A question for all a' yous' furriners

[minsue]

I'm nowhere near well informed enough to get involved in this arguement and am not even sure I have an opinion (I know, I'm shocked, too), but I'm curious about one thing - Doesn't the 27 million figure also include civilians killed as well as soldiers fighting and dying in battle?

 

[blackhaus7]

I'm nowhere near well informed enough to get involved in this arguement and am not even sure I have an opinion (I know, I'm shocked, too), but I'm curious about one thing - Doesn't the 27 million figure also include civilians killed as well as soldiers fighting and dying in battle?

Yes, and this gets dodgy because a lot of those civilians became citizen soldiers in defense of the motherland and part of the human waves. Lines are not cleanly defined.

 

[Belegon]

I find it interesting that Blackhaus, then Min and now I are finding it important to post and "defend" the United States role in the second World War.

The response to Amicus' idiocy has obviously moved into an area that has brought out some hard feelings.

To my respected friends. To downplay the US role in the war because Amicus is an idiot is hardly appropriate. At the very least the US economic might and military involvement reduced the length of the war. Yes, we often feel as though we "saved the world". Please do remember that our homeland was never under direct attack until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. None of the war with Germany was fought on American soil. Little of the Pacific theatre was. Yet we sent our sons (and some of our daughters) into danger, half a world away. We were not forced into the European war, we choose to help. This is somehow less noble? How does that figure? The countries of europe and asia, including Germany, Japan and Italy, paid a horrible price. But so did the United States.

I am hardly a flag waving uber patriot. But I feel we deserve the credit we ask for regarding WWII.

 

[blackhaus7]

I find it interesting that Blackhaus, then Min and now I are finding it important to post and "defend" the United States role in the second World War.

The response to Amicus' idiocy has obviously moved into an area that has brought out some hard feelings.

To my respected friends. To downplay the US role in the war because Amicus is an idiot is hardly appropriate. At the very least the US economic might and military involvement reduced the length of the war. Yes, we often feel as though we "saved the world". Please do remember that our homeland was never under direct attack until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. None of the war with Germany was fought on American soil. Little of the Pacific theatre was. Yet we sent our sons (and some of our daughters) into danger, half a world away. We were not forced into the European war, we choose to help. This is somehow less noble? How does that figure? The countries of europe and asia, including Germany, Japan and Italy, paid a horrible price. But so did the United States.

I am hardly a flag waving uber patriot. But I feel we deserve the credit we ask for regarding WWII.

Bel, I don't have hard feelings, I just don't understand the thought process that goes into trivializing industrial capacity, conducting a two front war successfully and atomic bombs.

 

[Belegon]

perhaps "hard feelings" is a bit strong...but when I am provoked to post to defend the US as others respond to someone whose posts I can only see in their quotes (meaning I have amicus on well-deserved "ignore") I find it unusual stuff...and I very rarely become involved in anything that even hints of politics...

 

[minsue]

Yes, and this gets dodgy because a lot of those civilians became citizen soldiers in defense of the motherland and part of the human waves. Lines are not cleanly defined.

Quite true. I was just wanting to make sure I was remembering correctly. Not downplaying the deaths in any way.

 

[TheEarl]

I, in no way, shape, manner or form, wish to align myself with amicus, so I want to make a couple of points without necessarily supporting his viewpoint.

The attributes that I have been taught that most affected the outcome of WWII were the isolation and industrial capacity of the United States. By not defending actual homeland, industry remained untouched with nothing to stop the increase in capacity. Because of this, the United States was the only country with the resources to fight a two front war successfully.

Let's examine the premise of removing the United States from the conflict. Japan attacks the USSR from the east creating a two front war that the USSR cannot sustain. I could effectively argue that it would go the same route it went in WWI and imploded. The reason the USSR lost 27 million is because men was its only resouce at one point and human waves were sent against tanks. That tactic would not hold up in a two front war.

However, if you remove the USSR from the conflict, the argument can be made that the outcome would have remained the same but with a much longer timeline.
The Normandy invasion would have occurred at a much later date and the question is thrown in as to if the atomic bomb would have been used against Germany. A not unlikely scenario.

The loss of either of the two Allies would have left a particularly ugly mess. And since the debate is framed as I understand it "Resolved, the USSR was a major player in WWII and the United States was not". Ball is in your court.

Interesting counterfactual theory:

Let's try removing the USA from the equation. Japan in 1941 want one thing - resources. Japanese territory cannot support a war and they really want the resources that lie in Australia. If Japan continued onto Australia instead of seizing the opportunity of Pearl Harbour, then they would lose a hell of a lot of troops and manpower. However, it is fairly safe to say that Australia could not hold them indefinitely and without the aid of the USA, Australia would become part of the Imperial Japanese empire.

In Euro-Asia - Japan had no real interest in Russia in 1941. They were resource-starved and needed to dedicate all of their resources to gaining Australia. There was no point in attacking Eastern Russia and no need to defend their borders that way as Russia was in no position to attack. For the time being, Japan wouldn't have cared about Europe or Russia.

On the Western front, England struggles alone. More troops are drawn from the empire and refugees from the Australian Army swell the numbers of Britishtroops on D-day to about 90,000. It is still not enough and, although a small beachhead is attained, it is abandoned within months at heavy losses.

Germany, however has moved troops away from the Eastern front to defend this and their three-point assault on Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow is weakened. Russia sallies out in a counterattack and Germany sues for peace. Russia remembers the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and continues her advance. Long and bloody battles are fought, probably lasting into the 1950s. Britain has no stomach for another Western landing, but Russia is modernising and her superior weight of numbers is pushing the Germans back.

The Red army storms through Europe, not stopping at Germany but 'liberating' France, Holland and Belgium too. The cold war starts mid 1950s, but with an isolationist USA and Russia controlling mainland Europe.


Now let's try removing Russia from the situation. In 1940, Britain fights alone. Germany honoured the Nazi-Soviet pact and has concentrated heer forces on the West. Unprepared, Britain falls, fighting a fierce resistance all the way, but helpless under the hammerblow. The USA has no reason to join the theatre in Europ and if they had, no base to work from.

In 1941, they are struck by a two-pronged assault; Japanese bombardment of Pearl Harbour and German invasion of California from their pact with Mexico (which was nearly a reality until decripted codes deciphered the plan). Aroused, the Americans fight furiously, employing their giant industrial capacity to join battle. However, with their fleet decimated and German war science having such a head start on them, they are bombarded by rockets and bombing raids from Japanese carriers. It is not inconcievable that the USSR, always hungry for more territory, might've joined in the fight on Germany's side and attacked Alaska.


Maybe slightly overdramatic, but I feel, in the European arena, the USSR was the force that we should be thanking our lucky stars was on our side.

The Earl

 

[Belegon]

The Earl's last post is a perfect example of why I find the whole "alterante history" thing such interesting fiction. Who know's what could have happened? It makes for fascinating reading.

 

[TheEarl]

I find it interesting that Blackhaus, then Min and now I are finding it important to post and "defend" the United States role in the second World War.

The response to Amicus' idiocy has obviously moved into an area that has brought out some hard feelings.

To my respected friends. To downplay the US role in the war because Amicus is an idiot is hardly appropriate. At the very least the US economic might and military involvement reduced the length of the war. Yes, we often feel as though we "saved the world". Please do remember that our homeland was never under direct attack until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. None of the war with Germany was fought on American soil. Little of the Pacific theatre was. Yet we sent our sons (and some of our daughters) into danger, half a world away. We were not forced into the European war, we choose to help. This is somehow less noble? How does that figure? The countries of europe and asia, including Germany, Japan and Italy, paid a horrible price. But so did the United States.

I am hardly a flag waving uber patriot. But I feel we deserve the credit we ask for regarding WWII.

Bel: I'm sorry you feel I'm denegrating the USA's contribution, but, as I pointed out to amicus, that was never my point. I just get fed up of the flag-waving ignorant uber-patriots who talk about WW2 as though the USA came charging in on their shining white cavalry horses to save the day because all we hapless Europeans couldn't survive without a little helping hand from Uncle Sam.

That's the one that hits me "We saved your asses in WW2." The USA was an immense part of the Allied effort, but they did not come charging in and save the helpless Europe all on their own. Without any part of the puzzle, the whole thing could collapse.

That's why I get riled at amicus's insinuation that we should bow down before America because you guys just came in and kicked Germany's arse all on your own. I know it's not what a lot of Americans think. But enough think it for it to piss me off.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Quite true. I was just wanting to make sure I was remembering correctly. Not downplaying the deaths in any way.

Min: Then again, it is probably to be remembered that a percentage of those deaths were probably due to Stalin enforcing 'discipline'. There isn't an emoticon for disgust, is there?

The Earl

 

[blackhaus7]

Interesting counterfactual theory:

Let's try removing the USA from the equation. Japan in 1941 want one thing - resources. Japanese territory cannot support a war and they really want the resources that lie in Australia. If Japan continued onto Australia instead of seizing the opportunity of Pearl Harbour, then they would lose a hell of a lot of troops and manpower. However, it is fairly safe to say that Australia could not hold them indefinitely and without the aid of the USA, Australia would become part of the Imperial Japanese empire.

In Euro-Asia - Japan had no real interest in Russia in 1941. They were resource-starved and needed to dedicate all of their resources to gaining Australia. There was no point in attacking Eastern Russia and no need to defend their borders that way as Russia was in no position to attack. For the time being, Japan wouldn't have cared about Europe or Russia.

On the Western front, England struggles alone. More troops are drawn from the empire and refugees from the Australian Army swell the numbers of Britishtroops on D-day to about 90,000. It is still not enough and, although a small beachhead is attained, it is abandoned within months at heavy losses.

Germany, however has moved troops away from the Eastern front to defend this and their three-point assault on Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow is weakened. Russia sallies out in a counterattack and Germany sues for peace. Russia remembers the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and continues her advance. Long and bloody battles are fought, probably lasting into the 1950s. Britain has no stomach for another Western landing, but Russia is modernising and her superior weight of numbers is pushing the Germans back.

The Red army storms through Europe, not stopping at Germany but 'liberating' France, Holland and Belgium too. The cold war starts mid 1950s, but with an isolationist USA and Russia controlling mainland Europe.


Now let's try removing Russia from the situation. In 1940, Britain fights alone. Germany honoured the Nazi-Soviet pact and has concentrated heer forces on the West. Unprepared, Britain falls, fighting a fierce resistance all the way, but helpless under the hammerblow. The USA has no reason to join the theatre in Europ and if they had, no base to work from.

In 1941, they are struck by a two-pronged assault; Japanese bombardment of Pearl Harbour and German invasion of California from their pact with Mexico (which was nearly a reality until decripted codes deciphered the plan). Aroused, the Americans fight furiously, employing their giant industrial capacity to join battle. However, with their fleet decimated and German war science having such a head start on them, they are bombarded by rockets and bombing raids from Japanese carriers. It is not inconcievable that the USSR, always hungry for more territory, might've joined in the fight on Germany's side and attacked Alaska.


Maybe slightly overdramatic, but I feel, in the European arena, the USSR was the force that we should be thanking our lucky stars was on our side.

The Earl

I don't think Roosevelt would have stood by and let Britain fall. Which would alter the rest of the scenario. However, the debate was framed as the USSR was a major player and the US was not. It would never be my argument to lessen the USSR contribution. I'm just arguing that the US was as every bit as major a player. I'm not even pushing for better, just equal. I am not amicus.

 

[TheEarl]

The Earl's last post is a perfect example of why I find the whole "alterante history" thing such interesting fiction. Who know's what could have happened? It makes for fascinating reading.

I actually have a fascinating book on counterfactual history http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399145761/103-3948494-0942249?v=glance

I'm guessing that's the American cover; it looks so much better in the English one. It walks through some fascinating coutnerfactual history essays, such as what if the Greeks had lost at Thermopylae, or Washington had been shot by the British sniper who didn't recognise the general and decided it wasn't worth wasting a bullet on an unknown soldier. There are some superlative ones on the American Civil War.

It's a fascinating read because the editor has ensured that every essay is based on a truly plausible change, maybe something tiny, like whether someone stumbled coming to the aid of Alexander the Great. Well worth reading.

The Earl

 

[blackhaus7]

I actually have a fascinating book on counterfactual history http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399145761/103-3948494-0942249?v=glance

I'm guessing that's the American cover; it looks so much better in the English one. It walks through some fascinating coutnerfactual history essays, such as what if the Greeks had lost at Thermopylae, or Washington had been shot by the British sniper who didn't recognise the general and decided it wasn't worth wasting a bullet on an unknown soldier. There are some superlative ones on the American Civil War.

It's a fascinating read because the editor has ensured that every essay is based on a truly plausible change, maybe something tiny, like whether someone stumbled coming to the aid of Alexander the Great. Well worth reading.

The Earl

Change anything in history just the tiniest iota and the change in outcome is vast.

 

[blackhaus7]

Of course, Earl, my thought process is suspect because, after all, I am a Kansan.

 

[TheEarl]

I don't think Roosevelt would have stood by and let Britain fall. Which would alter the rest of the scenario. However, the debate was framed as the USSR was a major player and the US was not. It would never be my argument to lessen the USSR contribution. I'm just arguing that the US was as every bit as major a player. I'm not even pushing for better, just equal. I am not amicus.

I didn't say that the USA wasn't a major player of the war. Just that they weren't the major player of the war. IMHO the USSR was the most important player and without them, we'd all be definitely screwed. Without the USA, we'd probably still be screwed, but there's more of a chance of a happy (ish) ending.

Roosevelt wouldn't have entered a European war unless he was attacked IMHO. Intervention was a highly unpopular policy in the USA at the time and Roosevelt would've been unelected if he'd even thought about it. This was shown when Britain was left alone on the continent for a year (before Russia joined and after Greece fell). If he was willing to save Britain, then that was his time, because it was obvious to all and sundry that we were going ot be flattened. For some reason, Hitler turned on Russia and we escaped to rebuild.

If Germany invaded Britain then we were screwed even if the USA joined in. The RAF would've been pulverised before Operation Sealion was initiated and weight of numbers from pilots who would otherwise be fighting Russia would win the Battle of Britain. The Royal Navy would have interfered with any attempt at landing in Britain, but without any air support, the Luftwaffe would have crushed them. The Army's strength was in North Africa and abandoned on the beaches of Dunkirk and Britain has never been a fortified country. We rely on the channel and the strength of our navy to protect us and, barring miracles, I can't foresee any impediment to a Nazi occupation of London. We'd fight to the death, but with no fortifications and no air support, we would be doomed. A puppet government woul probably have been set up somewhere like Leeds and the war in Europe would've been over.

The Earl

 

[blackhaus7]

I didn't say that the USA wasn't a major player of the war. Just that they weren't the major player of the war. IMHO the USSR was the most important player and without them, we'd all be definitely screwed. Without the USA, we'd probably still be screwed, but there's more of a chance of a happy (ish) ending.

Roosevelt wouldn't have entered a European war unless he was attacked IMHO. Intervention was a highly unpopular policy in the USA at the time and Roosevelt would've been unelected if he'd even thought about it. This was shown when Britain was left alone on the continent for a year (before Russia joined and after Greece fell). If he was willing to save Britain, then that was his time, because it was obvious to all and sundry that we were going ot be flattened. For some reason, Hitler turned on Russia and we escaped to rebuild.

If Germany invaded Britain then we were screwed even if the USA joined in. The RAF would've been pulverised before Operation Sealion was initiated and weight of numbers from pilots who would otherwise be fighting Russia would win the Battle of Britain. The Royal Navy would have interfered with any attempt at landing in Britain, but without any air support, the Luftwaffe would have crushed them. The Army's strength was in North Africa and abandoned on the beaches of Dunkirk and Britain has never been a fortified country. We rely on the channel and the strength of our navy to protect us and, barring miracles, I can't foresee any impediment to a Nazi occupation of London. We'd fight to the death, but with no fortifications and no air support, we would be doomed. A puppet government woul probably have been set up somewhere like Leeds and the war in Europe would've been over.

The Earl

The premise in this is that Hitler would have enough confidence in the relationship with the USSR to be able to commit the sufficient resources necessary to conquer Britain. (Which makes USSR a player without being a player.) I don't know that I have read anything anywhere that indicated that Hitler thought he could do any better than neutralizing Britain by isolating her from the rest of Europe. You would have to alter those two things to make the conquest of Britain feasible. (I have no qualms about playing "what if" in history, it can provide more insight.) By the way, you're either up early or up late.

 

[TheEarl]

The premise in this is that Hitler would have enough confidence in the relationship with the USSR to be able to commit the sufficient resources necessary to conquer Britain. (Which makes USSR a player without being a player.) I don't know that I have read anything anywhere that indicated that Hitler thought he could do any better than neutralizing Britain by isolating her from the rest of Europe. You would have to alter those two things to make the conquest of Britain feasible. (I have no qualms about playing "what if" in history, it can provide more insight.) By the way, you're either up early or up late.

Up late. Insomniac at work.

Now this is an interesting debate and far more than I thought I'd get from snapping at amicus. I think you're right that Hitler didn't trust the USSR as far as he could throw them, but he knew their weaknesses. They had enormous manpower, but nowhere near the technology or weapons to fight a modern war. I can't see the USSR attacking just yet and, although German paranoia would leave lots of troops stationed there, a significant percentage of Generals, equipment and fighting men that were needed in war, but would not have been used in the uneasy Eastern peace, would've gone towards Britain. Any increase in personnel, expertise or planes and the Battle of Britain could so easily have gone the other way. Britain was unprepared and underequipped and a quick Blitzkrieg would have left us as helpless as France was.

The really interesting question is whether Hitler would've gone for the invasion of Britain. We know that Operation Sealion was planned, researched and even has dates pencilled in. We also know that the plan of the Battle of Britain was to destroy the RAF in order to allow the Luftwaffe to protect German troop movements across the channel.

However, Hitler had a grudging respect for Britain and actually offered Churchill a truce. Britain held no strategic importance at the time and if her interests in Europe were thoroughly stymied, then Germany would consider that a good result. Churchill's bullishness sent the truce proposition back with a request for an unconditional surrender and Hitler continued the war. I have to saythat, given the diplomatic snub and the sheer triumph that the annexing of the world's biggest military power for the last 150 years would have afforded him, I can't see Hitler not going for it. Churchill would never surrender and Britain was a thorn in his side for his eventual goal of Russia. It was easier to remove the thorn than to ignore it, had he put all his effort into doing so.

I agree with your point that the Nazi-Soviet pact wmay not have lasted long and that my counterfactual is incorrect in places. After Britain was removed, Hitler would've gone for Russia, brining them into the war anyway. However, it could be argued that, given no Western or North African fronts to contend with, all three of Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow may have fallen. All three battles turned on a knife edge as it was.

An interesting coutnerfactual that I'd love to hear someone's opinion on. When Germany marched on Russia, Finland seized her opportunity to take revenge on the USSR for an earlier war. She drove the Russian armies from her land and then, despite German pleas of alliance, stopped at her former borders, mere miles from Leningrad.

The battle for Leningrad was one of the closest in WW2 and, if the Finns had allied with Germany, it would surely have falled to the Axis. Moscow would've been encircled and would fall swiftly after that and Russia might have fallen because of one of the smaller nations in Europe.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

I am actually off to bed. I will read you reply with interest (later!) in the morning. Thank you for a good argument and I hope to rejoin later.

The Earl

 

[Kassiana]

I love Eddie Izzard's bit about WW2. His argument was that the U.S. entered the war so late because we were watching too many Westerns, where the U.S. cavalry always shows up at the last minute.

"So they finally show up and we said, 'Fucking hell, where have you been?'"

(American accent) "Oh, havin' breakfast."

Kass, purveyor of humor to threads that desperately need them

 

[TheEarl]

I love Eddie Izzard's bit about WW2. His argument was that the U.S. entered the war so late because we were watching too many Westerns, where the U.S. cavalry always shows up at the last minute.

"So they finally show up and we said, 'Fucking hell, where have you been?'"

(American accent) "Oh, havin' breakfast."

Kass, purveyor of humor to threads that desperately need them

"Ah, I love the smell of Europe in the morning"

The Earl

 

[blackhaus7]

"Ah, I love the smell of Europe in the morning"

The Earl

Hey, Earl, I haven't left the field, took a time out, just a busy day. (It's difficult to remember the orginial objective was to drain the swamp when you're up to your ass in alligators. ) Before I get back to Finland and the USSR, I was reminded as to why Americans may have amicus' attitude. Less than 30 miles from me is an air/space museum that is second only to the Smithsonian. They have a complete V-1 and a rare complete V-2. These are displayed in a room that feels like Nazi Germany with photographs of the time. If I remember right, it was at Yalta that Churchill and Stalin wanted Europe settled first because of the Vs. Roosevelt agreed, even though it wasn't in the US best interest. Germany really wasn't a threat at that time, however, Japan... So, there is a bit of "we pulled your fat out of the fire 'cause you asked us."

The Finns just wanted what they lost. And regardless of anything else, to defeat the USSR would be one thing, but to occupy her, that's something else entirely.

My responses may sporatic for a while. Have patience.

 

[gauchecritic]

The Finns just wanted what they lost. And regardless of anything else, to defeat the USSR would be one thing, but to occupy her, that's something else entirely.

My responses may sporatic for a while. Have patience.

As to the occupation I can tell you from personal, albeit anecdotal, evidence that lots of USSR satelite states would have welcomed 'liberation' by German forces and then gone about liberating themselves from occupation, probably bringing about civil wars throughout the area 30 years early.

 

[TheEarl]

Hey, Earl, I haven't left the field, took a time out, just a busy day. (It's difficult to remember the orginial objective was to drain the swamp when you're up to your ass in alligators. ) Before I get back to Finland and the USSR, I was reminded as to why Americans may have amicus' attitude. Less than 30 miles from me is an air/space museum that is second only to the Smithsonian. They have a complete V-1 and a rare complete V-2. These are displayed in a room that feels like Nazi Germany with photographs of the time. If I remember right, it was at Yalta that Churchill and Stalin wanted Europe settled first because of the Vs. Roosevelt agreed, even though it wasn't in the US best interest. Germany really wasn't a threat at that time, however, Japan... So, there is a bit of "we pulled your fat out of the fire 'cause you asked us."

The Finns just wanted what they lost. And regardless of anything else, to defeat the USSR would be one thing, but to occupy her, that's something else entirely.

My responses may sporatic for a while. Have patience.

No rush mate. I'm only here so much because the alternative is coursework.

Actually, you guys joined the war only when it directly affected you ie, Japan and Germany declared war on you. Churchill and Stalin wanted Europe settled first and the USA agreed because it makes no sense to fight two wars at once if you can avoid it. It was better to finish off Germany (who could counterattack if the pressure was lessened) rather than continue pressing against the Japanese who had no capability to attack but would make a bloody massacre of any invasion. Best to remove one front and then concentrate all fire on the other. As it turned out, there was no need to invade Japan, but if there had been, the Royal Navy would've started shipping British soldiers out to fortify the US island-hopping scheme.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

As it turned out, there was no need to invade Japan,

The Earl

Yeah, only because the poor sods got nuked.

(Touchy subject, my Mother-in-Law is Japanese and she's just gone out there for a visit. I've heard some shocking horror stories. My Grandad was a POW of the Japanese, I've heard some horror stories from him, too. Funny old world we live in...)

 

[TheEarl]

Yeah, only because the poor sods got nuked.

(Touchy subject, my Mother-in-Law is Japanese and she's just gone out there for a visit. I've heard some shocking horror stories. My Grandad was a POW of the Japanese, I've heard some horror stories from him, too. Funny old world we live in...)

True, but I bet you there'd be more horror stories if there'd been an invasion of Japan proper.

The Earl