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

Belfast

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Breaking the enigma codes was a turning point in the war, as was the British and Canadian Navy protecting the convoys. Yes the supplies came from the US, but the US didn't bring them. Take a look at the battle of the Atlantic, this was no "SideShow" as you put it.

The Battle of Britain and the invasion of Greece and Crete both held up the German attack on Russia and therefore played a major part in the outcome of the war, again, this was no side show. Incidentally, there were something like 15,000 British troops, ignoring the Royal Navy, involved in the battle for Crete alone. There were also a few in North Africa as well, in fact 12,000 of them are buried in Alamein. You may wish to amend post 104.

I fail to see how these events are a matter of opinion, they are fact, they happened and they were major events, to cal them a side show is a nonsense.

Yes the British did fight hard and lost many men.

My point was it needless waste of life (like most wars) as the results of the war were decided on the Eastern Front.

The Germans lost he war on the Eastern front. The other operations in were however bravely fought by the men involved were not as decisive.

Fratton Fred

Belfast wrote: »

Yes the British did fight hard and lost many men.

My point was it needless waste of life (like most wars) as the results of the war were decided on the Eastern Front.

The Germans lost he war on the Eastern front. The other operations in were however bravely fought by the men involved were not as decisive.

So explain how you would have seen europe if the Allies had not got involved, bearing in mind Germany would have probably attacked the soviet union 12 months earlier and with a lot more men and machnes.

Would the soviets have coped? if they had won, how far back would they have pushed the Germans, all the way to Brest, or further?

SlabMurphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Breaking the enigma codes was a turning point in the war, as was the British and Canadian Navy protecting the convoys. Yes the supplies came from the US, but the US didn't bring them. Take a look at the battle of the Atlantic, this was no "SideShow" as you put it.

The Battle of Britain and the invasion of Greece and Crete both held up the German attack on Russia and therefore played a major part in the outcome of the war, again, this was no side show. Incidentally, there were something like 15,000 British troops, ignoring the Royal Navy, involved in the battle for Crete alone. There were also a few in North Africa as well, in fact 12,000 of them are buried in Alamein. You may wish to amend post 104.

I fail to see how these events are a matter of opinion, they are fact, they happened and they were major events, to cal them a side show is a nonsense.

At El Alamein weren't most of the soldiers Aussies and Kiwi's I think ?? The Aussies and Kiwis fought remarkably well I beleive. They also were present in Crete as well as the local Greek forces if I remember rightly, not trying to split hairs, but it was'nt Britian v Germans/Italians alone, ( though some would argue, including those on the Allied side, that the Italians were more of a hinder to the Germans than a help ). Also the Indian army had a large presence in North Africa, not forgetting the Americans who had entered the war.

FiSe

I have to return to those who killed whom during the war... figures.

I have just returned from my holies in the Czech Republic, if you take a minute and check the WWII forum, picture thread, you'll see some pictures taken in the town of Znojmo in summer of '45.
Now, this town was bombed by Soviets in April 1945, during the raid one of the bomber scored direct hit to a bomb shelter. Over 150 people died in that shelter, torn apart, military non-military, god only knows who was who, as you can imagine... This wasn't the only case, but it makes numbers, wonder, would you count those dead as a military or civilians or Germans at all?
As I said before, playing with numbers is a dangerous game.

And BTW, Dresden was bombed on Stalin's "order". He said that no town no willage in Germany, no single German person should be spared of the full impact of the war /or something along those lines, bet somebody will google it for me/.
Soviets didn't have heavy bombers so the dirty task was shifted to RAF. So blame the Reds next time for that massacre

Fratton Fred

SlabMurphy wrote: »

At El Alamein weren't most of the soldiers Aussies and Kiwi's I think ?? The Aussies and Kiwis fought remarkably well I beleive. They also were present in Crete as well as the local Greek forces if I remember rightly, not trying to split hairs, but it was'nt Britian v Germans/Italians alone, ( though some would argue, including those on the Allied side, that the Italians were more of a hinder to the Germans than a help ). Also the Indian army had a large presence in North Africa, not forgetting the Americans who had entered the war.

Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, Greeks, Free French were all involved, not sure if it was most or not. The point is, if Britain had not joined the war, it is unlikely the rest of the commonwealth, or even the Amerians would have been there.

There is a lot said about the Italians, You will often see the Germans claiming the victories and blaming the Italians for their defeats, it may have been true to some extent, but the Italians get a lot more stick than they deserve.

ejmaztec

I think that if there was only the Eastern Front, and no allies to speak of, the Russians would have lost, or more particularly the Communist regime. The Germans picked up a lot of anti-Communist Russians, Ukranians and East Europeans on their travels. Had the German's progress not been hampered by what was happening in The Med, North Africa etc, the Communists would have been nailed. As I understand it, the ordinary Russian soldier was more scared of being shot by the embedded commissars/politbureau die-hards, than they were the Germans. A lot of the conscripts would have had the opportunity of changing sides if they saw that the Germans stood a chance of winning. As it happened, the Reds were given enough time to churn out the endless lines of armour and aircraft. The US also gave equipment to the Russians, aircraft etc..., which after the war, the Russians copied and called their own.

ejmaztec

Belfast wrote: »

Yes there are a lot of Jews in the entertainment industry.
for years Jews were banned from most profession and so are concentrated in a small number of professions.

Simply because there are a lot of Jews in the media does not mean they think the same or are following a common agenda.
an example of this is the Jewish movement against Zionism
True Torah Jews Against Zionism
True Torah Jews is a non-profit organization of Orthodox Jews dedicated to informing the world that all Jews do not support the Zionist state
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

I think that is naive. What better thing to do after centuries of bad press and anti-semitic propaganda than to control the very mouthpieces that would possibly give rise to it.

Since WW2, we have been programmed into feeling extremely guilty for even thinking slightly derogatory things about the Jews. The Germans had this rammed down their throats for years, even those who weren't alive during the war. The slightest criticism and you're branded a nazi. I think that there should be another thread devoted to their 20th Century history.

Zebra3

McArmalite wrote: »

"

Zebra stated that " The USSR, which really defeated Germany (killed 3,600,000 compaared to 200,000 killed by US/Britain/France), ". I'm not having a go at Zebra but he didn't state whether whether the 200,000 mentioned was just military personnel or included civilains, hence I asked "I don't know if anyone could produce the stats". But since 40,000 innocent civilains were murdered in Dresden alone, I don't think I might be far off the mark in questioning if more innocent Germans civilians were killed by US/Britain/France than German military personnel.

The figure I quoted was with regard to German soldiers. Though 5million+ quoted for their total WWII losses here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Belfast

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So explain how you would have seen europe if the Allies had not got involved, bearing in mind Germany would have probably attacked the soviet union 12 months earlier and with a lot more men and machnes.

Would the soviets have coped? if they had won, how far back would they have pushed the Germans, all the way to Brest, or further?

Good Questions

if Britain and France had not declared war on Germany the Germans would not have captured the French Gold reserves or got the resources of Alsace-Lorraine (iron ore), Food, Horses, recruits for the Waffen SS, French tanks, French artillery, French Armaments plants, French slave labour in German war factories and a land route to import tungsten ore and food from Spain

The German army got a lot of practical experience in Blitzkrieg in fighting the allies.

Germany would have had to maintain large number of troops tanks and aircraft on the French border in case of invasion.

also the resources of the low countries Denmark and Norway would not have fallen into German hands.

The invasion of Russia would not have happened 12 months earlier as the German army was not prepared for such a big war until 1941. Without the resources and gold captured for the allies the Germans may not have been able to mount this attack until later.

With less resources the Germans would have had much bigger problems invading Russia.

The Soviets would have coped better than they did. The Soviets would have had a problem invade France as they would be at the end of long supply lines.
with the collapse of the German army on the Eastern Front the French and British army may have moved into Germany as it collapsed to stop the Russians Getting too close to the French border.

Belfast

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, Greeks, Free French were all involved, not sure if it was most or not. The point is, if Britain had not joined the war, it is unlikely the rest of the commonwealth, or even the Amerians would have been there.

There is a lot said about the Italians, You will often see the Germans claiming the victories and blaming the Italians for their defeats, it may have been true to some extent, but the Italians get a lot more stick than they deserve.

The Italian Army was a mixture of poor equipped and trained troops and elite units that fought very hard. They were not all pushovers.

You could argue that the Germans would be better of if the Italians had remained neutral like the Spanish did.

Belfast

ejmaztec wrote: »

. The Germans picked up a lot of anti-Communist Russians, Ukranians and East Europeans on their travels.

True, but they were not well treated by the Germans. Had they setup a free Russian army in 1941 instead of 1945 they could have done better. The way the Germans treated people behinds the lines did not win they any Friends.

also Hitler did not trust Russians and Ukrainians and sent them to the western front to fight the allies that they had no reason to fight.

Belfast

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that is naive. What better thing to do after centuries of bad press and anti-semitic propaganda than to control the very mouthpieces that would possibly give rise to it.

Since WW2, we have been programmed into feeling extremely guilty for even thinking slightly derogatory things about the Jews. The Germans had this rammed down their throats for years, even those who weren't alive during the war. The slightest criticism and you're branded a nazi. I think that there should be another thread devoted to their 20th Century history.

The Zionists have used guilty to push their agenda in the media. Not all Jews are Zionists. Their are many Christians Zionists in America.

you can read about Christian Zionism in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

Manic Moran

but the Italians get a lot more stick than they deserve

QFT

NTM

McArmalite

Manic Moran wrote: »

What hypocrisy? The simple fact of the matter is that no war either before or since has ever come close to the total involvement on the planet. My terminology was specifically chosen to convey what is currently all but incomprehensible due to a total lack of anything even similar to relate to.

Over 2 million soldiers fought in Stalingrad alone. Just one city in one country in one theater of the war. If you tally up all the soldiers on both sides of the Vietnam conflict at its height, you fall short of this number.

Here he goes AGAIN. I never questioned the sheer size of WW2, I would have thought you could have deduced that from my statement " The millions killed in Iraq and Vietnam are ofcourse much smaller than the total in WW2". What I did point out was your description of the wilful deaths of millions of Iraqi's and Vietnamese as " with little distractions like Vietnam or Iraq ", a statement that is so obviously cruel and injust, I haven't the slighest doubt that as the maker of the statement you will doubtless stick to your assertions regardless. But as the old saying goes, their are none so blind as those that can see.

He then tries to be funny with his Hitch-hiker's quote......as you can see from the responces, you'll never make it as a funny guy, so do us a favour and give it up.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Weight of ordnance dropped is not a suitable indicator as it does nothing but indicate that more modern 'planes can carry bigger loads.

Weight of ordnance is an accurate reflection on the magnittude of the Vietnam War. Ofcourse there are other factors the death and maiming of humans been the main one, not to mention the economic cost, the numbers of combatants invovled etc You are correct ofcourse that " modern 'planes can carry bigger loads. ". But since America's invovlement stated in Vietnam in 1961, just 16 years after WW2, it's not exactly like comparing the bombing ability planes of Gulf War 2 and WW1 is it ?? And besides since the ordance in Vietnam was more modern, I would think that tonne for tonne the more modern explosives would have been even more lethal. Also it should be pointed out, that the area of Vietnam is much, much smaller than Europe, an area of which from Belfast to Moscow was bombed in WW2, hence strengthing my arguement of the scale and ferocity of the Vietnam War, far from been a " little distraction ".

Manic Moran wrote: »

If I fly a B-52 squadron out to the Sahara and carpet-bomb the desert, does this mean I've just had a more major war than the Falklands? The measurement takes no effect of the commitment of or by the nations involved.

You now try to introduce an inaccurate comparision of bombing the empty space of the Sahara and the tiny Malvinas. The land of the brave and the free didn't bomb empty spaces in Vietnam or Iraq, but large urban cities such as Baghdad, Hanoi and countless other cities, towns and villages. Very sadly, the measurement did take effect on millions numbers of human beings. Quite a different comparsion to the virtual empty space of the Sahara and the tiny Malvinas Islands.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Probably. But in WWII there was no expectation of a 'fair play' consolation prize for those who lost, or an intervention by those who think the other guy is being naughty. These days, we occasionally give weight to 'international opinion'. If most of the planet is at war, 'international opinion' kindof takes a back seat.

If you hadn't noticed in the run up to Gulf War 2 and the alleged weapons of mass destruction excuse, Bush and co. certianly gave no weight to 'international opinion' did he ??

Manic Moran wrote: »

Note that this is a slightly different issue to the hypothesis that you had originally posed: "And of the 200,000 killed by US/Britain/France, I don't know if anyone could produce the stats, but since 40,000 innocent civilians were murdered in Dresden alone, I'd say the majority of the 200,000 were innocent civilians and not German military." The implication of your original post being that you thought that between military and civilian, the Western Powers in total killed 200,000 Germans, split between 40K civilians in Dresden, and the other 160,000 being split between 'civilians killed not in Dresden' and 'military killed'.

To answer your second, rephrased question, I've spent a little time hunting around. The answer, apparently, is 'no' although the ratios are such that the Western Powers killed more civilians per German military killed than the Soviets did. The Germans lost over 5million military killed, 1.5 million civilians, making it a 5:2 ratio overall, but as near as I can tell, the Western Powers came to 3:2, assuming the 200,000 military killed is correct to include not just the Western European campaign, but also North Africa and Italy. The problem is that I can't find any figures specifically addressing the results of the Western Allied bombing raids, only totals from all raids, which, of course, will include the efforts of the none-too-small Red Air Force. (Another example of Western history ignoring Soviet contributions: They didn't have as many large bombers as the US or UK, but they had plenty of smaller ones, and they used them.). Neither have I been able to find a breakdown of 'civilians killed by Western land forces' vs 'civlians killed by Red Army.' My estimates come from basically tallying together what I can find from major individual operations, and adding a bit.

Frankly, I question these figures, as there are some 50,000 Germans buried in military cemetaries in Italy, capturing France in 1940 cost them over 40,000, over 20,000 are buried in Normandy, knock off another 13,000 dead in North Africa, that leaves under 70,000 for the entirity of the rest of the Western Front, not forgetting we need to account for 'missing, not buried' in the Italian and French cemetary numbers. Probably won't bring the total much abover 250,000-270,000, but I would need to hunt around. I'm curious now.

Thank you so very much.

Manic Moran

McArmalite wrote: »

Here he goes AGAIN. I never questioned the sheer size of WW2, I would have thought you could have deduced that from my statement " The millions killed in Iraq and Vietnam are ofcourse much smaller than the total in WW2".

I was working off your initial assertion, only changed in the post most recently prior to your last, that the number of Germans killed in WWII totalled a rather small number.

He then tries to be funny with his Hitch-hiker's quote......as you can see from the responces, you'll never make it as a funny guy, so do us a favour and give it up.

What's with the transitions from third to second person, out of interest?

Anyway, I happen to like HHGTTG. If you don't find it amusing, your loss. I can't say I saw any negative responses to my usage, other than yours.

But since America's invovlement stated in Vietnam in 1961, just 16 years after WW2, it's not exactly like comparing the bombing ability planes of Gulf War 2 and WW1 is it ??

Just 16 years, you say? When those 16 years included the incorporation of jet engines into aircraft? 'Just' 16 years cover the difference from the Dauntless bomber (2,000lbs of bombs) to the A-4 Skyhawk, (10,000lbs of bombs, an increase of 500%) or between the B-17 (8,000lbs) to the B-52 (60,000lbs, an increase of 750%)

Also it should be pointed out, that the area of Vietnam is much, much smaller than Europe, an area of which from Belfast to Moscow was bombed in WW2,

The area of Vietnam is also much less densely populated than the area of Europe. You'll find much of the ordnance was dropped on places like the Ho Chi Minh trail, bombing raids over cities were much less frequent.

hence strengthing my arguement of the scale and ferocity of the Vietnam War, far from been a " little distraction ".

In comparison to WWII, it was. If you weren't in Vietnam at the time, you didn't have much to remind you that there was a war going on. You could still go to the shops and buy goods, you could still buy new cars, you still had food on the shelves. Pretty much none of which applied in WWII.
However, my statement was more meant figuratively, that it was simply a small war compared to WWII.

You now try to introduce an inaccurate comparision of bombing the empty space of the Sahara and the tiny Malvinas. The land of the brave and the free didn't bomb empty spaces in Vietnam or Iraq, but large urban cities such as Baghdad, Hanoi and countless other cities, towns and villages. Very sadly, the measurement did take effect on millions numbers of human beings. Quite a different comparsion to the virtual empty space of the Sahara and the tiny Malvinas Islands.

You would compare the strategic bombing raids of WWII to the raids on Baghdad and Hanoi? You -do- have an issue with scale, don't you? Any particular reason for the use of the name "Malvinas", by the way? And I agree that comparing bombing the Sahara is a bit silly compared to bombing the Falklands. That's exactly why I made the comparison, to show that simple weight of ordnance dropped proved nothing.

If you hadn't noticed in the run up to Gulf War 2 and the alleged weapons of mass destruction excuse, Bush and co. certianly gave no weight to 'international opinion' did he ??

No, not really, but then OIF wasn't exactly unrestricted either.

Thank you so very much.

You're welcome. I found it an interesting and educational search.

NTM

FiSe

Hey Manic, you can't argue with McA.

I would question those millions of Iraqi and Vietnamese in his/hers posts though...

Manic Moran

Actually, breaking two million all-told in Vietnam seems quite feasible, though obviously figures vary widely depending on source. Interestingly, the vast majority are South Vietnamese.

NTM

McArmalite

Manic Moran wrote: »

I was working off your initial assertion, only changed in the post most recently prior to your last, that the number of Germans killed in WWII totalled a rather small number.

Never stated that I thought " that the number of Germans killed in WWII totalled a rather small number ". The death of 200,000 Germans is a huge and appalling number.

Manic Moran wrote: »

What's with the transitions from third to second person, out of interest?

You figure it out since your so clever.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Anyway, I happen to like HHGTTG. If you don't find it amusing, your loss. I can't say I saw any negative responses to my usage, other than yours.

Didn't see any positive ones either, seems most people just ignored your attempts to be a funny guy.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Just 16 years, you say? When those 16 years included the incorporation of jet engines into aircraft? 'Just' 16 years cover the difference from the Dauntless bomber (2,000lbs of bombs) to the A-4 Skyhawk, (10,000lbs of bombs, an increase of 500%) or between the B-17 (8,000lbs) to the B-52 (60,000lbs, an increase of 750%)

Fair enough, your correct on the more modern planes carrying large quanities of bombs but since you brought modernity into it, you helped bring about my comment that tonnage for tonnage the more modern explosives were even more lehal and strengthened the case for the severity of violence unleashed on the Iraq and Vietnamese people.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The area of Vietnam is also much less densely populated than the area of Europe.

Well I don't have the stats for the duration of the Vietnam war, but according to wiki* Vietnam these days has a population of 84,238,230 and an area of 331,689 km sq. Today's Germany has a population of 82,689,210 and an area of 357,022 km sq. As you can see Vietnam is indeed a densely populated country, more densely populated the Germany. And since Germany is only a fraction of the whole area of Europe, it strengthens the case for the severity of the bombing of Vietnam.

Manic Moran wrote: »

You'll find much of the ordnance was dropped on places like the Ho Chi Minh trail, bombing raids over cities were much less frequent.

Yes, much of the bombs were dropped on the Ho Chi Minh trail, and almost anything that moved or appeared to be a human dwelling.

Manic Moran wrote: »

In comparison to WWII, it was. If you weren't in Vietnam at the time, you didn't have much to remind you that there was a war going on. You could still go to the shops and buy goods, you could still buy new cars, you still had food on the shelves. Pretty much none of which applied in WWII.

Flat earth society time :rolleyes: Apart from the minority of the Vietnamese collaborators who worked for the US puppet regime, for the vast majority of Vietnamese they lived in 3rd world conditions, conditions made much, much worse by America's attempts to almost bomb or shoot any man, woman or child there off the surface of the earth.

Manic Moran wrote: »

You would compare the strategic bombing raids of WWII to the raids on Baghdad and Hanoi? You -do- have an issue with scale, don't you?

I have an issue with scale - and this coming from the fella who describes the deaths and maiming of millions of Iraqi's and Vietnamese as " little distractions ".

Manic Moran wrote: »

Any particular reason for the use of the name "Malvinas", by the way?

Showing solidarity with the good people of Argentina. ( Jayus, lets not get off on another tangent )


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

McArmalite

FiSe wrote: »

Hey Manic, you can't argue with McA.

I would question those millions of Iraqi and Vietnamese in his/hers posts though...

According to wiki - and I agree the figures are disputable - Vietnamese civilian dead: 2,000,000* ( along with Cambodian civilian dead: 700,000, Laotian civilian dead: 50,000. Also the North Vietnamese concealed the figures during the war to avoid demoralizing the population. )

All Iraqi violent deaths, as of August 2007: 1,033,000. **

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, breaking two million all-told in Vietnam seems quite feasible, though obviously figures vary widely depending on source. Interestingly, the vast majority are South Vietnamese.

NTM

South Vietnam comabtants dead: ~250,000, North Vietnam & NLF combatants dead/missing: ~560,000.*


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war#Casualties
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War.