War between the western allies and the Sovs in '45. Who wins?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Lancer
"Any hint on what 2,000 bombers can do that 10 million German soldiers couldn't?"

Bomb the oilfields and factories. Hit the rail deep behind Sov lines...


Also, the allied armies only had to hold the Sovs...I agree this would be tough...while the AFs bombed. Had the armies had to fall back then the Sovs would only have gotten further from their bombed out supplies.

BC, they would have been bombing from the south.

Empirical evidence shows that Ploiesti had been online for the whole war. And no transport network has ever been completely disrupted by planes in WW2.

[Ned]

Here is a good summary of the whole "betrayal of Poland" issue. http://www.answers.com/topic/western-betrayal What I find interesting is that Britain and France had agreed in May of 1939 not to support Poland in the event of war, but to concentrate on defeating Germany. Of course they told the Poles exactly the opposite and that is one of the reasons why Poland stood fast and refused to negotiate with the Germans, bringing on World War II. But that is exactly what Britain and France intended.

We can see that the issue of Poland vexed the relationships between Britain, the United States in the Soviet Union during entire war. Stalin insisted at all times that the territories he occupied in 1939 would remain with the Soviets and that Poles be compensated by annexing former German lands. The British initially agreed to this; but their agreement was based upon a misunderstanding. The 1939 borders that they thought they were agreeing to were not the lands after September of 1939, but before September 1939. Were they naïve in his thinking? Regardless, the major powers continue negotiate the Polish borders among themselves throughout the war while telling the Polish government in exile only what they wanted to hear and not the truth. At the end of the war, the Western allies gave up on Poland when they withdrew the recognition of the government in exile in July of 1945 without insisting in any manner whatsoever that this government be formed as a part of a new Polish government.

In the final analysis, redrawing the map based upon the interests of the major powers was a travesty in that it violated the central principle of self-determination as set forth in the Atlantic Charter. They moved Polish and German borders around without discussing them with the Poles or the Germans and in the process forced millions to move.

It further shows that the war initially was never about Poland, it was always about Germany and its relations to Britain and France. Period. The hypocrisy of the Western powers is best illustrated by the fact that Nazi Germany was not allowed to reclaim territory it lost after Versailles, even while Stalin was permitted to regain all Russian Empire territories it lost in various wars since the turn-of-the-century.

[Alexander's Horse]

or, welcome to the Nediverse

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
It further shows that the war initially was never about Saddam's war crimes, it was always about America and its relations to oil.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
or, welcome to the Nediverse

Yeah, AH. The more I have been thinking about this, the more I note of the 20th Century are a lot about British plotting, betrayals of allies, line drawing on map to create future conflict and so on. Britain betrayed Germany with Versailles and later it betrayed Poland by saying it would send military support when it had no intentions of doing so. Both betrayals cumulatively caused WWII. Britain caused the ME conflict by betraying the Arabs in 1919 by keeping Palestine for itself. It caused the undending problems between India and Pakistan. See a war and you will smell British betrayal.

[Lancer]

British colonialism anyway. Basicly just greed. I agree with Ned that WWII was rooted in the Versailles treaty following WWI.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lancer
British colonialism anyway. Basicly just greed. I agree with Ned that WWII was rooted in the Versailles treaty following WWI.

Lancer, most Americans do not think of Britain as the primary mover and shaker the early part of the 20th Century. We tend to look at wars as taught to us by pro-Brit historians who teach us that both WWI and WWII are the fault of the Germans, and that the Arab/Israel conflict is about a Jewish land grab. However, when one begins to turn over rocks and learn about what really happened, one usually find Britain right in the thick of things, maneuvering to its advantage and skillfully pinning the blame on the people it betrayed.

[Lancer]

The only thing I'd question is the skill level of the Brits. Also, the Germans did a great job prior to WWI of turning the Brits away when they came looking for a friend against the French and Russians, as we've discussed before. Alot of stupidity on both sides went into that alliance system, with the Germans losing because their stupidity exceeded that of their enemies. Making an enemy of the Brits is just so...arrrgg. But sure, the Brits write a favorable history because they won. They tend to gloss over stuff like their supposed reason for going into WWII in the first place, their alliance with Poland. Well, Poland ended up freed of the Nazis by an oppressor almost as bad, the Sovs. One nod to the Brits in this however, they did see the danger of the Sovs, and maybe if Churchill had his way the european war might not have ended with the defeat of Germany, but with the expulsion of the Sovs from eastern europe. I assume that was what he wanted.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lancer
The only thing I'd question is the skill level of the Brits. Also, the Germans did a great job prior to WWI of turning the Brits away when they came looking for a friend against the French and Russians, as we've discussed before. Alot of stupidity on both sides went into that alliance system, with the Germans losing because their stupidity exceeded that of their enemies. Making an enemy of the Brits is just so...arrrgg. But sure, the Brits write a favorable history because they won. They tend to gloss over stuff like their supposed reason for going into WWII in the first place, their alliance with Poland. Well, Poland ended up freed of the Nazis by an oppressor almost as bad, the Sovs. One nod to the Brits in this however, they did see the danger of the Sovs, and maybe if Churchill had his way the european war might not have ended with the defeat of Germany, but with the expulsion of the Sovs from eastern europe. I assume that was what he wanted.

It hasn't stopped, Lancer. Just the other day Blair tonque lashed the Germans about "revisionism" that could reexamine who was responsible for WWII and the betrayals that happened after the war.

As to Churchill, I think all along he wanted to be tougher on the commies, but was overruled by FDR, who actually seemed to trust the perfidious Uncle Joe.

[Lancer]

"It hasn't stopped, Lancer. Just the other day Blair tonque lashed the Germans about "revisionism" that could reexamine who was responsible for WWII and the betrayals that happened after the war."

The whole thing is screwed. Nobody has a leg to stand on. The Germans might be right, but their actions during the war will stain their views on it for longer than 'who started it' matters to anyone.

I'm just glad the europeans quit whacking each other by the millions long enough for me to survive and meet my wife.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lancer
"It hasn't stopped, Lancer. Just the other day Blair tonque lashed the Germans about "revisionism" that could reexamine who was responsible for WWII and the betrayals that happened after the war."

The whole thing is screwed. Nobody has a leg to stand on. The Germans might be right, but their actions during the war will stain their views on it for longer than 'who started it' matters to anyone.

I'm just glad the europeans quit whacking each other by the millions long enough for me to survive and meet my wife.

You are right, Lancer. What the Germans did during WWII was beyond appalling. But the Soviets were almost as bad. Ditto the Japanese.

I simply cannot understand, though, how FDR and Truman could have allowed Stalin to grab so much territory, take over the Baltic states and force millions upon millions of innocent civilians to flee for their lives. This was fundamentally against everything we stood for as a nation, and WE were party to it.

[Lancer]

Yep, pitiful! Also, we had the power in place, we had the bomb hanging over their heads and we did nothing. Disgusting!

[Ecthy]

Even with the bomb you lose. They had a 20-1 superiority to us, and the US didn't have that many troops in field.

I know my feeble argument was probably killed on the first pages of this thread, I just can't be arsed to read all this.