sad thoughts on poly posters

[David Floyd]

Actually, in WW1, the Italians were members of the Triple Alliance, but did not declare war along with the rest of the alliance.

[St Leo]

Data, Italy was part of the preWWI German-Austrian-Italian alliance. It just exercised its option of ignoring it when the war was declared.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Why has this bollocks received 135 replies?

[David Floyd]

It was only 134 til you posted

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's rubbish. A spot of bored posturing from a turd-touching screecher and suddenly everyone's got their chests puffed out and getting self-righteous.

I don't give it 1 out of 10. I give it a poke in the eye with a bendy twig and advise all participants to go outside and puch people in the face at random.

[David Floyd]

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

If the Germans had been solely intent on the USSR and if the USSR had not received the aid they did, there is no question that either Moscow would have fallen in 1941 or the Volga line lost in 1942. Either case would have meant the end for the ability of the Soviets to ever 'win' the war by themselves

So if the Western Allies had given less help to the USSR then Eastern Europe would never have fallen under Soviet domination?

Maybe. Certainly, if the Soviets had been crippled it would have cost many more Western Allied lives to put an end to the war in Europe, assuming a 'good' end would still have been possible.

[Frankychan]

I can't believe I read all this........

Well, since I read all this, I believe I have a right to put in my two-cents:

My personal opinion is that alot of Americans take their freedoms for granted. Its THESE types of Americans that make the rest of us look bad. They think and act like everyone else isn't as good as them. When these ppl travel abroad and find that other countries don't possess our freedoms, they expect that culture to "bend" to their will.

Americans have to have a sense that our culture is NOT, repeat, NOT the best on the planet. Futhermore, WE are not the best. No one is. We (us Yanks) have to remind ourselves that different ppl are going to have different cultures. We need less ethnocentrism.

Simply put, America isn't the best neither should it impose it's own views on other ppl. We're just another country on the planet that has more freedoms than other countries.......God Bless that.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


The interest of defeating an enemy who threatened the US, and had taken action against the US.

It would not have been in Americas interest to have a Fascist Europe and Asia.

Incidentally I think France and Britain acted out of self-interest. I'm under no illusions of "saving democracy", neither should anyone else be.

SD, Could you amplify your thoughts here. By Dec. 7, 1941, the US had all but declared war on Germany and Japan through Lend Lease and the Embargo respectively. We were threatening the Axis, not the other way around.

However, I still see what US interests were at stake other than political - i.e., we could not co-exist over the long term with fascist states.

However, if this is true, America's war was completely ideological. It was a war to "save" democracy - the UK's democracy in particular, and to some extent, China's democracy.

Since WWII, I think the US has continued its aggressived defense of democracy and human rights. This is how we think of ourselves, btw. It is part of our national culture.

[DarkCloud]

How so? The Germans were already collapsing from overextension. There was no going back; they'd pissed away their advantages (highly trained and well-equipped units + technological superiority) and the Russians were much, much stronger than they'd been prior to Barbarossa. Russian factories were hitting full stride, the army had been restructured to undo the damage of the purges of the 30s, even their air force was beginning to be able to contend against the Luftwaffe. The Germans had to occupy all of Europe; even without the British+US threat on the coasts (minimal in 1942) they had to leave people there to fight rebellions. They were trying to do this with a population which was running out of people of fit age for military service, and they were running out of oil, iron ore, etc.

But if America was not involved, then the Japanese (if they hadn't bombed pearl harbor) could have continued their war against the russians and caused stalin to still FURTHER split his forces... Unless he was ready to give up the east to Japan (which I think he might have, although other data shows he wouldn't and taht data is what I would refer to you.)

Even the stripped down Far East Military District in Winter of 1941 would have whipped the **** out of the Japanese Kwangtung Army.

But then why didn't russia attack and defeat them before.

Remember that Island Japan won in war earlier in the centruy... the northern Isaland they fought the USSR over and won? Japan had beaten the USSR in the past.

[MrFun]

I try to be as objective as possible with the history of the United States.

The United States had and has, great power to advance her own interests.
In the past as in the present, if United States can advance her ecnomic interests by supporting dictatorships in other countries, she will do so.

Any other country would do the same if it were within their power to do so.

You can't deny historical fact that United States has supported dictatorships in other countries, and helped overthrow democracies, and replaced them with new dictatorships.

This pattern of behavior would be apparent in any country that has the power that the United States has, simply because of the basic economic interest motive.

[DarkCloud]

Actually, Moscow would have fallen in 1941 anyway if Hitler had allowed his generals to go after Moscow, which every single one of them except for Jodl (who was Hitler's ***** anyway) wanted to do, rather than wasting time in the Ukraine. It almost fell as things were - 700,000 of the last 800,000 Russian defenders were wiped out during Operation Typhoon before the Wehrmact ground to a halt almost within site of Moscow.

And if moscow had fallen, the russian people would ahve lost most of their will to fight

The Soviets would have drawn them into Siberia, stretched them out, and then cut them off with their armor. Even the T-26, which was a piece of ****, was still better than anything the Japanese played around with.

Yes, but then the Japanese could have held down more units in the East, if the russians were worried that the japanese would only fight one superpower rather than the USSR and the USA.

The Japanese had no chance against the SU on the SU's soil, and they knew it. Whatever the bluster, they knew it.

But earlier, they took that island... and kept half... Sakhalin Island I beleive it was...

Basically, it was Hitlers idea to take the war to the USA. The USA already was giving military aid to the allies so much that there wouldn't be too great a difference to have an "official" war.

Ja, that was a bit crazy nevertheless. If hitler hadn't declared war, it may have been less likely that the USA would have declared war on them, at least for a few more months... and what did he attempt to ACCOMPLISH in declaring war? At the time, he had no prospects for invasion...

Lincoln- well, most people in the OT are Communists, so I would suppose that explains it

[nationalist]

We should have either stayed out of the European war altogether or marched on Moscow like Patton wanted to. It would have saved us a lot of trouble in the long run.

[David Floyd]

But then why didn't russia attack and defeat them before.

Remember that Island Japan won in war earlier in the centruy... the northern Isaland they fought the USSR over and won? Japan had beaten the USSR in the past.

But that's actually the entire point.

You are referring to Sakhalin Island, and the Russo-Japanese war.

Japan won the war because they defeated the Russian navy, and won several victories on the ground against the Russian army. However, they were actually running out of money by the time the war ended, and if it had been a more protracted war, it's very possible that Russia could have won.

But that's irrelevant here. The point is, 1901 and 1941 were very different in terms of technology. Tanks were not used in 1901, nor were motorized vehicles. In 1941, though, armies without armor and motorization were in effect immobilized. Yes, Japan had some armor, and a degree of mobilization, but Russia's armor was very superior in quality, and their forces were more heavily motorized. In addition to this, in 1941 Russian leadership in the Far East definitely eclipsed that of Japan - remember, Zhukov was in command at this time in the Far East. And more importantly, Russian leadership was far, far better at this time than it had been under the czar in 1901.

The main point is that in terms of equipment, doctrine, and tactics, the Soviets made a much greater leap forward from 1901 to 1941 than Japan did, and that's why a Soviet ground victory was inevitable against Japan, no matter what the circumstances of the war were - whether it was fought in 1941 or 1945, or whether it was a Soviet invasion of Manchuria or a Japanese invasion of Siberia and the Maritime Provinces was largely irrelevant to the final outcome.

[DarkCloud]

You can't deny historical fact that United States has supported dictatorships in other countries, and helped overthrow democracies, and replaced them with new dictatorships

Ah, but CAPITALIST dictatorships as opposed to COMMUNIST dictatorships

MrFun, I have to agree with most of your post


----

I think you were referring to WW2 as the italians kept their alliance with France against the austrians in WW1

No, I was refering to WWI because France was allied with Germany in the Triple Alliance (I believe...) Wheras France, Britain and Russia were in the Triple Entente.

Instead of siding with their allies, Germany, Italy declared war on their allies, believing it better...

(Apologies if the exact detalils are a bit wrong, I'm a bit sketchy on that era... but I remember the basic ideas )