japan by early 1943 (not demanding unconditional surrender but asking Japan to join the fight against the USSR) and used 10 million Indian, Chinese & Japanese troops to invade the USSR through Iran, rapidly capturing its oilfields and then the Romanian oilfields. By 1944 both German and Soviet troops and economies would have been exhausted and the troops surrendered by the million to the Anglo armies that would treat them fairly, causing Stalin & Hitler to collapse.
I also think that had the US given priority to the Pacific and fought on only one front (like Stalin always did), it could have defeated Japan by early 1943 (not demanding unconditional surrender but asking Japan to join the fight against the USSR) and used 10 million Indian, Chinese & Japanese troops to invade the USSR through Iran, rapidly capturing its oilfields and then the Romanian oilfields. By 1944 both German and Soviet troops and economies would have been exhausted and the troops surrendered by the million to the Anglo armies that would treat them fairly, causing Stalin & Hitler to collapse.
Last edited:
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
At the time the proirity was given to defeating Germany because it was widely felt that Germany posed the biggest threat.
As for the American support to the USSR, if the USSR was either defeated or knocked out of the war, then that meant Hitler could then focus his enitre efforts then on fighting the western allies.
For that time being, as illustrated the Western allies needed a Soviet front to apply Pressure to help end the war as quickly as possible.
As for Japan surrending and helping the U.S. without unconditional surrender... I don't think that would have been very likely.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I can understand that as the movie was idiocy of the highest level, many Royal Navy veterans were not happy about the movie U571 either.
samneanderthal
Active member
My point is that on June 22 Germany with 80 million people at war with Britain, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the USSR (over 500 million people) and with limited natural resources (oil, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, tin, rubber, etc,) was a much smaller threat than the USSR.
It made sense to help Finland with 4 million people and no armament, but helping an aggressor that started the war with 28,000 tanks and 21,000 planes, 170 million people, huge resources and an almost endless territory to conquer in lousy weather and with an incredibly bad road system, makes little sense. If Churchill and Roosevelt thought that the USSR was going to collapse despite its huge resources, a little help would not make any difference, it would probably be wasted anyway.
Even if the Germans had taken Moscow and Leningrad in 1941, as long as the Japs didn't attack the USSR, the Soviets could have continued to withdraw, extending the German supply lines and leaving more partisans behind their lines to disrupt their supplies. The idea that Stalin merited or could even use efficiently any help (he made better equipment than the British tanks and Hurricanes he received in 1941 and 42, by the time he started receiving a lot of help from the US he had already won the war) is absurd. The Germans simply could not defeat the USSR but only continue expanding the occupied territory, requiring ever more men to control it.
By the time of an Anglo-Asian invasion through Iran the German army would have been over extended and very vulnerable and a Soviet army without American trucks, fuel, planes, explosives, steel, boots, food, trains, etc, would have been very weak. And the US being able to use all its pilots, troops, etc, and with a powerful RAF would have been able to finish off the Soviet and German airforces and then their armies.
The fact that the Angloes controlled most of the food supply (including South America, etc,) would have been decisive, since without food neither the German nor Soviet armies could have fought for a long time. Like Napoleon said, an army moves on its belly. There were 500 million Chinese and 378 million Indians (as well as Filipinos, Indonesians, etc,) in near starvation conditions, so it would not have been difficult to raise and train a powerful army with these people.
As for Japan attacking the USSR, that was the original Imperial army's plan (conditiond on Moscow falling to the Germans), which was scrapped only because Roosevelt embargoed oil and scrap iron because the Japs occupied French Indochina. Japan facing the US alone would have soon realized that the only possible way to save face and survive would be to comply with the Americans and perhaps even gain some territory from the USSR in doing so.
It made sense to help Finland with 4 million people and no armament, but helping an aggressor that started the war with 28,000 tanks and 21,000 planes, 170 million people, huge resources and an almost endless territory to conquer in lousy weather and with an incredibly bad road system, makes little sense. If Churchill and Roosevelt thought that the USSR was going to collapse despite its huge resources, a little help would not make any difference, it would probably be wasted anyway.
Even if the Germans had taken Moscow and Leningrad in 1941, as long as the Japs didn't attack the USSR, the Soviets could have continued to withdraw, extending the German supply lines and leaving more partisans behind their lines to disrupt their supplies. The idea that Stalin merited or could even use efficiently any help (he made better equipment than the British tanks and Hurricanes he received in 1941 and 42, by the time he started receiving a lot of help from the US he had already won the war) is absurd. The Germans simply could not defeat the USSR but only continue expanding the occupied territory, requiring ever more men to control it.
By the time of an Anglo-Asian invasion through Iran the German army would have been over extended and very vulnerable and a Soviet army without American trucks, fuel, planes, explosives, steel, boots, food, trains, etc, would have been very weak. And the US being able to use all its pilots, troops, etc, and with a powerful RAF would have been able to finish off the Soviet and German airforces and then their armies.
The fact that the Angloes controlled most of the food supply (including South America, etc,) would have been decisive, since without food neither the German nor Soviet armies could have fought for a long time. Like Napoleon said, an army moves on its belly. There were 500 million Chinese and 378 million Indians (as well as Filipinos, Indonesians, etc,) in near starvation conditions, so it would not have been difficult to raise and train a powerful army with these people.
As for Japan attacking the USSR, that was the original Imperial army's plan (conditiond on Moscow falling to the Germans), which was scrapped only because Roosevelt embargoed oil and scrap iron because the Japs occupied French Indochina. Japan facing the US alone would have soon realized that the only possible way to save face and survive would be to comply with the Americans and perhaps even gain some territory from the USSR in doing so.
Last edited:
As usual,Sam is making a fool of himself .
He writes :"a little help (from the West) would not make any difference.
:"by the time he received a lot of help from the US,he had already won the war"
AND :"without American trucks,boots
(always the myth of the boots),the Russian army would be very weak .
LeEnfield
Active member
By the end of WW2 I think that all the Allied troops thought that was that and they were going to go home, to start another war with one of your allies would have caused a hell of trouble for any one that started it. Now my father was called up in 1938 and I did not see him till early 1947. So he had been away for 9 years and if we went to war with Russia how many more years would that have added to his call up.
Also by then every one was exhausted from hard work in the factories and wanted some thing better than a few more years of the same.
Also by then every one was exhausted from hard work in the factories and wanted some thing better than a few more years of the same.
Der Alte
Banned
I knew very well that the Jews were persecuted; after all it was no big secret since it took place in full public.
I also knew about the concentration camps, but back then they were described as work camps. That Jews were worked to death, I was well aware of. But organized mass murder the size as it turned out to be I did not believe then. I had heard stories and rumors about what was happening in the east and about how many Jews they killed each day. I remember we talked with some Waffen SS men who had come home from the eastern front, and they talked with pride about how many Jews and bandits they had killed in one day (I can not remember how many) but I thought they were full of ****. You can not kill so many people at the same time, I thought back then - but it could be done, it is known now.
So yes, I knew that we killed Jews. But that the Holocaust was so extensive I could not imagine back then.
My opinion?
They were enemies of the state, enemies of the people and “Untermenschen” (sub-human) it was the lie that deliberately was encoded into my head throughout my childhood - how could I believe otherwise. I will not deny my responsibility in what happened. I was part of the system and hence also responsible.
It was inexcusable what we did back then and this responsibility I will always carry on my shoulders. Today I try to treat all people as equals but the feeling of guilt is still there.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
My two cents worth.
I have had a similar discussion over the years. I often heard from people “People knew what was going on, why didn't they speak out?”
I asked, “Would you in a despotic totalitarian state, be the first to disobey such orders or complain knowing full well you and your family ended up in a concentration camp?”
No answer.
Why didn't the Pope complain, or the various Western Governments? I also heard that train loads of Jewish prisoners destined for concentration camps were shipped through Switzerland. Why didn't the Swiss impound the train and free the prisoners? Today there are still billions worth of Jewish gold in Swiss banks stolen during WW2, gold that the Swiss are not in a hurry to return to their rightful owners. If anyone should hang their heads in shame, it's the Swiss and the Catholic church by their assisting top NAZI's to escape.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/train/
So in all honesty Opa, in my opinion you didn't have a choice, you weren't a willing victim, you were a victim of circumstance and the state you were forced to follow.
Last edited:
84RFK
Active member
What we often fail to aknowledge is the fact that concentration camps wasn't just a war-time phenomenon, in fact Dachau concentration camp was started in 1933 and contained mostly communists and criminals.
I suppose there was no distinct difference between communists and criminals in those days, or at least people was lead to believe that it wasn't.
Now, if we consider the concentration camp/labour camp system as well incorporated, the camp prisoners deemed criminal/enemy of the state, and the Jews declared criminal or enemies of the state halfway through that process.....would anyone raise an eyebrow if the Jews was sendt to concentration camps?
And if we face our own mirror reflection, can we say for sure that we are any better?
We all know what happened on Balkan during the end of the last century, the Serbian, Croat, and Bosnian people wasn't considered primitive and brutal savages prior to that...
There's an ongoing conflict in the Middle-East, and both sides claim that the other is trying to exterminate them, violation of human rights is standard procedure.
Guantanamo.....need I say more?
My country have a bleak history regarding the treatment of gypsies, travellers, and mentally deranged people, up into the late 1950's at least, and that was well beyond the point when we all knew what happened in the German concentration camps.
And still we kept on doing it.
Ladies and gentlemen, given the specific circumstances and a totally different setting than the one we live in, would we be any better than the nazi's?
I suppose there was no distinct difference between communists and criminals in those days, or at least people was lead to believe that it wasn't.
Now, if we consider the concentration camp/labour camp system as well incorporated, the camp prisoners deemed criminal/enemy of the state, and the Jews declared criminal or enemies of the state halfway through that process.....would anyone raise an eyebrow if the Jews was sendt to concentration camps?
And if we face our own mirror reflection, can we say for sure that we are any better?
We all know what happened on Balkan during the end of the last century, the Serbian, Croat, and Bosnian people wasn't considered primitive and brutal savages prior to that...
There's an ongoing conflict in the Middle-East, and both sides claim that the other is trying to exterminate them, violation of human rights is standard procedure.
Guantanamo.....need I say more?
My country have a bleak history regarding the treatment of gypsies, travellers, and mentally deranged people, up into the late 1950's at least, and that was well beyond the point when we all knew what happened in the German concentration camps.
And still we kept on doing it.
Ladies and gentlemen, given the specific circumstances and a totally different setting than the one we live in, would we be any better than the nazi's?
samneanderthal
Active member
This will sound extremely negative, but is it a worse crime to kill 65 million people in WW II or to allow 7 billion people to reproduce at will, so that the poorest, most ignorant people have billions of starving children?
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
What this shows is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, personally I would like to think we would be better and had learnt from the past the sad reality is though that we haven't.
With regards to the holocaust specifically I don't believe Western nations have a shared responsibility in this, it is one German must carry pretty much alone but I do believe it is time they stopped apologising every 5 minutes for it and moved on, it is possible to acknowledge a wrong without letting it over ride a national identity.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
What surprises me is that few fail to mention the some 30 million killed under Stalin's rule, many of them killed in failed agricultural experiments and famine before WW ll, or the past and on going mass murders over looked in 3rd world nations in Africa.
You can fight your biology, but you will always lose, people are creatures of habit, greed and lust for power will always wind their way into to human affairs because sadly I am begining to believe we are instinctivly driven to pursue such things.
I strongly object to the mentioning of Guantanamo in a thread about concentration camps :at Guantanamo,nobody was beaten to death,nobody was tortured,nobody was murdered,etc.And,those who were at Guantanamo,mostlt deserved to be there .