WW2 [split]

[skunk]

Please remember if it wasnt for the world police you would be speaking german or russian. Someone has to do it and it seems we are the only ones while the world watches blind to the consequences. Just like they did with a fanatic named Hitler. World police were doing it cause no one else will.:cool:Umm, whaaat???

[Dont Hurt Me]

Umm, whaaat???Did i stutter?

[skunk]

:rolleyes: Did i stutter?No, you just posted some total bollocks.

[Dont Hurt Me]

:rolleyes: No, you just posted some total bollocks.If anyone should know about bailouts it should be you and your country, dont you know anything about WW2???

[skunk]

If anyone should know about bailouts it should be you and your country, dont you know anything about WW2???Enough to know that your great country was not the only one - or the first - to resist Hitler.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Enough to know that your great country was not the only one - or the first - to resist Hitler.
But who came running to your rescue? Lets not go into WW2 history this is about Iran building the bomb. The same Iran who wants to wipe off the map Israel, same one who is ruled by the Koran, same one who has a president that says millions werent killed by another fanatic named Hitler.

[skunk]

But who came running to your rescue?Running?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Running?
you got me, perhaps i should say walking.:D

[mpw]

Someone has to play world police otherwise the next Hitler,Saddam,or whoever may get a hold of this kind of thing. Duh. Please remember if it wasnt for the world police you would be speaking german or russian. Someone has to do it and it seems we are the only ones while the world watches blind to the consequences. Just like they did with a fanatic named Hitler. World police were doing it cause no one else will.:cool:
If its world police you're after the US should leave it to the UN. They didn't with Iraq and without that *******-up I doubt Iran wouldn't be as ready to proceed as they are now.

As for WWII and trusting the US to keep weapons out of the hands of the next Hitler, what about the last one? America re-armed Germany in preparation for WWII. Over half of the tanks built for the German army in '39-'40 were supplied by GM/Ford.

Hitler came to power in the '30s with funding from various businessmen who were happy to support him and to profit from the rearmament program in the knowledge that Hitler was preparing an offensive force not just a defensive one. One of those men who supported, funded and profited from Hitler's rise to power was an American who used the profits to bankroll his son's entry into the oils business, Prescott Bush father to George Bush and granddaddy to GW.

[Ugg]

But who came running to your rescue?

Stalin won the war, the US just helped him out a little.

[groovebuster]

Please remember if it wasnt for the world police you would be speaking german or russian.

Hey... German is really a nice language! :cool:

Someone has to do it and it seems we are the only ones while the world watches blind to the consequences. Just like they did with a fanatic named Hitler. World police were doing it cause no one else will.:cool:

I might add, that Germany actually already lost the war when the US took action in WWII. Hitler was stupid enough to fight at too many fronts at a time and wasting his resources by stupid decisions.

The US administration had just one worry... if Stalin would have run over Germany, he probably would not have stopped at the Rhine river. France would have been too weakened by the war to resist the new liberators. Let alone Spain. Middle and Western Europe became the most important trade partner for the US after WWI. The political tensions in Europe and the war made the US rich and the world power it is today. If they wouldn't have stopped the russian army as soon as possible, the only trade partner left would have been the UK. The US economy would have dived for a long time to come.

So they major reason for intervening was not to lose almost whole Europe to Communism. The US army advanced to the east as fast as possible, they met the russian troops in Strehla which is at the river Elbe and deep in the territory of the later German Democratic Republic. The west allies traded in the parts west of the Elbe (which later belonged to the GDR) for the western part of Berlin. But that's another story...

Once again the reason for the US to enter combat in WWII was purely economical. They didn't give a **** about the Holocaust as long as they made tons of dollars with the war... This is fact. But I know that many people in the US deny it. I wonder when the name calling starts again which I experienced already so many times when talking about this subject to North Americans... ;)

http://www.bmw-einzylinder.de/forum/Smileys/my/flowers2.gif

groovebuster

[skunk]

If they wouldn't have stopped the russian army as soon as possible, the only trade partner left would have been the UK. The US economy would have dived for a long time to come.

So they major reason for intervening was not to lose almost whole Europe to Communism. The US army advanced to the east as fast as possible, they met the russian troops in Strehla which is at the river Elbe and deep in the territory of the later German Democratic Republic. The west allies traded in the parts west of the Elbe (which later belonged to the GDR) for the western part of Berlin. But that's another story...

Once again the reason for the US to enter combat in WWII was purely economical. They didn't give a **** about the Holocaust as long as they made tons of dollars with the war... This is fact. But I know that many people in the US deny it. I wonder when the name calling starts again which I experienced already so many times when talking about this subject to North Americans... ;)Good post. Needs to be said.

[Stella]

Someone has to play world police otherwise the next Hitler,Saddam,or whoever may get a hold of this kind of thing. Duh. Please remember if it wasnt for the world police you would be speaking german or russian. Someone has to do it and it seems we are the only ones while the world watches blind to the consequences. Just like they did with a fanatic named Hitler. World police were doing it cause no one else will.:cool:

Nice troll...

[skunk]

Let's roll, "Team America"!

[Airforce]

Hey... German is really a nice language! :cool:



I might add, that Germany actually already lost the war when the US took action in WWII. Hitler was stupid enough to fight at too many fronts at a time and wasting his resources by stupid decisions.

The US administration had just one worry... if Stalin would have run over Germany, he probably would not have stopped at the Rhine river. France would have been too weakened by the war to resist the new liberators. Let alone Spain. Middle and Western Europe became the most important trade partner for the US after WWI. The political tensions in Europe and the war made the US rich and the world power it is today. If they wouldn't have stopped the russian army as soon as possible, the only trade partner left would have been the UK. The US economy would have dived for a long time to come.

So they major reason for intervening was not to lose almost whole Europe to Communism. The US army advanced to the east as fast as possible, they met the russian troops in Strehla which is at the river Elbe and deep in the territory of the later German Democratic Republic. The west allies traded in the parts west of the Elbe (which later belonged to the GDR) for the western part of Berlin. But that's another story...

Once again the reason for the US to enter combat in WWII was purely economical. They didn't give a **** about the Holocaust as long as they made tons of dollars with the war... This is fact. But I know that many people in the US deny it. I wonder when the name calling starts again which I experienced already so many times when talking about this subject to North Americans... ;)

http://www.bmw-einzylinder.de/forum/Smileys/my/flowers2.gif

groovebuster

The US entered WWII because it was attacked, not because of economical reason That's a fact. We were pretty much neutral minus some assistance until 1941, when Pearl Harbor was attacked. You probably get called names because you don't know your facts and present yourself as if you do ;)

[Dont Hurt Me]

Boy i have never heard such spin & lies put on WW2,Germany had lost the war in 41 ?? Lies and spin and BS. I guess now that all those grandpas are dead who fought it now you guys can make up crap like the US wanted war for making profits. Or ignore the fact that it was the US 3rd Army that marched across Germany. You all should be ashamed of your ignorant selfs. Millions fought and died to prevent Hitler from taking over, just as they did to prevent Japan from taking over Asia and then to prevent another Tyrant who killed millions of his own people named Stalin from taking over. Well you forget history and the next thing you know we will all be doing it again.

Millions of American died for Europe's crap and to have it spun as making profits is lowest of lows. Perhaps we should have let Germany take over Europe. Next thing you will hear is France won the war and if it was for profit then how come the U.S forgave all that debt from so many countries? selective memory.

[skunk]

the fact that it was the US 3rd Army that marched across Germany.All by itself? Gosh, I never knew that.
Millions fought and died to prevent Hitler from taking over, just as they did to prevent Japan from taking over Asia and then to prevent another Tyrant who killed millions of his own people named Stalin from taking over.Those millions were not all American citizens. As for the "millions" who died fighting Stalin...

[groovebuster]

The US entered WWII because it was attacked, not because of economical reason That's a fact. We were pretty much neutral minus some assistance until 1941, when Pearl Harbor was attacked. You probably get called names because you don't know your facts and present yourself as if you do ;)
Here we go... :rolleyes:

Germany declared war on the USA on December 11 1941 after Pearl Harbour, not the other way around... Hitler hoped that Japan would help him to fight against the Soviet Union, but they didn't. Officially he was on war with the US, but not a lot happened for a few years to come, except some support for the other nations...

The invasion of Normandy (D-Day) took place June 6 1944...

The Holocaust started way before 1941. The US intelligence knew about it but nothing happened. Until 1941 the US were isolating from what was going on in Europe.

Dude, I know my facts. Sorry, that I have to disappoint you... Maybe you should do some reading before instead...

groovebuster

[Stella]

States knew in advance it would be attacked at Perl Harbour in advance... but the price of warning its miltary would be the knowledge that the allies had cracked a Code. The states were blockading Japanese shipping , especially oil.

The states did make large amounts of profit off the 2nd world war - that is an absolute fact. However, I'm not saying the right or wrongs about that.

However, the fact is the u.s did not win the second world war, there were other countries involved and the states could never have won the war if it went alone. By the time the states had entered the second world war the course of the war had changed - Britain and its allies began to have the upper hand. Had the states not entered the war, the 2nd world war would have probably lasted a few more years.

Again, war in Japan - other countries were involved not just the states.

Perl harbour was the excuse Truman ( was that the president ) needed to help Britain... before that he couldn't. He wanted to, but could not. ( like the previous poster said ).

As for facts, again, nice troll - your first posting.

Boy i have never heard such spin & lies put on WW2,Germany had lost the war in 41 ?? Lies and spin and BS. I guess now that all those grandpas are dead who fought it now you guys can make up crap like the US wanted war for making profits. Or ignore the fact that it was the US 3rd Army that marched across Germany. You all should be ashamed of your ignorant selfs. Millions fought and died to prevent Hitler from taking over, just as they did to prevent Japan from taking over Asia and then to prevent another Tyrant who killed millions of his own people named Stalin from taking over. Well you forget history and the next thing you know we will all be doing it again.

Millions of American died for Europe's crap and to have it spun as making profits is lowest of lows. Perhaps we should have let Germany take over Europe. Next thing you will hear is France won the war and if it was for profit then how come the U.S forgave all that debt from so many countries? selective memory.

[skunk]

Truman ( was that the president )Roosevelt, actually, at that point.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Stella your a troll, now doesnt that sound stupid or childlike ? Stella your history of WW2 with statements like Briton had the upper hand? LOL they had almost lost the war by 41 except hitler changed course and started to bomb cities. Briton had no upperhand they were hanging on by a thread. And no it wasnt Truman:rolleyes: LOL You have been sipping someones koolaid:) I wonder why we at the signings at the end of the war since we had so "little" to do with it.LOL This generation is perfect pickings for the next Hitler,Stalin or Mussolini. Perfect.

[Airforce]

Here we go... :rolleyes:

Germany declared war on the USA on December 11 1941 after Pearl Harbour, not the other way around... Hitler hoped that Japan would help him to fight against the Soviet Union, but they didn't. Officially he was on war with the US, but not a lot happened for a few years to come, except some support for the other nations...

The invasion of Normandy (D-Day) took place June 6 1944...

The Holocaust started way before 1941. The US intelligence knew about it but nothing happened. Until 1941 the US were isolating from what was going on in Europe.

Dude, I know my facts. Sorry, that I have to disappoint you... Maybe you should do some reading before instead...

groovebuster

....

You said:
Once again the reason for the US to enter combat in WWII was purely economical.

and you are wrong, We entered World War II because we were attacked. I don't know what history books you read, but you might want to throw them out.

[groovebuster]

Boy i have never heard such spin & lies put on WW2,Germany had lost the war in 41 ?? Lies and spin and BS.
Why so emotional? That you don't like the truth doesn't mean it isn't the truth. I find the selective perception of some people really astonishing. Maybe you should forget about your cave-man patriotism for a second and accept that also the USA are not always doing everything right. In a war no side is only good or bad. Also the USA did a lot of BS during WWII.

I guess now that all those grandpas are dead who fought it now you guys can make up crap like the US wanted war for making profits.
They didn't want it, but they didn't mind it as long as it filled their pockets without being affected too much...

Or ignore the fact that it was the US 3rd Army that marched across Germany.
It was indeed. I don't see any contradiction to what I said before...

You all should be ashamed of your ignorant selfs. Millions fought and died to prevent Hitler from taking over, just as they did to prevent Japan from taking over Asia and then to prevent another Tyrant who killed millions of his own people named Stalin from taking over. Well you forget history and the next thing you know we will all be doing it again.
I don't think so! My grand-father died in Russia during WWII, fighting a war he didn't want, for a man and an ideology he hated. Instead you should be ashamed of denying any wrong-doing of the US during WWII.

Millions of American died for Europe's crap and to have it spun as making profits is lowest of lows.
In the first few years of the war the US made good money with the war. Like it or not! Maybe you should do some reading about the US companies which made huge profits even by trading with Germany...

This here would be a good start: http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

Perhaps we should have let Germany take over Europe. Next thing you will hear is France won the war and if it was for profit then how come the U.S forgave all that debt from so many countries? selective memory.
Again... Germany could never have won the war anyway. In 1942 the tides were turning against the german army. From then it was only a question of time. And at the end a race who would get more of the big pie Europe... The Soviet Union or the USA.

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

....
and you are wrong, We entered World War II because we were attacked. I don't know what history books you read, but you might want to throw them out.
Again... Germany declared war on the USA after Peral Harbour! Not the other way around. Please don't tell me that I have to provide you with a source for a simple fact like this...

Maybe my history books are better than yours. You should read some that were not written in the US! ;)

groovebuster

[Ugg]

....

You said:


and you are wrong, We entered World War II because we were attacked. I don't know what history books you read, but you might want to throw them out.

Roosevelt was looking for a way to grow the economy, his Lend-Lease program was his first step in that process. Also, there was a great deal of sympathy towards Hitler and Mussolini on the part of the business community because fascism gave them a lot more power. Bush's grandfather was one of those who continued to deal with the Nazis long after it was illegal to do so. The Lend-Lease program was not popular in Congress nor with the American people, but once they realized it was creating jobs, the opposition died down.

[Airforce]

Again... Germany declared war on the USA after Peral Harbour! Not the other way around. Please don't tell me that I have to provide you with a source for a simple fact like this...

Maybe my history books are better than yours. You should read some that were not written in the US! ;)

groovebuster

Japan...JAPAN got us into World War II.

[freeny]

Again... Germany declared war on the USA after Peral Harbour! Not the other way around. Please don't tell me that I have to provide you with a source for a simple fact like this...

Maybe my history books are better than yours. You should read some that were not written in the US! ;)

groovebuster
WOW!:eek:
This whole anti American thing is really getting a bit surreal. Now from the Germans??? WTF?

This goes to show you that this theory is correct;
Put a bunch of people in a room for a week. They may not all be able to like each other, but they will all find someone to hate.

Primative human nature.

[Stella]

Stella your a troll, now doesnt that sound stupid or childlike ? Stella your history of WW2 with statements like Briton had the upper hand? LOL they had almost lost the war by 41 except hitler changed course and started to bomb cities. Briton had no upperhand they were hanging on by a thread. And no it wasnt Truman:rolleyes: LOL You have been sipping someones koolaid:) I wonder why we at the signings at the end of the war since we had so "little" to do with it.LOL This generation is perfect pickings for the next Hitler,Stalin or Mussolini. Perfect.

- Britain survived the Battle of Britain et al and started having successes - such as in Africa. The war had started to turn in Britain and it's allies favour.

- And when it comes to Truman - I wasn't sure so put - ( is that the president ) - it was made clear I wasn't sure... I'm sorry if that was a problem for you.

That you skunk for pointing out the correct president at the time :-)

[groovebuster]

Japan...JAPAN got us into World War II.
Correct! But the USA were not on war with Germany after Pearl Harbour, it was only with Japan. It was Germany that declared war on the USA December 11 1941 because Hitler thought that Japan might would help out in Russia in return. But they didn't...

Even though Germany and Japan were allies, I hope you are able to make the distinction between the combats going on in Europe and the things going on in Asia...

So your statement is correct in general, but doesn't contradict my statement.

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

WOW!:eek:
This whole anti American thing is really getting a bit surreal. Now from the Germans???
I am not anti american, I am anti ignorance...

E.g. if you tell me that Germany did the Holocaust, I don't consider you anti German. It is a fact... But maybe both sides should deal with the facts to the same extent. Don't you think?

groovebuster

[Stella]

For timelines and events in the second world war, I suggest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm

Scroll down and you will see
"Timeline: Other World War II stories"

[Airforce]

Correct! But the USA were not on war with Germany after Pearl Harbour, it was only with Japan. It was Germany that declared war on the USA December 11 1941 because Hitler thought that Japan might would help out in Russia in return. But they didn't...

Even though Germany and Japan were allies, I hope you are able to make the distinction between the combats going on in Europe and the things going on in Asia...

So your statement is correct in general, but doesn't contradict my statement.

groovebuster

Yes, it does. Our major presence in World War II started when Pearl Harbor was attacked. You said it was based solely on economical reasons, which you are wrong.

[freeny]

As far as I can remember, I dont think Germans are allowed to have an army or debate ww2 on web forums?

[freeny]

Yes, it does. Our major presence in World War II started when Pearl Harbor was attacked. You said it was based solely on economical reasons, which you are wrong.
Correct. The US didnt start getting into wars for profit until the 70's. Even Viet Nam was started to keep back communism. After that it was all about the $$$.;)

[Ugg]

As far as I can remember, I dont think Germans are allowed to have an army or debate ww2 on web forums?

If you want to contribute, then do so, personal attacks are not allowed on this board.

Germany has an army and quite a few of their soldiers are in Afghanistan as we speak. As for your second statement, I've never heard anything so racist in my life. Either contribute or leave.

[Stella]

As far as I can remember, I dont think Germans are allowed to have an army or debate ww2 on web forums?

:rolleyes:

Sad.

-------------

I thought this thread was about Iran....! :p

[Ugg]

Correct. The US didnt start getting into wars for profit until the 70's. Even Viet Nam was started to keep back communism. After that it was all about the $$$.;)

The main reason for Roosevelts Lend-Lease program was employment for Americans. It's a matter of history, not opinion. It's true the American Military-Industrial machine came into being during WWII, but Roosevelt and Congress weren't stupid, putting people to work was very important to them. The Marshall Plan would never have happened had the US business community not pushed for it. It was one of the bigggest federal corporate handouts in the history of the US.

[pseudobrit]

States knew in advance it would be attacked at Perl Harbour in advance... but the price of warning its miltary would be the knowledge that the allies had cracked a Code.

AFAIK, that's all urban legend stuff. I'd like to see a reputable link.

[groovebuster]

Yes, it does. Our major presence in World War II started when Pearl Harbor was attacked. You said it was based solely on economical reasons, which you are wrong.
I see... I wonder with who the US would have traded with, if whole Europe would have been part of the Soviet Union... :p

I don't think this discussion leads to anything... like always. :rolleyes:

And I am really not up to that whole "mine is bigger than yours" game. Try to read some more (and also neutral) sources about the things that were going on in the old days and you will be stunned about all the things that happened behind the curtains and which are not in the official history books used in school, approved by the government officials...

All sides did their share of bad things, the Germans as well as the allies, including the US, UK, France and all the others...

groovebuster

[freeny]

If you want to contribute, then do so, personal attacks are not allowed on this board.

Germany has an army and quite a few of their soldiers are in Afghanistan as we speak. As for your second statement, I've never heard anything so racist in my life. Either contribute or leave.
WOW! perhaps I should make more use of the emoticons?:) If you didnt see the humor in that I guess you are all wound a little too tight:)
I was just trying to lighten things up here seeing it was starting to become a "my country is better than yours" battle.:) I assumed the outlandishness of the comment would have put it in the correct context:)
So on that I will make my exit and I hope you all make nice nice in the end:) :)

BTW, this was a subtle anicdote to Germany's agreement to the Treaty of Versilles;
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/versa4.html
Just in case you didnt "get it":)

[groovebuster]

The Marshall Plan would never have happened had the US business community not pushed for it. It was one of the bigggest federal corporate handouts in the history of the US.
I might add that before the Marshall plan the Morgenthau plan was considered for post-war Germany, which fortunately wasn't realized...

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

BTW, this was a subtle anicdote to Germany's agreement to the Treaty of Versiles;
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/versa4.html
Just in case you didnt "get it":)
Maybe a little bit too subtile... On a forum you can only read what the other person is writing. Neither you see the face nor you hear the intonation like in a face to face conversation. In discussions like this that kind of humor can be misunderstood easily regardind the serious context...

But interesting that you are referencing the treaty, since it was one of the reasons that made way for the Nazis to gain power in Germany... The manifested political and economical isolation of Germany as the center-point of Europe was backfiring on the allies of WWI. From an extreme point of view Nazi-Germany and WWII were home-made by the allies of WWI...

groovebuster

[Ugg]

I might add that before the Marshall plan the Morgenthau plan was considered for post-war Germany, which fortunately wasn't realized...

groovebuster

Yep, it was good for everyone that it didn't happen. It wasn't until the USSR started to flex its muscle in eastern Europe that Morgenthau along with the French and the Uk began to back off from a partitioned and emasculated Germany. Fortunately, Lucius Clay amongst others realized that any plan for an energized Europe had to include an energized Germany. Had Stalin been more circumspect in his push to rule Europe, it's quite possible that the European economy would have collapsed.

What amazes me most is that had the Morgenthau plan been implemented, it would have simply been a much harsher repeat of the Treaty of Versailles. Maybe they were too close to WWI at that point to realize that Hitler's rise to power was a direct result of the burden of reparations.

The US did a lot of good in post war Europe but much of that good was a direct result of the threat of communism not an innate desire to help Europe. Bretton Woods and the Marshall Plan were mostly self-serving but helped transform western European economies. One can only speculate about how eastern Europe would have developed if the Czechs hadn't refused Marshall Plan aid.

[Stella]

If your joking, you should *ABSOLUTELY* use emoticons - especially in this Politics group...

WOW! perhaps I should make more use of the emoticons?:)

Post War Germany, in Europe, has been an asset, and the EU today would be less of an organisation without them. Their industry has been good, for examples, Car industry ( barring their recent economic problems, and that has a great deal to do with reunionification - spelling ).

Yep, it was good for everyone that it didn't happen. It wasn't until the USSR started to flex its muscle in eastern Europe that Morgenthau along with the French and the Uk began to back off from a partitioned and emasculated Germany. Fortunately, Lucius Clay amongst others realized that any plan for an energized Europe had to include an energized Germany. Had Stalin been more circumspect in his push to rule Europe, it's quite possible that the European economy would have collapsed.

What amazes me most is that had the Morgenthau plan been implemented, it would have simply been a much harsher repeat of the Treaty of Versailles. Maybe they were too close to WWI at that point to realize that Hitler's rise to power was a direct result of the burden of reparations.

The US did a lot of good in post war Europe but much of that good was a direct result of the threat of communism not an innate desire to help Europe. Bretton Woods and the Marshall Plan were mostly self-serving but helped transform western European economies. One can only speculate about how eastern Europe would have developed if the Czechs hadn't refused Marshall Plan aid.

[MarkCollette]

I see everyone arguing "why" the USA entered WW2. I think we have to realise that there are many factions in any nation, each needing its own reason to go to war. You have to realise that, given corruption, any government is not necessarily acting for its people, but mostly in the interests of the monied elite. Of course, being a democracy moderates that, and puts the people in charge, but the people can be swayed via propaganda.

It's known that certain industrialists in the USA were toying with Fascism, just like their counterparts in the UK, France, etc. They were selling as much war material to Germany as possible. Of course, they profitted too by selling war materials to the USA, playing it both ways. Eventually this was made illegal, so the European subsiduaries split off.

The executive, FDR, was in favour of going to war, knowing what Germany was planning, since Hitler was kind enough to warn everyone by writing Mein Kampf. After the first few countries fell, there was no doubting it. Here the motivations are probably many-fold. Germany taking dominance over Europe would make it a threat militarily, economically, and also would become a greater competitor in control of the rest of the world. But, FDR knew he couldn't sell a war to the people, so that had to be put on hold. He sold tonnes of war materials to the UK, via Canada. This also made them a lot of money. Was this just for economic gain? Well, things aren't that simple, people have multiple motivations for doing things.

The American people want to believe their doing the right thing. Heck, studies show that most humans need to feel that feeling. It's just that due to their societal and religious values, what tends to appeal to them is to feel like saviours, or to feel they're fighting a defensive war; a bit of righteous indignation. So, you show some pictures of little kids bleeding in a ditch to get all the bleeding heart do-gooders on board. You show how the enemy is threatening them to get the more moderate people on board. The hawks are probably already chomping on the bit :)

So, in a way, everyone gets to feel right about their reasons for going to war, because those were their reasons.

But, I'm one of those people who tends to follow the money. See how the media pushes the people into doing the bidding of the rich and powerful. And those guys did not have altruistic reasons. In fact, they had a history of making the situation worse.

Also, what probably makes everyone want to minimise the American contribution, is the fact that it was a team effort, but the Americans talk like the last goal was the winning one. An informed, or even tactful person would mention that that last goal would mean nothing without the first goals. A jerk would laud it over their own team for decades on memorium.

Finally, there's probably a retro-diminuation effect in play, where the more someone screws up in recent times, the more their past behaviours are questionned. Of course recent event have no bearing on past events, so in some way that's quite illogical. But, many events are open to interpretation, so it could lead to reinterpretation.

So, I guess, what's done is done. My eyes are open, but I still would like to give credit where it's due. But it'd help if people in the present were less like dicks.

[riciad]

Millions of American died for Europe's crap and to have it spun as making profits is lowest of lows.

Millions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country

[takao]

Millions of American died for Europe's crap and to have it spun as making profits is lowest of lows.

~450k != "millions"

the war was decided in the east ... but it's the sum of the smaller things ... in the end we can say it could have turned out a lot worse

edit: that's what i get for reading something different while posting..

[zimv20]

the war was decided in the east
i took a WWII history class in college, and that's how my professor (a former officer in the prussian army) described it. we examined hitler's insistence, over his generals, to push 3 main fronts into russia. each stalled out in the harsh winter and that's what broke the back of the german army. that and the russian resistance, of course.

had hitler opted to keep russia as an ally, and concentrate his forces on taking over the UK, who knows what would have happened? could the US had helped if it no longer had the UK available as a staging ground? would d-day have been launched from africa instead?

or would truman have let loose a few nukes in the european theater, as well?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Ok it was hundreds of thousands instead of million, i misspoke big deal and about that lend lease we ended up forgiving those debts from countries like Russia & China and others so in the end the U.S. tax payer got shafted with the bill just as today the US taxpayer gets screwed for the like of Cheneys Haliburton. I stand by my statement without US intervention all you european tree huggers would be saying Heil Hitler or speaking Russian. Good thing Hitler tried to run the war and didnt just let his generals do it. Good thing indeed.

It would be very interesting to see what the U.S got back if anything from all those lend lease deals. In the end iam sure like allways the U.S. taxpayer paid for it all.

[Queso]

Stella your a troll, now doesnt that sound stupid or childlike ? Stella your history of WW2 with statements like Briton had the upper hand? LOL they had almost lost the war by 41 except hitler changed course and started to bomb cities. Briton had no upperhand they were hanging on by a thread. And no it wasnt Truman:rolleyes: LOL You have been sipping someones koolaid:) I wonder why we at the signings at the end of the war since we had so "little" to do with it.LOL This generation is perfect pickings for the next Hitler,Stalin or Mussolini. Perfect.

Hitler gave up on the idea of invading the UK after the Battle of Britain in 1940. The Royal Navy had way too much firepower for Germany to overcome unless they could attack the ships from the air. The Battle of Britain was about knocking out the Royal Air Force and leaving the fleet exposed. Luckily we had radar and the Nazis didn't, so we beat the Luftwaffe back. By the next time Germany had enough planes to try again, Britain had introduced the faster and far more manouveurable Spitfire fighter in large numbers. Facing superior Air Force opposition again, Hitler backed off the Luftwaffe and resorted to developing missile technology.

BTW, don't for one second think that the British don't appreciate American help during WW2. We just get annoyed when some of you make out that America won the war, which is a major rewrite of history and completely devalues all the other countries whose forces contributed to victory.

[Dont Hurt Me]

i took a WWII history class in college, and that's how my professor (a former officer in the prussian army) described it. we examined hitler's insistence, over his generals, to push 3 main fronts into russia. each stalled out in the harsh winter and that's what broke the back of the german army. that and the russian resistance, of course.

had hitler opted to keep russia as an ally, and concentrate his forces on taking over the UK, who knows what would have happened? could the US had helped if it no longer had the UK available as a staging ground? would d-day have been launched from africa instead?

or would truman have let loose a few nukes in the european theater, as well?Without England this war was over, there wasnt anywhere to put supplies on the ground except maybe in Africa. Thats why one of the biggest mistakes of the war by Hitler was the bombing of cities instead of military targets. Stupid indeed because he let his emotions make that decision and that saved Briton. Another stupid thing was attacking the russians, again stupid as was not changing the codes. We were reading everything they were doing, we knew where the german subs were going and all the plans. Amazing it still took so long to defeat Germany even with this. Hitler made some poor decisions. If he would have just been more careful and took his time all of Europe would be German. They had the Jet fighters, the Missiles and a Nuke program that given time could have taken over the world. OH well thank goodness Berlin was bombed by accident by the RAF and that got the murdering bastard Hitler to start bombing English cities. One of his biggest mistakes. England was on its knees and he didnt realize it:D

[zimv20]

They had the Jet fighters, the Missiles and a Nuke program that given time could have taken over the world.
according to this excellent NOVA program (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hydro/), germany was nowhere near having a nuke. they made some critical mistakes in some early decisions and were apparently still trudging down the wrong path when the war ended.

from this NOVA page (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hydro/close.html):

How close were the Nazis to developing an atomic bomb? The truth is that National Socialist Germany could not possibly have built a weapon like the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. This was not because the country lacked the scientists, resources, or will, but rather because its leaders did not really try.

They were certainly trying to win the war. And they were willing to devote huge amounts of resources to building rockets, jet planes, and other forms of deadly and sometimes exotic forms of military technology. So why not the atomic bomb? Nazi Germany, it turns out, made other choices and simply ran out of time.

[...]

By the very end of the war, the Germans had progressed from horizontal and spherical layer designs to three-dimensional lattices of uranium cubes immersed in heavy water. They had also developed a nuclear reactor design that almost, but not quite, achieved a controlled and sustained nuclear fission chain reaction. During the last months of the war, a small group of scientists working in secret under Diebner and with the strong support of the physicist Walther Gerlach, who was by that time head of the uranium project, built and tested a nuclear device.

At best this would have been far less destructive than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Rather it is an example of scientists trying to make any sort of weapon they could in order to help stave off defeat. No one knows the exact form of the device tested. But apparently the German scientists had designed it to use chemical high explosives configured in a hollow shell in order to provoke both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion reactions. It is not clear whether this test generated nuclear reactions, but it does appear as if this is what the scientists had intended to occur.

[Dont Hurt Me]

My point is they had the missiles to fly those nukes and given a few more years they might have gotton it. Good thing Germans like Einstein and others fled the country when they saw what the jerk Hitler was doing.

[Stella]

Without the UK ( England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland )... not just England... :-) Sorry to get semantical! It irritates me when people refer the UK as just London, as if they think London is a country - nope, just a small part. Likewise, everyone from the UK has to be from England, which obviously isn't that case. Anyway, I digress.

Why did it take so long to defeat Germany - because Germany were very powerful, they had been gearing up militarily for several years before the start of the 2nd World War.

If Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, and you, say, Britain would have been in a much tougher position. The British + allied army had already been defeated at Dunkirk. The British Channel was the UK's saving grace... without the channel, Germany would have easily matched and taken the country.

Germany had the V2 rocket, so they were on the way to Jets... in fact, a lot of German scientists were used to create Jets, after the war.

No country has managed to successfully invade Russia...

Without England this war was over, there wasnt anywhere to put supplies on the ground except maybe in Africa. Thats why one of the biggest mistakes of the war by Hitler was the bombing of cities instead of military targets. Stupid indeed because he let his emotions make that decision and that saved Briton. Another stupid thing was attacking the russians, again stupid as was not changing the codes. We were reading everything they were doing, we knew where the german subs were going and all the plans. Amazing it still took so long to defeat Germany even with this. Hitler made some poor decisions. If he would have just been more careful and took his time all of Europe would be German. They had the Jet fighters, the Missiles and a Nuke program that given time could have taken over the world. OH well thank goodness Berlin was bombed by accident by the RAF and that got the murdering bastard Hitler to start bombing English cities. One of his biggest mistakes. England was on its knees and he didnt realize it:D

[blackfox]

While I can hardly comment definitively on the motives and nature of WWII, to those who think that the Allies fought just for altruism and freedom, I would remind you of Poland.

A brave and noble Nation which fought a heroic battle against overwhelming odds - and were royally screwed by the West.

[miloblithe]

No country has managed to successfully invade Russia...

Mongolia conquered Russia.

[Dont Hurt Me]

While I can hardly comment definitively on the motives and nature of WWII, to those who think that the Allies fought just for altruism and freedom, I would remind you of Poland.

A brave and noble Nation which fought a heroic battle against overwhelming odds - and were royally screwed by the West.
I agree with you, it sickening to think they just defeated Germany only to hand over all those countries to the Commies.

[Queso]

The British Channel was the UK's saving grace... without the channel, Germany would have easily matched and taken the country.


The English Channel (or La Manche if you prefer, but never the British Channel) was indeed our saving grace. The UK had virtually no army and had Hitler had a land bridge to attack, Great Britain would have quickly been overrun. But as I've already posted, the Royal Navy greatly outnumbered and outclassed the German fleet, so there was a counterbalance. Even with the U-boats and great battleships like the Bismarck, the Germans could not break British Naval power without first achieving air superiority. This they failed to do.

[skunk]

Mongolia conquered Russia.So did a small tribe of Vikings - the Rus. Hence the name.

[miloblithe]

So did a small tribe of Vikings - the Rus. Hence the name.

Zang! You got me. Although technically I'm not sure that counts since by definition the Varangians weren't conquering Russia.

[skunk]

I agree with you, it sickening to think they just defeated Germany only to hand over all those countries to the Commies.You are so wrong. They did not liberate eastern Europe. The "Commies" did. You may not know this, but in Russia, WW2 is known as The Great Patriotic War. Not much acknowledgement of the late and almost superfluous US contribution. As others have said above, the Marshall Plan was a huge handout to secure a market for US exports, and lay the groundwork for postwar US economic domination.
It would be very interesting to see what the U.S got back if anything from all those lend lease deals. In the end iam sure like allways the U.S. taxpayer paid for it all.How about 185 billion dollars' worth of UK holdings in the US economy, and 23 bases in the Caribbean, for starters.

[Stella]

Mongolia conquered Russia.

Thanks!

:-)

[Stella]

Seems like I've been out of the UK for too long ( but I wouldn't want to live there again). Should have remembered that its called the "English Channel" LOL.
The English Channel (or La Manche if you prefer, but never the British Channel) was indeed our saving grace

[blackfox]

You are so wrong. They did not liberate eastern Europe. The "Commies" did. You may not know this, but in Russia, WW2 is known as The Great Patriotic War. Not much acknowledgement of the late and almost superfluous US contribution.
Well, it was a little more complicated than that. The tendency of many of the Aliies (in media and government) to look at Stalin as a benign influence, coupled with the fact that he held the best hand, led the Allies to dawdle and give in to Stalins slow creep westward for the USSR.

Some of this could've been adverted if the Allies had realized Stalins character and intentions earlier. Churchill was never fooled, however - but his influence proved ultimately negligible - and Rooselvelt was dying.

This doesn't obviate the fact that Russian forces liberated Eastern Europe, only that Russia took advantage of the relative power vaccuum to bend the rules and take what he wanted.

[miloblithe]

...the Marshall Plan was a huge handout to secure a market for US exports, and lay the groundwork for postwar US economic domination....How about 185 billion dollars' worth of UK holdings in the US economy, and 23 bases in the Caribbean, for starters.

And the UK was posession of those Caribbean holdings how? :)

The groundwork for US economic domination was laid by Germany and Japan. The US was already the world's economic giant by 1900, but WWII served to destroy the economies of every significant US competitor.

Calling the US contribution to WWII superfluous is more than a little overstated. The UK had little to do with defeating Japan and Russia had nothing to do with it (excepting their thrashing of Japan in Mongolia in the early 1930s and sending Japan south). Russians are capable of overstating their role in WWII as well, by the way.

[IJ Reilly]

Hitler gave up on the idea of invading the UK after the Battle of Britain in 1940. The Royal Navy had way too much firepower for Germany to overcome unless they could attack the ships from the air. The Battle of Britain was about knocking out the Royal Air Force and leaving the fleet exposed. Luckily we had radar and the Nazis didn't, so we beat the Luftwaffe back. By the next time Germany had enough planes to try again, Britain had introduced the faster and far more manouveurable Spitfire fighter in large numbers. Facing superior Air Force opposition again, Hitler backed off the Luftwaffe and resorted to developing missile technology.

BTW, don't for one second think that the British don't appreciate American help during WW2. We just get annoyed when some of you make out that America won the war, which is a major rewrite of history and completely devalues all the other countries whose forces contributed to victory.

This history is about a close to accurate as anything I've seen so far in this thread. One thing you might want to consider is the ability of Great Britain to liberate the continent from German occupation without the massive quantities of men and materiel supplied by the United States. It was very nearly unsuccessful with it. The long-term consequences to Britain of a Nazi occupied Europe should not be underestimated.

It is also a bit nonsensical to credit the Soviet Union with "liberating" Europe, even if one fails to consider the effects of their "liberation" on the people who lived in the "liberated" nations. Germany very nearly defeated the Soviet Union, and it is worth considering that the German military was forced to simultaneously fight in fronts against joint British and U.S. operations in North Africa then Sicily and Italy in 1942-44, and prepare for the expected invasion of France. When the German army began its retreat from Russia, it was in large part due to this competition for limited military resources. It is by no means a sure thing that the Soviet Union could have driven the Nazis out of Russia otherwise. The Soviet Union was another beneficiary of Lend-Lease, BTW.

[ChrisWB]

Don't Hurt Me,

When WWII started, the United States sold supplies to both sides. The US profited greatly from this. There was a strong isolationist movement within America that kept Roosevelt from declaring war. The increased production and sales at the beginning of WWII is what brought the US economy out of the Great Depression. We profited tremendously from the whole ideal.

It was only after we were attacked by Japan that we entered the war. Our support was, on the whole, mostly supplies rather than actual ground troops. Our troops did have a major impact, but Soviet Russia had the most impact. It was Soviet Russia who defeated Hitler's army and enabled Germany to be ultimately defeated. At the end of WWII there were a great deal of posters, postcards, pamphlets, etc. showing US soldiers hugging or shaking the hands of USSR soldiers. The USSR was considered, by the US population, to be our greatest ally.

The USSR liberated a great deal of Eastern European countries. They then offered aid packages to these countries if they allied themselves with the USSR. This was similar to the US's aid packages to Western Europe. In return for our aid packages, we received billions of dollars from Europe as they bought our supplies whilst recovering. This secured our economic domination for the next few generations.

The one front we did dominate in was the Japanese front. Truman asked Stalin to join the US in the attack on Japan. He ended up dropping the bomb immediately before the USSR was set to enter the war. This is commonly seen as Truman wanting to keep "our war" out of the hands of the Soviets.

The US has not historically played a police-of-the-world role.

Germany is now one of our greatest allies. It is incredibly insulting for you to call Europeans insulting names. The US is not in a powerful position right now, it may serve you well to be more humble about our abilities.

[IJ Reilly]

This constantly repeated theory that the U.S. only aided its allies in Europe, or perhaps even ultimately entered the war, mainly for the profit motive is pretty creepy. I think you'd get a lot of argument from people who lived through this time about whether the U.S. "benefited" by its involvement with the war.

In fact, Roosevelt understood the geopolitical consequences of Axis victory in Europe and the Pacific. He had no power to declare war but from 1938 on, he goaded a very reluctant congress into slowly rebuilding U.S. military capabilities. When he got the Lend-Lease Act, FDR proceed to test its limits by sending more aid to Britain than many in congress felt was authorized. Some talked of impeachment.

[MarkCollette]

Calling the US contribution to WWII superfluous is more than a little overstated. The UK had little to do with defeating Japan and Russia had nothing to do with it (excepting their thrashing of Japan in Mongolia in the early 1930s and sending Japan south). Russians are capable of overstating their role in WWII as well, by the way.

Let's not forget Australia and China's contributions against Japan.

[skunk]

And the UK was posession of those Caribbean holdings how? :)I think the liberal planting of flags (and sugar) had something to do with it.

Calling the US contribution to WWII superfluous is more than a little overstated.Sorry, that should have been in quotes: I was describing the Russian view.

[skunk]

Let's not forget Australia and China's contributions against Japan.What about the Kiwis? And don't forget Canada's contribution against Germany...

[ChrisWB]

This constantly repeated theory that the U.S. only aided its allies in Europe, or perhaps even ultimately entered the war, mainly for the profit motive is pretty creepy.

In fact, Roosevelt understood the geopolitical consequences of Axis victory in Europe and the Pacific. He had no power to declare war but from 1938 on, he goaded a very reluctant congress into slowly rebuilding U.S. military capabilities. When he got the Lend-Lease Act, FDR proceed to test its limits by sending more aid to Britain than many in congress felt was authorized. Some talked of impeachment.Roosevelt was a great man. He knew that entering the war was a necessity when, as you said, Congress was against the idea.

I did not say that the US aided its allies mainly for profit. That was a secondary motivation. The main motivation was to keep Nazi Germany from expanding across Europe.

[IJ Reilly]

Roosevelt was a great man. He knew that entering the war was a necessity when, as you said, Congress was against the idea.

I did not say that the US aided its allies mainly for profit. That was a secondary motivation. The main motivation was to keep Nazi Germany from expanding across Europe.

The entire country was against the idea. Many in the U.S. actually sympathized with Hitler. Quite a few in Britain did as well. Japan in fact was counting on this isolationist attitude on the part of the United States when they planned the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

[skunk]

This constantly repeated theory that the U.S. only aided its allies in Europe, or perhaps even ultimately entered the war, mainly for the profit motive is pretty creepy. I think you'd get a lot of argument from people who lived through this time about whether the U.S. "benefited" by its involvement with the war.While many US corporations did business with the Nazis until quite late in the war, I absolutely agree that it would be grossly unfair to claim that the US entered the war for profit. However, the Marshall Plan, undoubtedly essential for the rebuilding of a shattered Europe, was definitely a two-way street, subsidizing massive US exports in the postwar period.

[MarkCollette]

It would be very interesting to see what the U.S got back if anything from all those lend lease deals. In the end iam sure like allways the U.S. taxpayer paid for it all.

When you buy a house, typically after all the interest it ends up costing twice as much. So, if you don't pay back the last 10%, the bank has still made 90% profit. That's one way that even after "forgiving" loans, one can still be immensely profitable.

Another way is to be a private bank, and give a government guarranteed loan. So, if the money is not fully repaid, then the government pays the difference.

Also, when you lend someone a lot of money, especially when they're counting on you to keep lending them more money, you can exercise a certain amount of clout over them. You can dictate how they spend that money, for example, by buying your products. So, get money from the taxpayers, for free, and get interest payments and product sales from your clients.

Not to thread-jack, but maybe Shock and Awe was the next developmental stage of that plan, where if no one else blows up their stuff, then you do it yourself. Bonus: More missile sales paid for by the tax-payer :)

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its why it was called a world war:D Funny thing i have yet to hear is how much was "paid back" to the U.S. for all that lend lease, it was more like freebies. In fact in Burma before we entered the war we gave China 100 P40s and men and material which the U.S. was never paid back for just as we gave Russia P39s & p40s and again we were never repaid. Anyways out of those 100 P40s to China came the greatest fighter squadron who ever flew and that was the Flying Tigers:) We were fighting Japan In Burma /China before Pearl Harbor.

[skunk]

Its why it was called a world war:D Funny thing i have yet to hear is how much was "paid back" to the U.S. for all that lend lease, it was more like freebies.Here, from the horse's mouth, as it were, in answer to a question in the House of Commons:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2002-02-28.38424.h
Ruth Kelly (Economic Secretary, HM Treasury) Hansard source

The information is as follows.
First World War debt
At the end of the First World War the United Kingdom debt to the United States amounted to around £850 million. Repayments of the debt were made between 1923 and 1931. In 1931, President Hoover of the United States proposed a one-year moratorium on all War debts, which allowed extensive international discussions on the general problems of debt repayment to be held. However, no satisfactory agreement was reached. In the absence of such an agreement no payments have been made to, or received from, other nations since 1934.
At the time of the moratorium the United Kingdom was owed more by other nations (£2,269 billion) than the outstanding principal it owed the United States ($4,368 billion—at 1934 exchange rates this was around £866 million).
Second World War debt
Under a 1945 Agreement the United States Government lent the United Kingdom a total of $4,336 million (around £1,075 million at 1945 exchange rates) in war loans. These loans were taken out under two facilities: (i) a Line of Credit of $3,750 million (around £930 million at 1945 exchange rates); and (ii) a Lend-Lease loan facility of $586 million (around £145 million at 1945 exchange rates), which represented the settlement with the United States for Lend-Lease and Reciprocal Aid and for the final settlement of the financial claims of each government against the other arising out of the conduct of the Second World War.
Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.
As at 31 March 2001 principal of $346,287,953 (£243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend in 1945.

All World War II debts owed to the United Kingdom by other countries have either been repaid or settlements have been agreed with the countries concerned. Details are provided in the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom and their successor the Supplementary Statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts for the financial years 1945–46 to 1987–88 and the following Command Papers:
China CM 198;
Czechoslovakia Cmd 7798 and Cmnds 55, 56 and 2280;
France Cmnd 6988;
Netherlands Cmd 7358;
Poland Cmd 6864 and 7148 and Cmnd 1057;
Turkey Cmds 6165 and 9120; and
USSR Cmd 7297.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Thanks for finding that but i was more interested in those countries like China & Russia who werent like our buddies in Briton.

[skunk]

Thanks for finding that but i was more interested in those countries like China & Russia who werent like our buddies in Briton.Total lend-lease aid exceeded $50 billion, of which the British Commonwealth received some $31 billion and the USSR received over $11 billion. Within 15 years after the termination of lend-lease, settlements were made with most of the countries that had received aid, although a settlement with the USSR was not reached until 1972.http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0829381.html

[IJ Reilly]

While many US corporations did business with the Nazis until quite late in the war, I absolutely agree that it would be grossly unfair to claim that the US entered the war for profit. However, the Marshall Plan, undoubtedly essential for the rebuilding of a shattered Europe, was definitely a two-way street, subsidizing massive US exports in the postwar period.

Granted, but for it have been other than a two-way street, all of the products and services sent to Europe would have had to be produced by faeries in hollowed-out logs. (I believe most of the tree faeries were killed in the war.) The overall geopolitical understanding behind the Marshall Plan was that World War II was a direct product of the settlement of the first war, and that it would be unwise to allow that to happen again, and further that a prostrated western Europe would become easy pickings for Stalin. It's hard to argue with the wisdom of the Marshall Plan. What that our leaders today were so wise.

[zimv20]

It is also a bit nonsensical to credit the Soviet Union with "liberating" Europe, even if one fails to consider the effects of their "liberation" on the people who lived in the "liberated" nations.
from what i understand of it, eastern europe was "liberated" by the nazis and its residents were eager to join the fight against the russians. but with hitler's blunderous racial ideology, rather than encourage such help, he immediately repressed them again, leaving the same lot to be "liberated" again by the soviets a couple years later.

"clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..."

[skunk]

What that our leaders today were so wise.Would that they were indeed.