Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/17/05 12:47 AM, Crontar wrote: WWII should never have happened. If we had stayed in Germany after WWI and helped set up the government, a would-be painter, Hitler would have never been in power. Even if he had took power, we would have monitored him. Another thing is Britain and France giving into Germany's demand, giving them Czechoslavakia, nice job, cowards. This is why we have not left Iraq yet, does anyone want another world war? I don't, so, I'm glad we are helping the government become stable.

The mindset was totally different at that time. Most people that weren't French felt bad for Germany because of the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. Part of the reason that Hitler was allowed to make Germany so powerful was because it was seen as a good thing in many circles, considering the hardship it had endured after WWI, not to mention that Germany served as a strong buffer between the Allies and the USSR.

As for the Munich Agreement that gave the Czech Sudetenland to Germany, it was part of the policy of appeasement. Had they not agreed with Hitler at Munich, it would only have served to start the war sooner.

It seems that some of you people need to get some of your history right, I as possibly many other people who posted so far, am a complete history freak, love it, and I love to watch the history channel. Anyways, lets start with the basics shall we? It all basically started because britan and france failed to stop hitler at the beginning, after giving him back some of his territory, he then went and pulled a blitzkreig on poland, which if you didnt know, atm Russia and germany had a cease fire pact, and shared poland in halfs at the time. After the invasion of poland Britan and france declared war, which btw got ALOT of countries out of depression if you didnt know, anyways after they took poland and various other countries that hitler believed belonged to him, he immediately went thru belgium, straight into france, pushing them out. France immediatley surrenders, so hitler moves onto Russia. Now if you know your history.. your a fool to invade russia.. y? the cold weather of course! Even though half of Russia was taken during the war, it is a fact that without russia we probably wouldntve won the war. Russia was KEY because if they DIDNT take out russia, then after britan and others got into france, they would have their asses a two front war, and according to all known records, no country has even been able to handle a two front war, just not possible. Now as for pearl harbor, yes we did have a warning but I dont ever recall in any history movie, video, book, or site, that they had any ACTUAL date in which it would happen, they just knew something would happen sometime. Originally the US wouldve gotten a warning just minutes before the attack, but the translation and the paper was VERY late to its destination, so really the president got the letter from japan AFTER they had attacked. Now obviously the ships at pearl harbor couldntve taken an attack by sea, but their was another fleet coming in very soon to help them out. The whole war with japan completely turned around on the Battle Of Midway, that was then when basically, the japanese navy was destroy, it was an all Air battle, no ship ever made contact. Now the reason why we bombed japan was for obviously, lives, in order to get into the heart of japan they would have to take out a key island, Okanowa, that wouldve costed 1 million american lives, not exactly a smart thing to do. So, we bombed Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, with warnings of course, but did you know we werent originally going to bomb Nagasaki? We actually had a choice between 5 different cities to bomb, but the problem was, the damn clouds. After the defeat of japan america actually got into the war over in europe, btw do not say americans did jack shit til japan attacked, they sent PLENTY of arms n such to britan with boats. Oh yes and for anyone who doesnt know, britan was the first to come out with RADAR, thats how they were able to attack hitlers air b4 it hit them( I wouldve used leuftwafe but im probly spelling it wrong), anyways Then came the invasion of Normandy, took place on June 6th, originally set for june 5th but cancelled due to bad weather, also named Operation D-Day. This was the key ending point for the war in europe, many soldiers from many countries died(life expectency was 7-10 seconds about). Russia was finally turning the tide of battle, making it a double front war again, as britan and american soldiers, plus others, marched towards Germany. Due to the fact that germany was going to lose, and that hitler had syphilis, he killed himself, germany was captured, and thats basically the war summed up. All together, I say all countries pulled their equal weight in this war, well.. maybe russia did a bit more... stalingrad was pretty horrible.., anyways thats about all id like to say for now, the history channel is good for u, watch it ^^.

Can we please let this topic die? Kids get taught about WW2 in schools and so think they're experts on the subject. Dear lord the inanity.

At 2/27/05 03:23 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 2/27/05 03:02 PM, ctrlkey wrote: REAL historians agree on the fact that victory would not of been possible if it wasn't for the Soviet Army. That is general accepted knowledge, NOt my opinion.

So they did a historian poll, and it was all the historians of time.

At 1945, the US army reached 12 million. We had atomic bombs, Air superiority over Germany, Naval superiority over Germany, and two fronts open up towards Germany. Normandy and Italy. All of which was accomplished without the help of Russia. We would have won, just would have been more costly.

I contend, that if we had not invaded on D-day, Germany would have taken over Russia.

And that Canada sucks.

It's interesting that you say Canada sucks considering we happened to loosen Germany's grip on Italy and liberated the Netherlands. In Italy, the Battle of Ortona is a testament to Canada's bravery against the odds, fighting an uphill battle against a greater force. Not to mention we stormed Juno Beach on D-Day.

And for the record, by 1939, Canada was a sovereign nation. Both the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and the British North America Act in 1867 essentially gave Canada the ability to govern itself. Prime Minister W.L.M. King decided that it was best to stand alongside Britain in the fray. Of course he also bought up all his land around his house so Jews wouldn't live there and got his ideas from seances with his dead mother, but that's beside the point.

At 10/18/05 11:35 AM, Slizor wrote: Can we please let this topic die? Kids get taught about WW2 in schools and so think they're experts on the subject. Dear lord the inanity.

I happen to enjoy discussions on the Napoleonic Wars and WWI more as well, but the Second World War is responsible for much as it stands today. Just look at the crisis in Israel. A direct result of WWII. We must discuss and learn from the past to keep from repeating our mistakes in the future.

Or so the USA would have us believe, the fact is that no one acts within the law during wartime, the object is to kill one another and only the people who don't win the war are made war criminals, oh yeah and deserters.

i agree that russia played a huge part in the war, but the west played a huge war as well. even if you discount all ground fighting done by the west everywhere in world war II, you still have to look at the air war. the west blew the crap out of germany with its bombers. this reduced the population that could fight, and destroyed important factories. if germany's factories had been fully intact, perhaps many of the russian battles, including the important battle of kursk would have turned in the german favor, just because there were several more tanks and airplanes produced. if the germans had just pushed a little farther, they would have taken moscow. i believe that without the west, that germany would have had more weapons of war, and russia would have had less. at the very least, it would have taken russia longer to destroy germany. this time may have given germany the ability to build the atom bomb. they wouldnt have had their factories destroyed, so they would have more resources and workforce to deploy to research. if germany had developed atomic weapons, the war would have been over. they would have launched a V-2 rocket with a nuclear warhead at london, and several others at russia. that would have ended everything. russia would have its huge tank army destroyed in a single day, and stalin would be dead.

oops i meant part in the war...

Lest we forget.

At 2/28/05 11:29 PM, DopplarEffekt wrote:

At 2/28/05 11:13 PM, SgtKrammer wrote: What do you guys and girls feel was the best weapon used in the war through any period?

I didn't know that people thought that weapons from World War II that killed millions of people were cool.

i do...
very cool

At 2/27/05 02:32 PM, ctrlkey wrote:

At 2/27/05 02:22 PM, Andersson wrote:

One of the reasons to why U.S.A. didn't join in the beginning was fear. They had just gone through the depression and they also had some political issues back home (The one about equal rights for all people whether they are colored or not).

EVERYBODY, went through a depression and political issues before the war. Almost ever major nation went through the same difficulties. So, that right there is a load of bs.

....omg dude america has went through alot it would have had alot more men die without america

To many people choose only one of the allies and try to say they did all the work. Germany could of kicked any one of the allies ass, it was a joint effort. people always say russia did all the work, becuase we all know loosing over 20 million men is a sign of winning a war, really boosts morale, and russia didnt engage with Japan very often (first time before invasion of poland happened and russia kicked japense ass). USA did alot of the work tearing down the japense (help form UK and Aussie of course) while Brits had to deal with the african campagin againt freaking Erwin Rommel (best ww2 in my opoion)(with USA help later). Russia had to deal with the bloodest battles that caused them MASSIVE casulties but slowly exploted that the german military was spread to thin. America also did massive percice bombing over berlin destroying the Third Reichs Industry (Brits did night bombing to prevent germans from rebuilding and non-specific target bombing). it was a joint effort from the big three, with out all three, germany would of kicked some serious ass. BTW i am related to the only field marshal to ever surrender in german history LOL. Friedrich Wilhelm Ernst Paulus IS THE BEST (ignore typos i am lazy)

At 2/27/05 01:31 PM, ctrlkey wrote: I dont think its cool how people died in the past. however, you HAVE to remember shit like that, eventually, WWII will be forgotten because generation of generation didn't bother learning the sacrifices that were made and the fear that caused them. People like that SICKEN me!

WW what?

Yeah, Rommel was one of the generals for Germany that was a true patriot. He risked his own life to try to stop Hitler from destroying the rest of Germany. Unfortunately, he failed to assassinate Hitler, and was subsequently killed.

At 12/15/05 01:48 AM, Zephon wrote: To many people choose only one of the allies and try to say they did all the work. Germany could of kicked any one of the allies ass, it was a joint effort. people always say russia did all the work, becuase we all know loosing over 20 million men is a sign of winning a war, really boosts morale, and russia didnt engage with Japan very often

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Russia diddo most of the work. Keep in mind that Germany was only fighting one major opponent before 1944 (Italy and North Africa were nowhere near the scale of D-Day or the east), and before 1943 the Allied bombing campaign hadn't gotten into full swing either.

By 1943 the Russians blunted the German army in such a way as to make it impossible for them to win, whereas without Russia, D-Day and North Africa would have seen much more determined and probably successful German resistance.

The fact is that all Allied forces were outmatched by Germany, which is why the Russians suffered such heavy casualties and why D-Day and its preparations were so extensive. Any time Allied forces engaged the Germans at anything like even strength, the Germans prevailed. So without the Russians to absorb the heavy losses, the Germans could have won the war.

What really gets me is how the Western Allies hijacked the victory of the European theatre from the Russians. I mean before WWII, the West was willing to watch Germany and the USSR rip each other to pieces. This is why they all crapped their pants when Germany signed a non-aggression with the Soviets.

I don't think the Western Allies wanted to help Russia at all. They first chose the North African campaign to do all their fighting, a slow campaign that made sure that the pressure remained primarily on Russia. I am not understating the importance of the North Africa campaign, but the allies could have committed to a second front so much earlier than they did.

And when did the Allies decide they were gallantly going to help their allies the USSR? Once it appeared certain that the Russians had turned the tide on Germany, thats when. The Allies did not want this to be a Soviet victory, so they quickly attacked at D-Day, and the rest is history. And the war is always touted in the West as a victory the West. I don't think enough credit is given to Russia, and I am always unhappy about they way we chose our battles during the war.

At 12/15/05 09:09 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: What really gets me is how the Western Allies hijacked the victory of the European theatre from the Russians. I mean before WWII, the West was willing to watch Germany and the USSR rip each other to pieces. This is why they all crapped their pants when Germany signed a non-aggression with the Soviets.

I don't think the Western Allies wanted to help Russia at all. They first chose the North African campaign to do all their fighting, a slow campaign that made sure that the pressure remained primarily on Russia. I am not understating the importance of the North Africa campaign, but the allies could have committed to a second front so much earlier than they did.

And when did the Allies decide they were gallantly going to help their allies the USSR? Once it appeared certain that the Russians had turned the tide on Germany, thats when. The Allies did not want this to be a Soviet victory, so they quickly attacked at D-Day, and the rest is history. And the war is always touted in the West as a victory the West. I don't think enough credit is given to Russia, and I am always unhappy about they way we chose our battles during the war.

you should watch the series The World At War. it will clear up many of the things you dont understand about the war. without the supplies the west was giving russia, the russians would have certainly lost moscow. it was the west that kept the soldiers in russia going. the reasons that russia lost so many men are 1) stalin was a complete idiot, and killed all his best generals right before the war and replaced them with yes men, and 2) they didnt have very good supplies. ever watch the movie Enemy at the Gates? one man got a rifle and very little ammo, another behind him got no weapon at all, but four whole bullets. the policy was that when the man holding the gun infront of you dies, you pick up his gun and shoot. when not even half the men that are attacking an entrenched position even have weapons, you should expect to have some major losses of men. i read that after the war, there were so many russian men that had died that about 2/3 of the population of the country were women.

when you say that we could start a second front you dont realize that england at that part of the war was in serious risk of starving to death for supplies. the german submarine force was really good at destroying anything that america tried to send across the atlantic. the west eventually crushed the german subs, but just in the nick of time.

did you know that earlier in the war the west actually tried to start a second front in france? i bet you didnt, since you think the west could have. the entire operation was a disaster, the men all were killed or became POWs those beaches were REALLY well defended.

you discount several campains by the west that took many german men away from russia. if the west hadnt been fighting in africa, russia would have been taken by germany, and the whole world would now be bowing to hitler's kids. (or whoever he would have named as his successor)

america provided the supplies, and weapons, russia provided the blood.

if you feel so protective of russia, i ask why did russia not help the england and france when germany attacked france? because stalin thought that if both sides weakened themselves, all of europe would become weak, and ready to be taken.

At 12/16/05 01:07 AM, mayeram wrote: you should watch the series The World At War. it will clear up many of the things you dont understand about the war. without the supplies the west was giving russia, the russians would have certainly lost moscow. it was the west that kept the soldiers in russia going. the reasons that russia lost so many men are 1) stalin was a complete idiot, and killed all his best generals right before the war and replaced them with yes men, and 2) they didnt have very good supplies. ever watch the movie Enemy at the Gates? one man got a rifle and very little ammo, another behind him got no weapon at all, but four whole bullets. the policy was that when the man holding the gun infront of you dies, you pick up his gun and shoot. when not even half the men that are attacking an entrenched position even have weapons, you should expect to have some major losses of men. i read that after the war, there were so many russian men that had died that about 2/3 of the population of the country were women.

But wait a minute, I thought you said that the US was supplying the USSR with arms? Me, having not studied this era at all, find this confusing. I know very well of the Russian front thanks, and I do not like to be talked to like an idiot. I was merely pointing out that the US and the UK were purposefully delaying a second front in Europe.

when you say that we could start a second front you dont realize that england at that part of the war was in serious risk of starving to death for supplies. the german submarine force was really good at destroying anything that america tried to send across the atlantic. the west eventually crushed the german subs, but just in the nick of time.

at no point was the UK in any danger of starving. and, as i have been forced to admit, the US couldve taken on the Germans at any point. i think the worst the rationing did to the Uk was make them healthier.

did you know that earlier in the war the west actually tried to start a second front in france? i bet you didnt, since you think the west could have. the entire operation was a disaster, the men all were killed or became POWs those beaches were REALLY well defended.

you mean the canadian attack on France. if you call that a campaign......then you need to go back to your books.

you discount several campains by the west that took many german men away from russia. if the west hadnt been fighting in africa, russia would have been taken by germany, and the whole world would now be bowing to hitler's kids. (or whoever he would have named as his successor)

Yet you discount me saying I didn't say the African campign wasnt important. And it has been generally agreed that even if there wasnt a minor drag from the African/Italian front, the Russians wouldve eventually prevailed.

america provided the supplies, and weapons, russia provided the blood.

I thought you said the Russians were poorly armed.

At 12/16/05 01:10 AM, mayeram wrote: if you feel so protective of russia, i ask why did russia not help the england and france when germany attacked france? because stalin thought that if both sides weakened themselves, all of europe would become weak, and ready to be taken.

Because I don't think Russia was ready. It wouldve attacked Germany eventually, but, like France and the UK it was not ready to fight.

At 12/16/05 01:07 AM, mayeram wrote: did you know that earlier in the war the west actually tried to start a second front in france? i bet you didnt, since you think the west could have. the entire operation was a disaster, the men all were killed or became POWs those beaches were REALLY well defended.

It cannot be stressed enough, although it's already been said, that Dieppe was not by any means a serious attempt at opening a second front. It was at best a learning experience for the real invasion.

you discount several campains by the west that took many german men away from russia. if the west hadnt been fighting in africa, russia would have been taken by germany

Couldn't disagree more. Africa did not drain a sufficient amount of German forces to stop them launching major offensives in the east. In fact, the eastern front drained more men away from the west than the other way around. Also, the Allies landed in Sicily a few days after the Germans had already lost the Battle of Kursk, which was the battle that ensured that they would lose the war.

At 12/16/05 01:10 AM, mayeram wrote: if you feel so protective of russia, i ask why did russia not help the england and france when germany attacked france? because stalin thought that if both sides weakened themselves, all of europe would become weak, and ready to be taken.

While that is certainly what Stalin had in mind, one does not have to be protecting Russia to state fact. I'm sure you're aware that England was also considering a plan to attack the Russians in Finland, so it's not like the western Allies were looking out for Russia either.

At 12/16/05 02:59 AM, Jerconjake wrote: I'm sure you're aware that England was also considering a plan to attack the Russians in Finland, so it's not like the western Allies were looking out for Russia either.

Exactly. I know that after the war had ended, Churchill was adament that the Allies keep fighting against Russia.

cool i took a look at it but since i am a opened minded person. well kind of world war2 history you want to talk about

I'm interested to know people's opinions on how the Germans could have won the war. Assuming that all their resources and troop levels and whatnot were the same as they were historically, how would you have won the war?

At 2/27/05 12:57 PM, Andersson wrote: And they dropped papers there everyday, one week from the drop, to the drop, there it stood on several languages that they were going to drop the atomic bomb there. They used Hiroshima as a statement, why Japan should surrender. USA dropped flyers for a week before they dropped the bomb saying that they would drop an none-tested heavy air-to-ground bomb there, and that the people who lived there should move out from there (They did the same thing before they bombed Nagasaki). So it's not only USA's fault, even if some people think so.

People always think it's the victims fault, at that time noone had ever heard of such a thing. Plus we were at war with them u dont just go over there say "we're going to drop a bomb on you if u dont leave" and expect someone to take you seriously. At that time is was all about standing ground (the Coldwar happend shortly there after). And even now ppl say "Hey! those ppl in new orleans should have moved they knew it was coming." But no one knew how devestaing tha was going to be and what a disater that was. Yea i just got distracted and lost my train of thought but im sure you get what im saying an where im going with the whole thing

Carrying my argument on from the Tony Blair topic, I don't believe you can blame Nevillie Chamberlain, a man who truthfully wanted to prevent another horific world war from occuring, for actually being the main factor in starting World War II.

Public Opinion was very much against a war from the start after having lived through the horrors of WWI. They also felt sorry for Germany, and supported appeasement.

By what type of evil voodoo was this topic resurrected?

At 5/14/06 04:04 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: Carrying my argument on from the Tony Blair topic, I don't believe you can blame Nevillie Chamberlain, a man who truthfully wanted to prevent another horific world war from occuring, for actually being the main factor in starting World War II.

Public Opinion was very much against a war from the start after having lived through the horrors of WWI. They also felt sorry for Germany, and supported appeasement.

Hitler knew this and took advantage of it. You can pin the war on Chamberlin because it was his fault. Mein Kampf was a best selling book, yet apparently nobody except Churchill read it. Churchill realized what Hitler was trying to do.....

At 3/5/07 12:10 PM, fastbow wrote: Hitler knew this and took advantage of it. You can pin the war on Chamberlin because it was his fault. Mein Kampf was a best selling book, yet apparently nobody except Churchill read it. Churchill realized what Hitler was trying to do.....

You are assuming that everyone in the British government, bar the unbelievably clever Winston Churchill (who, I discovered the other day, started writing his memoirs in 1941) didn't know that there was a war coming. I think this is really naive to be honest. I believe that Chamberlain and the government were honestly trying to avoid yet another bloodbath, that they definitely saw coming, while simultaneously buying time for Britain to arm to a sufficient level.

HIstorians in the 50's and 60's may have blamed Chamberlain, as was the popular thing to do, but the modernist view is that his choices were guided by factors that he could not control. He did everything he could to try and avoid war, but he was also preparing us for war.

Churchill, the 'Greatest Briton', may have been a good war leader, but that's all. Aside from that, he was a terrible person.

At 3/6/07 10:18 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: You are assuming that everyone in the British government, bar the unbelievably clever Winston Churchill (who, I discovered the other day, started writing his memoirs in 1941) didn't know that there was a war coming. I think this is really naive to be honest. I believe that Chamberlain and the government were honestly trying to avoid yet another bloodbath, that they definitely saw coming, while simultaneously buying time for Britain to arm to a sufficient level.

Ok. I still blame Chamberlin. He could have stopped appeasing Hitler. He didn't. Also, England did not really begin agressively arming themselves until 1939. They were unprepared for war...