# Who started WW2?



## Tiger (May 17, 2006)

France? Do you think that the French input into the treaty of Versailles put Germany in a position were a leader like Hitler could rise to power and there by causing the war? The British and American input was not anywhere as near as the harsh punishment wanted by the French. If the treaty had been realistic would it have prevented WW2? 

I asked this on another forum and got some interesting answers, discuss away!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (May 17, 2006)

It was Germany who instigated hostilities. Once they crossed the border into Checklslovakia in 1938, they were essentialy an outlaw state. Attacking Poland was just a confirmation of their intentions.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Haztoys (May 17, 2006)

WW1 never ended...it just started up 20 or so years later 


And the Japans could see the time was right to ..Just take what they wanted ...From these who were under them ...Or they felt they were under them...

Just my take of it all..


----------



## v2 (May 17, 2006)

Any questions?

Text of the Nazi-Soviet Pact

The Government of the German Reich and The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental provisions of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April, 1926 between Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following Agreement:

Article I. Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other Powers.

Article II. Should one of the High Contracting Parties become the object of belligerent action by a third Power, the other High Contracting Party shall in no manner lend its support to this third Power.

Article III. The Governments of the two High Contracting Parties shall in the future maintain continual contact with one another for the purpose of consultation in order to exchange information on problems affecting their common interests.

Article IV. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties shall participate in any grouping of Powers whatsoever that is directly or indirectly aimed at the other party.

Article V. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties over problems of one kind or another, both parties shall settle these disputes or conflicts exclusively through friendly exchange of opinion or, if necessary, through the establishment of arbitration commissions.

Article VI. The present Treaty is concluded for a period of ten years, with the proviso that, in so far as one of the High Contracting Parties does not advance it one year prior to the expiration of this period, the validity of this Treaty shall automatically be extended for another five years.

Article VII. The present treaty shall be ratified within the shortest possible time. The ratifications shall be exchanged in Berlin. The Agreement shall enter into force as soon as it is signed.

[The section below was not published at the time the above was announced.]

Secret Additional Protocol.

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these areas.

Article IV. This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.

Moscow, August 23, 1939.

For the Government of the German Reich v. Ribbentrop

Plenipotentiary of the Government of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov


----------



## timshatz (May 17, 2006)

Tiger said:


> Who started WW2




I heard it was a guy name Fred.


----------



## Haztoys (May 17, 2006)

I keep forgetting the Russian end of it ...American schools would not say ..

FDR 'thought' he had Stalin all figured out ...And covered ... 

And did not ...


----------



## schwarzpanzer (May 17, 2006)

Nice idea for a thread Tiger, though it could get ugly...

IMO there were a few guilty parties, no one country was entirely to blame:



Haztoys said:


> WW1 never ended...



Yes I agree, in that case; Serbia.

Poland and Czechoslovakia stealing territory that wasn't theirs also instigated it.

Germany should have only taklen back what was hers in the 1st place and no more.

France, of course, but Britain and America weren't blameless (though Britain sent aid to Germany).

I don't think the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact had anything to do with it? 

Interesting to see the details though, thanks V2.

- Though I notice no-one dared declare war when the USSR invaded Poland weeks after Germany, wonder why that was...


----------



## reddragon (May 17, 2006)

I always thought the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was the start of World War II.


----------



## syscom3 (May 18, 2006)

The Japanese invasion of Manchuria and then China was a precursor to a larger war. But I dont think those events in themselves would have started the second world war. Noone was going to go to war over those countries, regardless of the circumstances.

It was Germany's invasion of Poland was what started the whole conflaguration.

And if anyone thinks the US was partly to blame for the start of the war, they have zero facts to base their decleration on. The US didnt not approve of the reperations that Germany was forced to pay. the US was isolationist throughout the 20's and 30's. And the US didnt rearm untill 1939, and it was for the Navy. It wasnt untill 1940 that the army and air corps were built back up.

The facts are clear. Germany started the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2006)

I agree no matter how you look at it Germany started it. There were many things that helped play a part in the fact such as the failed league of nations and the Versaille Treaty but in the end it was Hitler mad self that started WW2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (May 18, 2006)

Agreed Adler, the German aggression in the later half of the 1930's caused the war and Japan's involvement in China increased the scope of the war. There were many contributing factors as you said such as the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations as well as the whole policy of appeasement followed by France and Britain.


----------



## Wurger (May 18, 2006)

Haztoys said:



> WW1 never ended...it just started up 20 or so years later ....



I've heard an opinion that WW2 was still the same WW1 with the twenty-years pause for regrouping and restoration armed forces.I agree with this and a result I must see eye to eye with Hazatoys.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2006)

I also agree with that assumption. Another contributing factor was all these secret treaties prior to WW1. There never really was an end to Great War if you think about, just regrouping.


----------



## Twitch (May 18, 2006)

The Allies of WW I created the conditions that strongly influenced Germany in the direction it went. All they wanted was retribution and punishment for Germany. After stripping the country of anything of value they left it like a turd on the lawn. Had they treated Germany with respect and assisted in the economic rebuild as happened after WW 2 the conditions that spawned a Hitler would have not been present.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2006)

I agree I feel that after WW1 Germany was treated unfairly for a war that it did not start.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2006)

The Allies of the Great War should have occupied Germany after World War I. Leaving the German soldiers to return home baring their colours and arms let the German people believe it was the politics that lost them the war, not the military actions of the Allies. Which led Hitler to have a good foundation to blame the Jews and Communists on the loss of World War I. 

Britain was, in fact, prepared to go to war with the USSR over Finland. The invasion of Norway was to take Narvick, and provide and overland route into Finland. This would have allowed the shipping of troops to hold the borders against the Red Army. But we all know history, Germany invaded France which forced Britain out of Norway and the idea was quashed.


----------



## Haztoys (May 18, 2006)

Germany ...Did not start WW1 ... But gets the blame...

I could be wrong ...But they had sighed a treaty ..And got dragged into it ..

One thing I do not under stand is the Prussia thing with the Nazis ....??

And did the Germans want Poland in WW1 ???..

Or is the Prussia ,,Poland,,,Low Lands grab ...Just a Nazi Need for land ... Or is there some "found" to the German need to that peace of land ...


Its sad after the USSR brakes up .... The Serbs ...And The Crowads...Start at it ...The minute they get a chance ...

Thats who started WW1


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2006)

No one said anything about Germany starting World War I, f*cknut.


----------



## Haztoys (May 18, 2006)

plan_D said:


> No one said anything about Germany starting World War I, f*cknut.



F*cknut ...Wow ..was that needed .. What did I do ??

Is were I was getting at..."F*cknut" 

"'Is germany real payed for what they got draged in too..." 

Looks like I've posted anuff on this (to much) 

have fun


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2006)

You really need to read a little more of the people here before you instantly get offended by f*cknut.


----------



## syscom3 (May 18, 2006)

I dont see any reason for calling a newbie a "fu*knut" when he didnt say anything out of the ordinary.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2006)

How long have you been here syscom, I'll call you a f*cknut for butting in like you always do. And yes, it was a stupid thing to make a comment about Germany getting blamed for starting World War I ... when we're talking about who started World War II.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2006)

I actually said something about Germany getting blaimed because it was something that helped in the Nazi cause for the start of WW2.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2006)

I know, but still you didn't say anything about Germany starting World War I. You just said they get blamed for it, which could have been left alone. In fact, to finish this discussion for both wars - 

Serbia started World War I. 
Germany started World War II.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2006)

Exactly


----------



## syscom3 (May 19, 2006)

plan_D said:


> How long have you been here syscom, I'll call you a f*cknut for butting in like you always do. And yes, it was a stupid thing to make a comment about Germany getting blamed for starting World War I ... when we're talking about who started World War II.



Ive been here long enough to know to ignore it.

The newbies dont and had a right to get pissed off on it.


----------



## Udet (May 19, 2006)

syscom3 is very correct. The insults launched at Haztoys were ridiculously unnecessary.

Strange no warning has been issued.


----------



## evangilder (May 19, 2006)

Alright, knock it off, guys.


----------



## syscom3 (May 19, 2006)

back on topic.

For the war in Asia, the Japanese see the issues differently.

They saw themselves as the natural colonial master of Asia (remember, after WW1, Germany lost all its territories in the Pacific, many of them to Japan). Their attitude was if the other European nations could conquor lands and colonize them, why cant an asia country do it too?

While they were very brutal about it, they saw their conduct under their own cultural rules.

NOTE - BEFORE ANYONE STARTS THROWING DARTS AT ME, IM REPORTING FACTS. IN NO WAY DO I APPROVE OF WHAT JAPAN DID!!!!!


----------



## timshatz (May 19, 2006)

If anyone wants to read a recent book on the origins of WW1, try reading "Europe's Last Summer". Very good read. Puts out the theory that the Serbian/Austrian, relatively local conflict changed when Russia did a partial mobilization and Germany reponded to it by mobilizing. After that, Germany expected Austria to ignore the lesser threat of Serbia (which was something of a conflict of convenience) and help Germany with Russia (the far greater threat of the two). Also states that Germany feared Russia to the point that it needed to bring on the war before Russia got too big to handle due to expansion of Russian industrial/economic sector. Good read, not fast but interesting idea and decently supported by the facts. 

Regarding the war with Japan in the 40s, another good and recent book is "Shattered Sword". Book came out last fall. It does a good job of covering the basics of why Japan went to war, the gaps in their strategy and why Japan felt slighted by the Western Powers. The book is focused on the Japanese side of the Battle of Midway, refuting a many of the myths of the battle (the decks of the Japanese Carriers had no aircraft on them when the American Dive bombers hit them at 10:20Am, the sacrifice of Torpedo 8 happened an hour before the dive bombers hit negating the affect on the cap of bringing it down to sea level, ect). The book is rigorously researched and a very good read. Heard somebody who's read a ton of WW2 history call it the best book he's ever read on the subject and that covers a ton of books.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 19, 2006)

The Pacific theater of WWII was actually started by the US, with Commodore Perry's visit to Japan. He sailed military vessels into Japanese homeland waters, and the ruling elite of Japan were forced to accept his terms of trade, essentially forcing the US way down their throat. The Japanese did not allow foreigners on their sacred soil, yet he landed, and when asked to leave initially, he sailed further inland, until the Japanese (who were powerless to force him out) signed the treaty on March 31, 1854. In order to rescind this national affront, they adopted the bushido code as a nation, thereby setting the stage for conflict.


----------



## syscom3 (May 19, 2006)

timshatz said:


> ....
> ......"Shattered Sword". ....... The book is rigorously researched and a very good read. Heard somebody who's read a ton of WW2 history call it the best book he's ever read on the subject and that covers a ton of books.



Im going to open a thread on this book.

Its the best book about the battle for Midway ever written.


----------



## Haztoys (May 19, 2006)

plan_D said:


> How long have you been here syscom, I'll call you a f*cknut for butting in like you always do. And yes, it was a stupid thing to make a comment about Germany getting blamed for starting World War I ... when we're talking about who started World War II.



Stupid..(eye roll) ...Now I'm Stupid ...great ... 

You can not just say ...."Nazi's got into power ..Everyone love them..And lets just take over Europe" ..The Germans started it ...It's not that EZ ...

And if you do not understand what happen in WW1 ...Thats what it looks like happened ... 

To understand WW2 ..You most understand WW1..

And a big point is "Germany took the fall for WW1 " ... And the Nazi's prayed on that ... 

That's just one of the thing that led to the next round of WW1 

Most often none as WW2...

And thank you ...Syscom3 for helping me here ... Who is this guy ..The town troll ... You may but in anytime ...

Plan-D ....I do not want to fight with you ... I do not call names ...And wish you would not also ... I'm just here to learn ... 

David


----------



## Haztoys (May 19, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I actually said something about Germany getting blaimed because it was something that helped in the Nazi cause for the start of WW2.



Thats what "I" was trying to say...


----------



## Haztoys (May 19, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> back on topic.
> 
> For the war in Asia, the Japanese see the issues differently.
> 
> ...



There was a embargo about or was on the Japanese just before Pearl Harbor

Over the colonizing and all... That was a act of war to the Japanese...

And thats why they atacked Pearl Harbor...

The United States started it ... With the embargo...???

I could be wrong ...


----------



## syscom3 (May 19, 2006)

The embargo's (first scrap steel, then oil) were implimented because of the Japanese agression in China. The "Rape of Nanking" in 1937 was the tipping point of relations between the two countries.

Remember that negotiations between the two countries were often stalled or ruined because of the iron fist the IJA had over the emporer, and the not-so-brilliant state dept attitudes regarding how Japan was really governed.


----------



## evangilder (May 19, 2006)

Haztoys said:


> Stupid..(eye roll) ...Now I'm Stupid ...great ...
> 
> You can not just say ...."Nazi's got into power ..Everyone love them..And lets just take over Europe" ..The Germans started it ...It's not that EZ ...
> 
> ...




Once again, knock it off. One more outburst from *any* of you on this will result in this thread being locked. Last warning.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (May 20, 2006)

Dang! - I was just about to start, I feel like I've been gagged now... 




timshatz said:


> Also states that Germany feared Russia to the point that it needed to bring on the war before Russia got too big to handle due to expansion of Russian industrial/economic sector.



I reckon that this reasoning was behind Barbarossa, can you imagine Stalin going 1st... 

(Though the Soviet people would likely have overthrown him befoore then, or he'd have already killed any possible Soviet fighting force)


Also the Winter War thing, I feel Britain was (rightfully) terrified of the Soviet Union and Stalin.

- It took a nutter like Hitler to counter a nutter like Stalin.


----------



## Haztoys (May 20, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Once again, knock it off. One more outburst from *any* of you on this will result in this thread being locked. Last warning.



Sorry to get everyone upset


----------



## lesofprimus (May 20, 2006)

U didn't get me upset, and for the record, *I* am the town troll.......

As far as this topic goes, it was either the Treaty of Versailles or Germany that started WWII, depending on how u want to look at it....

I think that the bottom line is that Hitler used the Treaty as a platform for his rise to power, and used that power to start a War....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

And that hit it on the nail. Haztoys you are correct though that in order to Understand why WW2 started you have to understand WW1.


----------



## Haztoys (May 20, 2006)

For years I could understand it all....But the German end of thing never paned out ...

England ,,France... USA...Russia...

Even Japan ... If the European can colonize ...So can we ...There mine set was (and still is ...sorry) that there race is above all other peoples...Not right ...But I understand the mine set that was going on ..

Spending time in Europe ..Like I do ....10 + trips a year ..I import used motorcycles in to Europe from the southwest USA...

The Nazi's getting power never seam to work out in "my" head .... So I ask some German's ....And was told to study WW1...

WW1 is forgotten these days ...And is the reason this world is ware we are today ...Good or bad...

More so then WW2...."I feel" .....Could be wrong and there's a lot of different way of looking at it ...I know ...

David


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

I pretty much see it as you do.


----------



## timshatz (May 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Im going to open a thread on this book.
> 
> Its the best book about the battle for Midway ever written.



It would be a great book to discuss but I don't know how many people have read it. Only 6 months old and not yet in paperback. Plus, it is a book that needs to be digested and considered. There are a ton of details in it. 

On the good side, it is a version of revisionist history that is actually worth reading. Most of it is crap. But this is pretty good, well researched and not politically motivated.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

I will have to order the book for my collection and read it.


----------



## timshatz (May 20, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Dang! - I was just about to start, I feel like I've been gagged now...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is a theory out there that Stalin was lining up to invade Germany in 42 and Hitlet's attack was pre-emptive. Not sure how much I put into that one but I've heard it before. 

On a related note, a guy named Liddell-Hart wrote a book on Strategy. In it he theorizes that Hitler's mistake was to attack Russia directly and not use an indirect approach (LH is really, really big on the indirect approach). He believes if Hitler had gone through Egypt, crossed the Suez, and across Palestine and into the Middle East, he would have solidified his oil supply, cut the British off (with a combination of subs/airplanes out of French Africa) from their dominions, and essentially surrounded Russia. Also, the Med would've become an Axis Lake, Turkey and all of the Balkans would've become defacto Axis Allies (no need to invade in 41). 

In that alternative history, it is possible for the Cold War to start in Poland in in 1939 with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia staring at each other. England wouldn't have survived long after the collapse of their Middle East possesions. 

Just a little fuel for the fire of the thread.

PS- The Great Pacific war goes on as scheduled and the results of that one are no different. With possible exception of India/Britian in the CBI.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

I think that England would have survived mainly due to shipments and help from the US in that scenerio.


----------



## syscom3 (May 20, 2006)

timshatz said:


> It would be a great book to discuss but I don't know how many people have read it. Only 6 months old and not yet in paperback. Plus, it is a book that needs to be digested and considered. There are a ton of details in it.
> 
> On the good side, it is a version of revisionist history that is actually worth reading. Most of it is crap. But this is pretty good, well researched and not politically motivated.



I opened a thread for the book.

In no way is it revisionist. It simply explains the IJN version of the battle using IJN documents.


----------



## syscom3 (May 20, 2006)

If Hitler and Japan refrained from attacking the US, thn the US would have stayed out of the war. Support England of course, but only through material aid.

I've long believed that if the Japanese had only attacked the European colonies of Asia, then the US would have stayed out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

I too believe that same thing to an extent, I just believe that at some point the US would have entered any how because of FDR.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 20, 2006)

I dont buy it.... America would have had to enter the war in Europe, just like Adler said.....


----------



## syscom3 (May 20, 2006)

On the eve of Pearl Harbor, the US was still bitterly divided. I dont see any US involvement in the war in Europe unless Hitler made a major attack.

For the Pacific, as long as Japan did not attack The PI, then the European colonies would be at the mercy of the Japanese. The US was simply not going to go to war to defend European colonies.


----------



## Delusional (May 21, 2006)

There are theories that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened. Whether or not those theories are true, FDR knew that the U.S. needed to get involved in the war, and he would have found a way with or without a major Axis attack. All that was needed was a bit of public approval and rally. Or we would have entered because of the same financial motivations that caused us to enter WWI. Granted, with the Great Depression, it would have taken longer for those motivations to spur action, but it would have happened eventually.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

> On the eve of Pearl Harbor, the US was still bitterly divided. I don't see any US involvement in the war in Europe unless Hitler made a major attack.


How long do u think the US would have sat around while merchant ships flying the ol red white and blue were sunk by the dozens???

It was inevitable, and someone with ur intelligence syscom should understand that....

And Delusi makes a very valid point, the US needed a War for the economy...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2006)

I agree Les. The US was not going to stand around forever.

I dont neccessarily believe that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, I do however know that the US new something was up and the government did not act accordingly.


----------



## timshatz (May 21, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> In no way is it revisionist. It simply explains the IJN version of the battle using IJN documents.



In calling it revisionist, I mean in terms of rewriting what Americans see as the history of Midway. Fuchida's writings are the basis behind the Myths of Midway that are considered the accurate assessment of the battle by Americans (and probably most non-Japanese). Fuchida's book came out in the early 50s and is taken as gospel because it got there first. Later Japanese accounts dismiss the book outright. But in the US, we pretty much missed it all. That, at least to my mind, leads to a revising of history. Hence, revisionist.

It is unfortunate, but revisionist history has gotten a very bad name due to the efforts of rewritting the Holocost and Atom bomb. Given the slapdash, politically motivated perspectives that occurred dealing with these subjects (and plenty of others), the tag of revisionist history is about as popular as a porcupine in a nudist colony.


----------



## timshatz (May 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree Les. The US was not going to stand around forever.
> 
> I dont neccessarily believe that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, I do however know that the US new something was up and the government did not act accordingly.



I gotta believe the US was going to get into the war at some point, but it was in no hurry. The US was bitterly divided, so much so that it factored into Japan's assessment of American resolve to fight. In 1940, the law authorizing the draft passed the house by only one vote. The OHIO Plan (jokingly referred to as "Over the Hill IN October") was rightfully seen as a step towards war and also seen as a neccessary evil given the shape of world events. The US was going to be a force in the European war, it was simply a question of how. 

I've heard from several sources that Roosevelt saw Germany (given their technological and industrial capacity) a greater evil than Japan. Had Japan struck south in 12/41, leaving US possessions alone, the US probably wouldn't have gone to war with them. However, even if Japan does take the Dutch possessions (primarily the oil fields), not attacking US possessions (specifically the Phillipines) would leave a major threat from their greatest potential enemy squarely across the lines of communications to the Home Islands. For an island nation with few natural resorces, that would be totally unacceptable. 

Germany, on the other hand, was a greater threat but was somewhat wise to the potential (if not the actual fact) of American capacity as an apponent. When war did come, the Germans overestimated US production in 42, but then seriously underestimated the capacity in years 43-45. Hitler did the Allies a favor by declaring war on the US on 12-10-41. He solved something of a dilema for the US. How to get into the war with Germany and have the population mobilized. It is a critical factor in a Democracy going to war. In terms of military history, it is one of the great blunders.

But, assuming Japan attacks and Hitler doesn't screw up, the actual entry of the US into the war with Germany is a tossup. How, when and where this occurs is an unknown. The odds of the Naval War being the instigator are the highest. Ground contact is unlikely, as is Air contact. Only by lack of opportunity. It is possible that an event like the Zimmerman Telegraph could happen. But the safe bet is a growing tension between the US and Germany in the Atlantic. But I believe it would've taken a couple of years beyond 10/41 to get there. Maybe by '43. Simply because the US would've focused on Japan, who had attacked her, first. When Churchill went to sleep on 12-7-41 knowing he had won the war, he wasn't out of the woods yet. He needed Hitler to really save his *** 3 days later in his declaration of war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2006)

I can agree with you on that. I think the only reason that FDR was not really pushing for entry into the war as early as 1940 was because of 2 reasons: 1. Public support would not have allowed for it, and 2. the US military was not ready for it.


----------



## Haztoys (May 21, 2006)

As they say ...History is written by the winner ... I "think" Churchill said that..??

I think Churchill and Stalin know about Pearl Harbor....

I do not think they told FDR.... I would think if you knew it was coming ..

You would of tried to stop it ..Or met the Japanese out to sea at least.. And if FDR wanted war and let them attack..

Why would you let them sink the Pacific fleet ..? ..You could of attacked them as they attacked us out to sea... And not let them get to Pearl Harbor... Or try not too...And still had a reason to get into the war..And saved the Pacific fleet..

I think FDR is like most Americans ...."It will not happen to America" ..And were still that way ...

I have never herd a good reason for the aircraft carriers being out to sea on that day...All "I" have ever herd is .."They were out to sea" ... Thats the big point that all the "FDR Knew of the attack" people point out ... Not that there's not a good reason for the "flat tops" to not be there...Just I have not come across it .... I'm sure the Navy was not just on a "Flat top joy ride that morning... They plan these things..LOL..I know that...

And if I'm going to let Japan into start a war ... And just pull the Aircraft carriers out ..And leave the Battleships...That was smart ...

Churchill and Stalin knew ...You bet ...From what I've read...(Just because someone can't spell does not mean they can't read...One has nothing to do with the other...I'm a auto repair shop owner..And have a nice Lady who does all the paper work..You will come to see if I'm at work ..My posting is better ..Why ..I have someone around to help..LOL. I do not sit and write books all day...I always find it funny when I get flamed on my spelling on the fourms ...Thats like me flaming someone because they do not know how to fix there car or weld...Yes I give all my customer a hard time because they do not know about transmissions......They should "I" do ..!.."What are you dumb or something"... We all have something were good at...And not good at..Spelling is not one of my good points ..Sorry.. I'm not upset at all .. Trust me I've been down this muddy road a time or three.. ) .... And after reading this Fourm ... I'm not so sure a trust what I read in a lot of books...Not good..

And is what I do not understand is .."How come the Japanese just hit Pearl Harbor".... From what I understand Hawaii could of been taken...? ..Maybe not?

Why just hit and run ...? Even with The US having Hawaii... It was hard to get close to the Japanese at the start of the war...The Japanese I'm sure knew that.?? If the Japanese would of took Hawaii ..We would of never been able get near them to fight them ..I guess Japan was thinking this would be EZ ....And the American's were in the same frame of mind..Like we always are... WW2 was one big under estimation on ALL sides.. I've come to see...Most war is "I" guess...Wonder if President Bush feels that way..

And Stalin realy knew about Pearl .... He was the one keeping the biggest eye on Japan ..After the Russo-Japanese War you bet he was keeping a eye on them ..From what I've looked into

Flame away......

Have a good day 

David


----------



## syscom3 (May 21, 2006)

The Japanese never had the sea lift or aircraft carriers available to invade Hawaii. 

Their priority targets were in Malaya, Indonesia and the PI.

Even if they wanted to Invade hawaii at any time following Dec 7,they would have been repulsed.

If they had a tough time invading tiny Wake island even when they had total supremecy over a lightly defended force, then what in the world could they have done against a huge defending force with room to maneuver and defend in depth.


----------



## timshatz (May 21, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Japanese never had the sea lift or aircraft carriers available to invade Hawaii.
> 
> Their priority targets were in Malaya, Indonesia and the PI.
> 
> ...



Think SYSCOM has it. The Imperial Japanese were an offensive military. They, as a matter of course, never developed the logistical trail that became commonplace amongst the USN during the Pacific War. As such, they really weren't up to sustained operations against a fixed enemy base. When they tried, the battle turned into a morass for Japanese Naval and Air power (Guadalcanal '42-'43). They were more of a raiding arm than a "come to stay and slug it out" type. There were no support carriers to fly in replacement aircraft and crews, a limited seaborne resupply capacity and usually a small amphibious force. They weren't a "bombard then land" kind of force but a "sneak in late at night and rush ashore" type. Wake Island is a good example of this. 

Whereas the US Navy could and did show up, shell, bomb and support invasions for upwards of 2-3 months under heavy attack losing a ship every two days (Okinawa). It was a Doctine for which the Japanese had no answer, even when using suicidal attacks. 

Also, the Japanese Army was not a mechanized force to any extent. The battles that were fought in the Pacific played to the strengths of the Japanese Army. If the war between the US (plus allies) and the Japanese had been fought out in a dessert, the results would've been much different. The US Military drove everywhere (for the most part). The Japanese walked. That gives the US military a huge advantage.


----------



## timshatz (May 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I can agree with you on that. I think the only reason that FDR was not really pushing for entry into the war as early as 1940 was because of 2 reasons: 1. Public support would not have allowed for it, and 2. the US military was not ready for it.



Bingo.


----------



## Delusional (May 22, 2006)

I don't think it would have been a toss-up as to whether the U.S. would have gone to war with Germany had Germany not declared war. Just like the U.S. public accepted the connection between war in Afghanistan and war in Iraq, they would have accepted the connection between Japan and Germany. To defeat Japan, Germany must be defeated as well...that's what FDR would have told the public. Any excuse to jump in with our old buddies in Britain. It was only a matter of time and justification. I agree with you, timshatz, that the justification would be found on the water.
Haztoys, I don't think that FDR was like most Americans in thinking that our nation was immune from an attack during WWII. He knew it could easily happen, and I think many can agree that he wanted it to happen, as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 23, 2006)

I would not necessarily say he wanted it to happen, but he needed it to happen so that he could the US into the war.


----------



## Delusional (May 23, 2006)

Terminology.... That's pretty much what I meant; he knew there was no other way.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2006)

That I agree with.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 24, 2006)

I guess one justification for invading Poland that I learned a while ago was that it was originally a state of Germany but was taken away at the Conference oF Vienna after the Napoleanic Wars, Adler?


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2006)

Polish history begins in AD 966 when Misezko I began writing it's history. Beforehand Poland did not exist, but was occupied by the Polanie, Wislanie, Pomorzanie and Mazovian Slavic tribes. All other Slavic tribes were incorporated into German expansion, or the Czech state. 

In AD 1000, the Polish church was established with agreement from Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor, and could now turn to the Pope for protection. And would not fall under German influence. 

AD 1024, saw the Coronation of Boleslaw I Chrobry which created Poland as an official independant kingdom. 

Now, skipping a few hundred years, to the 18th Century. After years of war the Polish Republic (Poland and Lituania) was weak. It only had a 24,000 man army, and had three great enemies on it's borders. Russia, Prussia and Austria were all poised to invade. 
Russia used military pressure from it's 330,000 strong army to influence the Republic, which first occured in 1768 when the 'Cardinal Rights' were forced upon the Republic. 

Catherine II split the Republic in 1772 with Austria and Prussia. The Republic took advantage of a war between Russia and Turkey to reform it's forces and build an army of 100,000 men. They also wrote up Europe's first constitution which did not go down well in Russia, so Russia invaded in 1792 which ended in the Republic's defeat. What was left of the Republic after the first partition now became a Russian protectorate. Poland was now under the control of Austria, Prussia and Russia completely. 

In 1794, Poland broke out in rebellion and Warsaw, Krakow and Wilno were liberated. But a combined Prussian and Russian assault reconquered all the lands. In 1795 the three powers once again moved deeper into Poland, and calved the state completely. Poland was effectively destroyed, and was wiped off the European map. Prussia controlled Warsaw and lands up to Niemen River.

Napoleon then burst on to the European scene, and Poland were quick to become his allies. In 1797 Polish legions were set up in Italy, and helped Napoleon defeat Austria, Prussia and Russia in 1806-1807. The Prussian-annexed parts of Poland became the new Poland under the Duchy of Warsaw, and a Polish government was formed under Napoleonic influence.

Napoleon then attempted on Russia in 1812. His failure there brought Poland back on the brink of devestation. This was brought about in 1813 when Napoleon was defeated at Leipzig in 1813. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 then handed some of the preowned lands in Poland back to Prussia. The remaining lands became the Kingdom of Poland, attached to Russia. Tsar Alexander I was the king. 
In 1830, Poland uprose and dethroned the Tsar. They held out against Russia until 1831 when the massive Russian army defeated them. This led to slaughter of thousands of Poles, and the closure of all that was Polish. Many Poles went into exile, mostly in France. 

Austria and Prussia then began reform in their Polish held lands, handing much land over to the peasants. Bringing those areas into the new age. But in the Russian zone it remained much the same, and Poland was oppressed by the large nation. Many revolts and uprisings followed, but all were crushed. 

During World War I, Poland decided to ally itself with Germany and Austro-Hungary against Russia. Come 1915, Austro-Hungary and Germany had pushed Russia out of all of Poland. And many local governments were set-up in these lands. 
Poland then refused to fight for the Central Powers against the West. When Russia pulled out the war, the Western Powers sought to create a more powerful Poland and came to their aid. An amazing stroke of luck for Poland saw all three controlling powers (Russia, Germany [Prussia] and Austria) defeated. 

The Treaty of Versailles then struggled to recreate Poland's borders before the paritition. And this led to many disputes. Poland was handed lands that were not hers, Russia took lands, and the Czechs were not happy. Poland was handed Pomerania, but Gdansk (Danzig) was kept a free city under the League of Nations. Upper Silesia was handed over after many Polish uprisings, but East Prussia and the rest of Upper Silesia remained in 'Polish' terrority. The biggest problem remained in Ukraine which was under Polish control before the partition but Russia believed was hers. And Ukraine wanted to be independant. 

But, in any case, the only lands Germany wanted back was Pomerania, Danzig and Upper Silesia. This mainly was known as the 'Polish Corridor' which was what the whole dispute was about. I'm sure some of that is wrong, but that's all I can remember! I had to argue with a Polak once about his own history... Well, alright some of the information I dug in my books for.


----------



## Twitch (May 24, 2006)

Back to the thread's original question about France spearheading harsh retribution against Germany- I remain convinced that most of the conditions that prevailed in Germany to spawn a Hitleresque outlook were created externally by France and the allies. Whether Hitler himself rose to power or not is not the only key factor. If it wasn't him it would have been another malcontent whose thinking had been molded in the atmosphere created by "the allies."


----------



## syscom3 (May 24, 2006)

When you say "allies", please exclude the US on that. President Wilson opposed anything like a harsh retribution or reperation.


----------



## Delusional (May 24, 2006)

While that is absolutely true, syscom, Wilson was so damn concerned with his ridiculous League of Nations that he did little to deter the European allies from enacting those harsh retributions on Germany. He disagreed with the reparations, but he did little to nothing to stop them. Is he therefore free of guilt? I think not.


----------



## syscom3 (May 24, 2006)

After the war ended, the US rapidly went into its traditional isolationist mood.

Wilson had no business nor backing to try to block the harsher of the Versaillis treaty points.

Just because the US didnt want to get involved in dictating post war Europe does not mean we are responsible for the actions of France and England.


----------



## Henk (May 24, 2006)

The US is innocent when it comes to the Treaty or Versailles, but France was the as*hole in the story and they caused WW2. Hitler would never have come to power was it not from that treaty and its bull. France got a rude awakening during WW2 because of that and like we here in South Africa always says; the wheel turns / History repeats its self.

France should not say they were innocent during WW2, they caused it when they tried to grind Germany into the ground and destroy it after WW1.

What happend to the innocent is bad and the Jews, but history always repeats its self.

Henk


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2006)

the way i see it is that the ToV is an inanimate object, incapable of starting anything, it needed someone to act on it, Hitler, to start the war, thus it was Hitler that started WWII, the treaty on it's own would have done no harm (atleast in terms of war) if no one acted upon it........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2006)

> Just because the US didnt want to get involved in dictating post war Europe does not mean we are responsible for the actions of France and England.



what about all the league of nations crap? you can't say you played no part in that, you set the damn thing up, then don't join, leaving Britain and France to do all the work, which there was no way in hell either of us would, we would've been happier without the league, it wasn't exactily the fair democratic organisation it claimed to be either, how could it be when you wouldn't let Germany or Russia join simply because they couldn't be trusted!


----------



## syscom3 (May 25, 2006)

The league of nations was not a precursor in the start of WW2 (even its inaction in the 30's meant nothing).

The unreasonable demands for reperations by Britain and France were one of the contributing causes.

The US had nothing to do with the dictates of peace by your country and France.


----------



## Delusional (May 25, 2006)

The U.S. public may have went back into its traditional isolationist mood, but Wilson didn't. He thought he could counter the Treaty of Versailles with the League of Nations. In fact, Wilson stated that one of the reasons that he wanted the U.S. to join WWI is so that the postwar world could be modeled after America, with America playing a very important role. I'm not saying that the U.S. is responsible for the actions of the European allies, but we're not completely innocent, either, in my opinion. 

I don't think you can just blame France for the Treaty of Versailles. They may have pushed for reparations more than the other allies, but England and Italy didn't feel much differently, and none of the allies did much to stop the harsh reparations.

"the way i see it is that the ToV is an inanimate object, incapable of starting anything, it needed someone to act on it, Hitler, to start the war, thus it was Hitler that started WWII, the treaty on it's own would have done no harm (atleast in terms of war) if no one acted upon it........"
Excellent point, lanc!

Well, of course Wilson is the one who set up the League of Nations, and he is the one who wanted the U.S. to join it. The U.S. Senate, however, had other ideas. And the Senate had nothing to do with setting up the organization. If Wilson had not be so goddamn stubborn and if he had compromised just a little bit, the U.S. would have ratified the Treaty of Versailles and joined the League of Nations. Considering that the League of Nations was run by European counties, they could have at any time allowed Germany and Russia to join. However, they would never have done that any more than the U.S. would have. You can't criticize the U.S. for something that the European nations would also have done had they been in charge of the League of Nations originally. Why would you let nations which cannot be trusted join an alliance based on one's word and comradery?


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2006)

I must point out that no matter how bad the Treaty of Versailles seems in comparison to modern day defeats, ninety years ago it wasn't half bad. If Germany had lost that war half a century earlier it would have lost Germany to the victourious nations. Europe was still land open to capture, and still was until after World War II. 

The only thing the Allies did wrong after World War I was to not occupy Germany. Had the Allied forces stripped the German army of it's colours, and their weapons, then occupied Germany in zones of protection just like after World War II it would have told the German people that the German army had lost, and Germany had lost. Instead the Allied forces lay down demands, but let the German army march home with all their pride and armoury. This let Hitler, and the German people, believe that the German army was not defeated but the politicians behind the army let them down. 

World War I may well have been fought with tanks, planes and machine-guns but it was still fought in a world where there was a right of conquest. The Napoleonic Wars were only 100 years previous, and that mindset still existed. Which makes the Treaty of Versailles an extremely light punishment, even if it did bankrupt Germany.


----------



## Hop (May 26, 2006)

> President Wilson opposed anything like a harsh retribution or reperation.



But the US did insist on repayments of war debts.

The position at the end of the war was that large parts of France and Belgium had been destroyed by war. Areas occupied by the Germans had been looted (all industry, machinery, anything of value etc). The allies had funded the war largely through borrowing.

There had been no major fighting on German territory, and Germany had funded the war largely through looting. 

Without reparations, Germany would have emerged from the war having lost, but in a much better position than it's enemies, with it's industry intact and little external debt. The western allies would have been crippled by debt repayments to the Americans.

The British put forward a plan to abandond all debts repayments and reparations arising from the war. The US government vetoed it.

By insisting on debt repayments (for loans that had already been spent in the US buying munitions) the US made reparations essential. 

All the allies share the blame for Versailles. All were out to secure their own positions after the war.

But for a really harsh treaty, see the one the Germans imposed on Russia, the treat of Brest-Litovsk. Russia had to cede about a third of it's population, more than half it's industrial areas and almost all it's coal mining areas to Germany and German client states.


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2006)

The repayment of war debts was not a pecurser for the second world war.

The debts were to be paid by Britain and France, not Germany.

The harsh conditions on Germany were dictated soley by Britain and France, not the US.


----------



## Twitch (May 26, 2006)

While Hitler may have started the war as such the catalyst for the ripe conditions that led to his ascendency was the Treaty. There is no one simple singular answer since it was many things combined that came together to spawn it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2006)

I agree. Hitler started WW2 and that is the end fact, however there were many many things, too many to actually account and state for that led to the starting of WW2. I personally think that the world as a whole was responsible for what led to WW2.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (May 29, 2006)

PlanD said:


> The only thing the Allies did wrong after World War I was to not occupy Germany. Had the Allied forces stripped the German army of it's colours, and their weapons, then occupied Germany in zones of protection just like after World War II it would have told the German people that the German army had lost, and Germany had lost.



The Gotterdammerung would be nothing compared to that. Not stepping foot on German soil was a smart move on the Allies behalf, if you ask me.


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2006)

No one asked you. But in any case, occupying German land would have proven to the German people that the German army was defeated. And there would have been nothing the Germans could have done about it. Even forcing Germany to take up arms against the Allies once again, and ultimately losing would have cost more Allied lives but would have proven once and for all that Germany had lost. Saving the rise of Hitler on the premise that the German politicians, the Jews, had cost Germany World War I, not the German military.


----------



## Dac (May 31, 2006)

The Germans still had a lot of fight in them after the Armistice. My grandfather said he saw more action after Nov 11, than in the weeks before. As they advanced into the Rhineland they had to fight pitched battles with all the local units before they would surrender their weapons. It's pretty clear that most German soldiers didn't feel they'd been defeated.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2006)

That is because the German Army technically was not defeated in WW1. It was more of a stalemate than anything. The German decision to stop fighting was based mostly off of public opinion, advice from Military Commanders and the fact that most German soldiers were tired of fighting. Look at the German Navy that mutinied. The German Military was far from defeated at the end of WW1.


----------



## Dac (May 31, 2006)

The German armed forces had almost no chance of winning the war after the 1918 spring offensive bogged down. Even with the defeat of Russia in the east, it was only a matter of time before Germany would have been defeated in the west after the arrival of the fresh American army. The war might have dragged on for another year but it would have seen the destruction of large parts of Germany as the lines moved eastward.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 31, 2006)

> it was only a matter of time before Germany would have been defeated in the west after the arrival of the fresh American army.




American troops were hardly a threat to the Germans at the time, it was the the raw materials and and equiptment that completely ensurred the defeat of the Germans, the U.S troops though not ill prepared from an equiptment standpoint, were not ready to fight independantly, they had to be put alongside british troops as "add ons" (forgive the expression) as the Canadians had to at the beginning.


----------



## Dac (May 31, 2006)

The 2nd Division of the Marines did well at Bellau Woods in June, 1918 and I'm sure other American Divisions would have gained experience rapidly like the Canadians did. American material was important, but so were the hundreds of thousands of fresh troops who joined the veteran but tired French and Commonwealth soldiers.


----------



## syscom3 (May 31, 2006)

The US Infantry units commited to battle in summer of 1918 were just the tip of the iceberg of what was coming.

Inexperienced yes, but with veteran British and French officers to shepard them, they soon would become veterans in their own right.

If the war had carried on into 1919, then the German army would have been defeated simply from exhaustion and no more man power, and nothing available from an ever expanding US military presence.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 1, 2006)

Hmmm, with all these ideas on who started WWII, wonder if it will turn into a conspiracy. From " who shot JFK" to " Who started WWII".


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2006)

The liberals will always find a reason to blame the US first.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The liberals will always find a reason to blame the US first.



Thats why we need to wipe 'em out (the liberals I mean), setting up extermination camps in San Francisco and Toronto will be the first step


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 5, 2006)




----------



## syscom3 (Jun 5, 2006)

There are some men in San Fran who would enjoy being locked up in close proximity to other men,


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 6, 2006)

Oh yes, the fags, we could always de-program them into straight people and then execute them


----------



## Henk (Jun 7, 2006)

Na, kill them, do not want to waste money on them to try to de-programe them.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 8, 2006)

No well make the money back when we sell there livers on the black market


----------



## Desert Fox (Jun 12, 2006)

Perhaps if the treaty of Versailles did not treat Germany the way it did, and if it punished the real instigators of the Great War (Austria-Hungary) the Germans wouldnt have felt the need to invade the world as it were to simply take back what was, in a sense, rightfully theirs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2006)

While I somewhat agree with you, at the same time you are quite a bit off with that. Yes parts of Czech and Danzig were rightfully German territory. Lets see though Poland? No was not German. The Rest of Czech? No was not German. France? No was not German. Russia? No was not German. N. Afrika? No was not German. Netherlands? No was not German. Luxemburg? No was not German. Greece? No was not German. Shall I keep going?


----------



## Risky Pilot (Jun 13, 2006)

Both are true but as DerAdlerIstGelandet says, most of the countries that the Germans occupied in WWII weren't German. So I'd say German started the war, but there were several reasons for Germany to start the war.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like war


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2006)

As I said before it comes down to this. Germany started the war but there were many factors as discussed by many of us as to what could have helped lead to the war.

There is no way to church it up or give the blame to anyone else.


----------



## Henk (Jun 13, 2006)

Well like I said I think it was just a way to pay back the French and UK for trying to destroy the Germans after WW1 and trying to blame them for everything, but the Jew factor and the things they did to civilians was wrong. The war was just a repeat of History. Like Adler said, Danzig, the Tzar region and part of the Czech were rightfully German territory, but the war with Russia and taking over most of the EU was just Hitler trying to take over the world and his love of other peoples territory.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As I said before it comes down to this. Germany started the war but there were many factors as discussed by many of us as to what could have helped lead to the war.
> 
> There is no way to church it up or give the blame to anyone else.




Ok lets make the cause simple without pointing any fingers, the actuall main causes both wars were,Militarism, Nationalism, Imperialism and International lawlessness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dac (Jun 14, 2006)

WW II wouldn't have occured without Hitler and Hitler wouldn't have been able to rise to power without the Treaty of Versailles, which is why most historians consider WW I and WW II seperate episodes of the same conflict. Hitler only rose to power because of the conditions purposely created to leave Germany in a weakened state. No one forsaw the Great Depression and the social upheaval it would cause. There were a lot of links in the chain leading to WW II and only some were the direct responsibity of the German people. It doesn't excuse the actions taken by many people in the name of a Greater Germany though.


----------



## Desert Fox (Jun 14, 2006)

What I meant was that when Hitler annexed Austria he was taking back what he believed to be Germanys. I suppose he got greedy, and decided to keep going, and make his thousand year Reich a reality. His persecution of the Jews and Gypsies etc was his personal vendetta against those who he thought were subhuman. He wanted a superior Aryan race, and the victims of the Holocaust didnt fit that view Hitler had.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2006)

Hitler envisioned his thousand year Reich long before he annexed Austria. He first mentioned it in his book Mein Kampf. I have read the German and English versions.


----------



## Risky Pilot (Jun 14, 2006)

That's why he called it the Third Reich


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 14, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Ok lets make the cause simple without pointing any fingers, the actuall main causes both wars were,Militarism, Nationalism, Imperialism and International lawlessness.



From 1920 untill 1939, the US was isolationist, not willing to involve itself in hardly any conflict in the world outside of the America's. In addition, throughout this period, the US Military was starved for funds, personell and eqmt for its Army and Army Air Corps. Even the Navy, was underfunded and shipbuilding was kept at a minimal level.

The US had nothing to do with the underlying causes of WW2. It was solely political choices made by the UK, France and Germany (and maybe even Russia).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2006)

Risky Pilot said:


> That's why he called it the Third Reich




You think?



Just kidding man.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 14, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> From 1920 untill 1939, the US was isolationist, not willing to involve itself in hardly any conflict in the world outside of the America's. In addition, throughout this period, the US Military was starved for funds, personell and eqmt for its Army and Army Air Corps. Even the Navy, was underfunded and shipbuilding was kept at a minimal level.
> 
> The US had nothing to do with the underlying causes of WW2. It was solely political choices made by the UK, France and Germany (and maybe even Russia).



Ok I must have missed where I pointed the fingers at the states, no wait I did no such thing at all! you just totally misread my post derrrrr!


----------



## Desert Fox (Jun 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hitler envisioned his thousand year Reich long before he annexed Austria.



I had thought that was rather obvious, and i didnt need to add that in. Perhaps i was mistaken.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2006)

Dont need to get an attitude about it. Chill out....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 15, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Dont need to get an attitude about it. Chill out....




Who me?


----------



## Desert Fox (Jun 15, 2006)

No, no...no attitude about it. Just clearing up some points for you if you had misinterpreted my post, thats all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Who me?



If I had been talking about you, I would have said Hussars dont get an attitude, chill out.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 16, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If I had been talking about you, I would have said Hussars dont get an attitude, chill out.



Jeeze man, you need to check your attitude


----------



## Desert Fox (Jun 17, 2006)

If my memory serves me correctly, theres the little matter of who started WW2 to discuss?


----------



## Desert Fox (Jun 17, 2006)

...not who has an attitude and who doesn't...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 17, 2006)

sign usually means one was just joking DF, thats a thing you gonna have to remeber there buddy, everyone elese knows that, and it is a well known fact that after the first or second page of a thread, it usually goes off topic, last I can remember one topic shifted fromm WW2 aircraft to which was the most superior Star Wars fighter, further more I think this topic of who started world war 2 has been exhausted either way


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2006)

It is only exhausted if no one has anything to say. If Desert Fox or anyone else has something to say then it will go on and continue to be discuessed. Us admin will determine when a thread is exhausted and should be closed. 

Besides most of the time a thread is made off topic because someone comes in here and says something really stupid that has nothing to do with the topic and we all know who those people are.... dont we hussars?


----------



## Henk (Jun 17, 2006)

Well the thing is that the whole thing of who started WW2 boils down to the fact that the treaty of Versailles were the one who started the wheel to turn and Hitler only used it to gain power and get what he want, but the war was payback in my oppinion on those who wanted to destroy Germany and now one can say that the Treaty of Versailles did not start this whole thing. The war also showed what one human can do to a other human and the hate that there is toward other nations. 

It was a lession for the people then and now to see what we are capable of.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 17, 2006)

I saw a documentary several months ago, that said Neville Chamberlin was "accomodating" towards Hitler in '37 and '38 because he knew Britain and France needed to rearm with modern weapons. He felt it as better to deal with him to buy some time rather than rush pell-mell into a war neither countries were prepeared for.

Any comments?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2006)

I believe that had a part to do with it, but at the same time Hitler was a very charismatic man and I think he was able to work Chamberlain through his fingers.


----------



## Henk (Jun 17, 2006)

Yes, Chamberlain was stupid to believe Hitler and go back and say everyting is great. He was just to scared to go against Hitler.


----------



## Dac (Jun 18, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I saw a documentary several months ago, that said Neville Chamberlin was "accomodating" towards Hitler in '37 and '38 because he knew Britain and France needed to rearm with modern weapons. He felt it as better to deal with him to buy some time rather than rush pell-mell into a war neither countries were prepeared for.
> 
> Any comments?



I think militarily Britain and France were in a superior position to the Germans in 1937-38 but the political will wasn't there in either country to take on Hitler. People like Churchill were considered warmongers in Britain because of the loses of WW I and political instability in France paralized the government through much of the 1930s. Hitler was a gambler of the first order, and if his bluffs had been called in the 1930s I don't know if WW II would have happened.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2006)

I agree. If in 1939 the French had just moved into Germany, they probably could have stopped Hitler then.


----------



## Henk (Jun 19, 2006)

I think the French would not have been able of doing so. They had their own problems in their armed forces to worry about and they focused to much on the Maginot Line than anything else.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2006)

All the German commanders of the day realised that Britain and France could have defeated Germany in September, 1939. All of the Wehrmachts armour was in Poland at the time, and the German West Wall was not what propaganda told everyone. Heavy artillery could have knocked it out without any harm to itself.


----------



## Henk (Jun 19, 2006)

Yes true plan D, but Hitler knew they would not, because the Allies had their own problems and could not afford to take the risk in doing so, but they also did not know what the German west wall were like and they did not know if all of the German Army were in Poland.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2006)

Hitler did believe that Britain and France would react, he dreaded the idea of a Western reaction. And that fear seemed fulfilled when Britain and France did declare war. We know now, however, that it wasn't. The Allied problem _was_ Germany, Henk. Only Britain saw it's military as somewhat out-dated in equipment, but it was the most advanced in motorisation. 

German propaganda was excellent. The West Wall was made out to be invincible and any attack foolish. But this does not take blame from the Allied forces. They should have done extensive recon on the wall, and tested it's fire capability with artillery strikes on it's fortifications. As we know, from hindsight, the wall had no counter-battery ability at all. And would have been smashed to pieces with little or no effort. 

The Allies knew all of the armour was in Poland. They knew all of the army wasn't. But that doesn't mean anything. If the Allies had forced another front sooner, then Germany would have been split. 

But of course, I say this with a benefit of hindsight.


----------



## Henk (Jun 19, 2006)

Yes, the UK were better equipped than France. Hitler made the propaganda so that when he does do something that would push the Allies over the edge he had a back up to help keep them away. The German West Wall was not so bad, but it was mostly small forts and a lot of pill boxes and dragon teeth. Well we all know this period where the Allies did nothing as the phony war and why they did not do anything is still a mystery.

The French political problem was one big horror story and this caused the French Army to be in the state it was in. The UK thought like the French that Germany would never attack France and also not go past the Maginot Line. The French Minister of defense was really old and he also thought that the Germans would not go past the Maginot Line and thus he put most of his forces near the Maginot Line and not to the North where the Germans attacked France. The German Luftwaffe played a great role in the Blitzkrieg and thus made the success of the German Army even more greater. 

I think that Germany would just have launched a air attack on France if they tried to attack Germany and would send their Army to support the West Wall.

We can only now say this and that after the war, but only Hitler, the UK and France knew what the situation was and what went through their heads at that time. Hitler had the guts, he took the risk and it proved very successfull at the time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2006)

It was all a bluff and Hitler won the bluff.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 20, 2006)

As I understand it, Germany did not expect Britain to attack Germany directly in 1939 nor did Poland. All of Europe expecting the aid of the Allies to come in the force of the French Army, with the Royal Air Force providing the only British support on the continent. 
If this is the case, which it so obviously is, France should have been driving force and wedge into the German defences on the West Wall. And the RAF would be the supporting arm of the force, not any kind of striking component. 

The British Army was ill-equipped, and was severely understrength compared to the other great super-powers of the world. Other than small arms, the French Army was generally better equipped than the British. However, the British power came from it's mobilisation. They did need more powerful and faster armour though. The reason the French should have been the driving force was because they were the largest army in Europe, and they were the greatest threat to Germany. Britain had to ship it's forces across the Channel - in 1939 this would be too late. It would be right to assume that Britain would have supported with the RAF only. 

The French political situation was a great reason in their failure. They were underequipped because of misorders and under-orders of new equipment. But most importantly, in both France and Britain was not technical equipment but tactical thinking. Both should have been aggressive, and both should have used their mobile armour more like the Germans. This idea wasn't new to either of them, in fact it was the British and French that laid the foundations for the modern tank warfare which Germany perfected in World War II. 

The Luftwaffe was out-numbered when over France during Fall Gelb. They sent 2,000 planes to Poland during Fall Weiss. Had France attacked, the Luftwaffe would have been overwhelmed. And the Heeres could not withdraw so easily to the West Wall, they would have to disengage from the Polish forces leaving potential pockets and encirclements open. 
The French did 'attack' Germany in the wars only French offensive into the Saarland. The Germans didn't do anything as a reaction because they didn't want to provoke the French into a greater assault. 

As for the West Wall: 

_"I soon realized what a gamble the Polish campaign had been, and the grave risks which were run by our High Command. The second-class troops holding the Wall were badly equipped and inadequately trained, and the defenses were far from being the impregnable fortifications pictured by our propaganda. Concrete protection of more than three feet was rare, and as a whole the positions were by no means proof against heavy caliber shelling. Few of the strongpoints were sited to fire in enfilade and most of them could have been shot to pieces by direct fire, without the slightest risk to the attackers. The West Wall had been built in such a hurry that many of the positions were sited on forward slopes. The antitank obstacles were of trivial significance, and the more I looked at the defenses the less I could understand the completely passive attitude of the French."_

- Maj.Gen.F.W.Von Mellenthin.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 20, 2006)

plan_D said:


> ......
> 
> The British Army was ill-equipped, and was severely understrength compared to the other great super-powers of the world. Other than small arms, .....



What other superpowers where there in 1939?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2006)

France and Germany (well atleast her power was not quite known at the time)


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 21, 2006)

I would suspect that only Britain was a superpower, as only it had a global reach through its maritime strengths.

Germany and France were conteintal powers.

I still ponder on how to rank Japan. Its naval power was quite high, although its army sucked big time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2006)

You know when you think about it that way. I agree with you as well.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2006)

France, Russia and Germany were all super-powers. The U.S was recognised as an up and coming superpower. When on the European continent, you can be a superpower without a great navy. Russia had the largest air force and tank force on the planet, France had the largest army in Europe and we all know about Germany...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2006)

I can agree with that as well, and Germany did project there power globally too as well when you see the extent of fronts during WW2.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 22, 2006)

That makes them Contiental powers. If you cant project your power across oceans, then your not a superpower.

I dont even think Russia was a contiental power in the 30's as Stalin had "eliminated with prejudice" most of the generals. 

The US had a good navy, but its army and marines were VERY small and generally, poorly equipped.


----------



## Henk (Jun 22, 2006)

A superpower is not about a navy, a large airforce can take care of a Navy very quickly, and a invasion from the air can by pass the navy. SO I will agree with Plan D. Russia had some of the most heavily armored tanks and its army was huge. Japan had a great Navy, it was just poorly used and controlled and its army did suck big time, but they could fight fiercely and was motivated to fight to the last man no matter what.

Germany we all know about. France could have done great things with their army if they just had the right people to controle it and not the idiots they had.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2006)

I will take the opinion of the people of the day over yours, syscom. Germany, Great Britain, France and Russia were the superpowers and they had been for decades. The Russia air force and tank force was the largest on the planet, they had some 28,000 planes ... and you consider that nothing? 

Would you consider the Napoleonic France merely a continental power? After all, the Royal Navy abolished it's navy.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 22, 2006)

Although, one thing is that Hitler used the image of a glorious Germanic past to get people behind him in 1938 and 1939. As I have often said elsewhere, I find it very interesting to know whether originally the Germans totally realized what they were getting in Hitler. I am questioning the role of symbolism in Hitler achieving victory, talking about the use of the Teutonic Knights as a symbol, the Germanic Hoards image. Hitler did use symbolism and he did believe in the Occultant. It is said that before WW2 Hitler had sponsored many German archology digs looking for items such as the Arc of the Convenent, Noah's Ark, etc. It is unknown however, what if anything was found and where it is in these archology digs. Therefore the question is whether the symbols used in Hitler's speeches betray his original intentions and give us an insight into his thoughts at the time that those speeches were made.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 22, 2006)

The size of an army is not an indicator on how powerfull it is. Its a combination of quality, qualntity and leadership.

The Finns held back the Soviet army for quite some time, thus I would say throughout the 30's, the Russians were a paper "giant".

The French had a good army but had no sea power to project it.

In the 30's, Germany's arm


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 22, 2006)

The size of an army is not an indicator on how powerfull it is. Its a combination of quality, qualntity and leadership.

The Finns held back the Soviet army for quite some time, thus I would say throughout the 30's, the Russians were a paper "giant".

The French had a good army but had no sea power to project it.

Through most of the 30's, Germany's army small so it could hardly qualify as a superpower. And it had a small navy and maritime fleet, so it was totally isolated in Europe.

Britain had the maritime fleet and navy. And when you consider that back then, armies could be raised and equiped within months, she could have had both a fleet and an army.

I maintain that Britain was the only true superpower of that decade, and France the true contiental power. Germany was a potential power, and Russia, a paper tiger,

The US didnt even factor into it.


----------



## Henk (Jun 22, 2006)

The French Navy was not bad at all, it was by far better than the German Navy if you take in Numbers. The Fins had the spirit to fight and not the Russians.

Like I said, the Airforce makes or brakes you your situation during a war, a navy does not mean anything if your navy is being sunk by bomber and your army killed by enemy aircraft. 

I would pour money into my airforce and Army and not so much into my Navy. If my aircraft numbers and the skill of your pilots are great you would get somewhere.

Germany and the UK were the Superpowers of the time and not the US, the US were a up and coming superpower like it was said before.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 23, 2006)

Hitler believed that the Soviet Union was a 'paper tiger' but he was wrong. And you have the benefit of hindsight, and you say the same thing? The USSR may not have been so powerful right then, but it's numbers and production capacity shows that it was a superpower. 

France had the army and a navy to project it's power. It had the largest army in Europe, and an air force to match most others. I'm talking 1939 here, when Germany was now a superpower. And even Poland claimed it was a superpower!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2006)

Poland?


----------



## Soren (Jun 23, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Its a combination of quality, qualntity and leadership.



= Germany. 

It takes quite the amount of you mentioned above to have virtually the whole world against you and still hold your ground - heck even advance at times...


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 23, 2006)

Soren said:


> = Germany.
> 
> It takes quite the amount of you mentioned above to have virtually the whole world against you and still hold your ground - heck even advance at times...



In the end, it was the allies who had quality, quantity and leadership.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 23, 2006)

While the Allies may of won the war on the ground in particular it was due to quantity over quality. When you can loose 400 tanks in a battle and replace them the next day you are very unlikely to loose the war however good or bad you leadership is, sheer wait of numbers would over run the enemy. Both sides did have some quality pieces of equipment and some that weren't but the one thing the Allies did have in their favour was numbers, the Axis powers were never going to be able to build as much equipment as the Allied powers and so it was just a matter of time...


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 23, 2006)

The germans undoubtably had some great tanks and AFV's, but dont forget the US was beginning to deploy the Pershing tank, which was an equal for the German tanks.

Plus the US had excellent artillery.

In the end, the Allies were producing weapons of good quality in massive ammounts. The Germans werent.


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> In the end, it was the allies who had quality, quantity and leadership.



No, in the end it was the Allies who had superior quantity, and nothing else.



syscom3 said:


> The germans undoubtably had some great tanks and AFV's, but dont forget the US was beginning to deploy the Pershing tank, which was an equal for the German tanks.



The Pershing was a dud... Horribly unreliable and not even on par with the German Panther in terms of firepower. A Panther would make short work of a Pershing in a long range engagement.



syscom3 said:


> Plus the US had excellent artillery.



That they did have, but so did the Germans, and the German artillery was miles ahead in terms of accuracy. A US G.I. commenting on the effectiveness of German artillery: "_we were impressed with the accuracy of German field artillery. I've seen a 150-mm battery concentration hit a crossroads so consistently that engineers had to be called on to make it passable for a 2 1/2-ton truck. As far as thoroughness goes, the Germans get more out of a round than the devil himself gets on a lump of coal._" 

The Allies again however had the advantage of quantity.



syscom3 said:


> In the end, the Allies were producing weapons of good quality in massive ammounts. The Germans werent



In the very end maybe, but even by 45 the Germans were still producing the best quality weapons, however the amount produced had gone down considerably.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 24, 2006)

So the allies could not produce one weapon or weapon system that was superior to the Germans? Not one? Not even one general who could beat his counterpart?

Dont you think youre being a little bombastic about that assertion?


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> So the allies could not produce one weapon or weapon system that was superior to the Germans? Not one? Not even one general who could beat his counterpart?
> 
> Dont you think youre being a little bombastic about that assertion?



You mis-understood me syscom3. Ofcourse the Allies had material which was better, and vice versa, however quality wise the Germans just 'had' to be infront, its in their blood - Precision precision precision!


----------



## Henk (Jun 24, 2006)

Yup, but it did cost them a lot, like the Tiger tank was huge, powerfull and heavy, but it lacked power and took very long to build. The Allies did not care, the had so many loosing a lot was nothing to them, but the Germans do know about Precision.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2006)

The Allies won because they knew how to use what they had effectively. They relied on their production capacity rather than try to beat Germany at it's own game. We must not try and put down the Allied victory as a mere consequence of their size, the Axis was by no means a small force and the production capacity would have been enough to hold of it's opponents had it been handled properly. However, the Germans overcomplicated their production and products while the Allies simplified everything and increased their technology in the most important sector - production technology. The thought process of the Allies was simply - "How can we build more with what we have?" In the respect of total war, Albert Speer was probably the most valuble man in all Nazi Germany. 

Both sides had effective equipment and leadership. But while the Germans thought precision, the Allies thought quantity. And it was the war winning weapon, a better thought process in the end.


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2006)

Exactly.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 24, 2006)

It was more than just that. The allies had plenty of weapons that had no counter parts in Germany.

The Heavy bomber
The Jeep
The 6X6 Truck
The Higgens Boat
The Amtrack
The DUKW
The C47/46/54 Transports
The atomic bomb
The long range fighters (P38, P51, P47N)

And when the US finally figured out it needed heavy tanks right at the end of the war, it was too late to put them into production. Id laike to see how the vaunted Panther and Tiger would have done against a squadron of Pershings. The odd's would have evened up in a hurry.

In some cases, the Germans were superior, some cases they were inferior, and in many cases, it was even odds.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2006)

All of those you mention, syscom, bar the Atom Bomb were needed in a large quantity to achieve a success. The German weapons were able to perform missions in small numbers due to their superiority on the battlefield. 

I have never implied that the Allies were inferior in every technical aspect. But it was our stream-lined large production that won us the war. The B-17s and B-24s while being superior to the German bombers, would not have been able to carry the war on their own in small numbers. Had the Germans produced heavy bombers, they probably would have been over-complicated and in small numbers due to this. And, most likely, would have failed to achieve the objective of strategic destruction. 

You seem to think that the Allied ability to mass produce is an insult to the Allied victory. When it's certainly not. It took a lot of intelligence to turn the Allied nations into such large, efficient factories that they had become by 1945.


----------



## Henk (Jun 24, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The Allies won because they knew how to use what they had effectively. They relied on their production capacity rather than try to beat Germany at it's own game. We must not try and put down the Allied victory as a mere consequence of their size, the Axis was by no means a small force and the production capacity would have been enough to hold of it's opponents had it been handled properly. However, the Germans overcomplicated their production and products while the Allies simplified everything and increased their technology in the most important sector - production technology. The thought process of the Allies was simply - "How can we build more with what we have?" In the respect of total war, Albert Speer was probably the most valuble man in all Nazi Germany.
> 
> Both sides had effective equipment and leadership. But while the Germans thought precision, the Allies thought quantity. And it was the war winning weapon, a better thought process in the end.




I also agree with that.


----------



## Soren (Jun 25, 2006)

syscom3,

From your list above only the Heavy bomber, DUKW and C47 can be considered superior to its counterparts, the rest was more than matched by the Germans !

And about the Jeep... come on.. You seem to have forgotten about the German "Kubelwagen". 

Fact is German equipment was in most cases superior in terms of effectiveness and quality pr. unit compared to allied equipment, but the sheer quantity of the allied equipment more than made up for that. Also what advantage is it to have superior equipment if haven't got something to fuel or load it with ??


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 25, 2006)

The Jeep and the 6X6 were superior to their german counterparts.

US fire control of the artillery were the best in the world.

Allied proximity shells were superior to the German ones.

The M1 garand was the best semi auto infantry rifle.

Allied logistics in every form were superior to the germans.

Except for the Ta-152, no German piston engined fighter was superior to its allied counterparts.

The list goes on and on. German had their great stuff, the allies theirs.


----------



## Henk (Jun 25, 2006)

And the Fw-190, the Me-262, were in there own respects superior than the Allied aircraft. The kubelwagen was better than the Jeep in some aspects.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> So the allies could not produce one weapon or weapon system that was superior to the Germans? Not one? Not even one general who could beat his counterpart?
> 
> Dont you think youre being a little bombastic about that assertion?



He is only doing the same thing that you allways do when you are talking about the United States. Not the allies, you forget about the allies just about all the time. You forget about England, Russia, Canada, The Aussies. He is just playing the same game you play with the US. Do you understand what I am saying? Probably not.

Now having said that. Soren and plan_D are hitting the nail on the head. Nothing they have said is an insult to the allies. What the allies did (especially there production) was amazing and a great undertaking, but that does not mean the equipment was more superior. 

Also you say the P38, P-51, and P-47 were superior over the Luftwaffe Aircraft because of the longer range, the Luftwaffe aircraft did not need the range of the allied aircraft once they were on the defensive. Besides the Ta-152 you mentioned the Fw-190D, Me-262, He-163 were superior to allied and the Bf-109s were equalled.


----------



## Soren (Jun 25, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Jeep and the 6X6 were superior to their german counterparts.



Untrue syscom3, the German Kubelwagen can be considered a match to the Jeep, cause while the Jeep had the early advantage of 4x4, the Kubelwagen had the advantage of a 4 speed manual transmission with overdrive.(But some later Kubelwagens actually had 4x4 as-well) The Kubelwagen was also slightly armored while still being lighter because of its smarter construction, the Jeep was not. The Kubelwagen also had an inclosed cabin, the Jeep did not. 

Or what about the German Schwimmwagen, with a top speed on land of 50mph and 6mph in the water - Oh yes it could swim, and quite well at that, so a total of ~14,000 were made.(Heck its even highly popular today as-well!) It was also excellent off-road, with a 5 speed gear box and excellent ground clearence.

Schwimmwagen Type 166:






Some excellent color-photos of the Schwimmwagen

And regarding the 6X6, well I suggest you take a look at some of the German trucks of WWII, cause they had some of the very best. 

And don't even get me started on the halftracks !



> US fire control of the artillery were the best in the world.



Go take a look at a Kommandogerät No.36 for the German 88 up close, and then come try tell me that again thank you.



> Allied proximity shells were superior to the German ones.



Bollocks, where have you heard this ? 

But if you want to discuss shells I can tell you the Germans were light years ahead of the Allies in terms of quality, precision 'and' fusing! 



> The M1 garand was the best semi auto infantry rifle.



Yes, and the K98k is the best bolt action rifle design of all time  

And the German also had the Stg44, the best infantry small-arm of WWII.

And although the Garand IS superior to the K43, the K43 still has some very useful traits of its own - A interchangeable 10 round mag for example..



> Allied logistics in every form were superior to the germans.



Agreed, the reason being that the allies didn't deploy the same vast amounts of different kinds of weaponry as the Germans.



> Except for the Ta-152, no German piston engined fighter was superior to its allied counterparts.



Directly superior maybe not, but definitely a match, and at low levels often more than match. 



> The list goes on and on. German had their great stuff, the allies theirs.



It just so happens the Germans had more  (Not that this is good cause it only leads to the logistics problem)


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 25, 2006)

The Jeep was far better than the kubelwagon. 

The 6x6 was such a good design, it was still being produced into the 70's. 

German tanks and halftracks were superior to the allies, except for the T34, which could give the Panther a run for its money.

Same with the assault rifles, the Germans were far better. But the bolt action rifle was an anchronism from WW1, and the semi auto rifle far better.

US and British proximity fuses were in use long before the Germans used them. And were far better in quality. Same with US fire control and doctrine.

Except for the Ta-152, no German fighter was superior to an allied type. Every fighter flown by any of the combatants had its strengths and weakness's and none were best in everything, except for the US designs having magntitudes better range (which meant they could bring the fight to the Luftwaffe and win the fight).

The allies (including the russians) had vastly superior logistics at every level. The Germans could only shake their heads in amazement in the ability of the big three to produce vast quantities of material, uniformly in good enough quality and get it to the battlefield when it was needed.


----------



## Soren (Jun 25, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Jeep was far better than the kubelwagon.



Stupid claim, now back it up please.



> The 6x6 was such a good design, it was still being produced into the 70's.



Oh how I hate it when people use that worn out phrase... syscom3 since we don't know for how long the German trucks would have been produced if the Germans had won the war that remark of yours is useless.. 



> German tanks and halftracks were superior to the allies, except for the T34, which could give the Panther a run for its money.



And with that last phrase you have convinced me that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about!

You're actually being serious when you claim that the T-34 could give a Panther a run for its money ??!



> Same with the assault rifles, the Germans were far better. But the bolt action rifle was an anchronism from WW1, and the semi auto rifle far better.



Sure thats why bolt action rifles are still used in every army today right ? 

A semi-auto full-powered rifle is a better main infantry weapon than a bolt action rifle, yes, but a bolt action rifle is a better sniper-rifle - and the Stg44 is a better main infantry weapon than both.



> US and British proximity fuses were in use long before the Germans used them. And were far better in quality. Same with US fire control and doctrine.



Again a stupid claim, now back it up.



> Except for the Ta-152, no German fighter was superior to an allied type. Every fighter flown by any of the combatants had its strengths and weakness's and none were best in everything, except for the US designs having magntitudes better range (which meant they could bring the fight to the Luftwaffe and win the fight).



 No syscom3, the US designs won the day because of quantity quantity quantity... Had the numbers been equal we would be speaking German today.



> The allies (including the russians) had vastly superior logistics at every level. The Germans could only shake their heads in amazement in the ability of the big three to produce vast quantities of material, uniformly in good enough quality and get it to the battlefield when it was needed.



The reason having already been explained...


----------



## Hop (Jun 25, 2006)

The Germans didn't deploy a proximity fuse at all during the war (they may have had experimental ones, but nothing in service)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2006)

The Stg 44 was the best infantry weapon produced in WW2 and that claim has been proven over and over. Hell it was the basis for the AK-47 which still today is one of the best weapons ever built.

As for your claim that no luftwaffe aircraft had an equal to the allied aircraft. Name me one that was overally better. Dont tell me the P-51D, syscom. If it had not been for numbers, it would have been a flop!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 25, 2006)

The P38, P47, P51 and Spits were equal to anything the Luftwaffe had.

Each had its strengths and each had its weakness's. 

Same with the Luftwaffe, each had its strengths and each had its weakness's.

The Me-109 doesnt even deserve to be mentioned for anything post summer 1944. It was a great design at the start of the war, but decidely inferior untill the last few months when it didnt even matter. The -190 was the best, but not superior to the allied aircraft. 

Great pilots fought to the strengths of their aircraft and avoided the weakness's. And the fact that allied pilots consistently shot down in great numbers -109's and -190's proves that the German fighters were not invincible nor superior. And the fact that plnty of allied fighters were also shot down proves their fighters were also not invincible.


----------



## Soren (Jun 25, 2006)

Hop said:


> The Germans didn't deploy a proximity fuse at all during the war (they may have had experimental ones, but nothing in service)



The Germans had proximity fuses alright, radio proximity fuses as-well, not in any way as many as the Allies, but just as good, they weren't fielded in any significant way for a reason though..

AFAIK the V-2 used a proximity fuse, the high impact velocity pretty much demands it in order to be truly effective, and as we know it must have done a fine job. - Not sure about this though!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The P38, P47, P51 and Spits were equal to anything the Luftwaffe had.



Say that again. Equal not superior. 



syscom3 said:


> Each had its strengths and each had its weakness's.



Agreed 



syscom3 said:


> Same with the Luftwaffe, each had its strengths and each had its weakness's.



Agreed



syscom3 said:


> The Me-109 doesnt even deserve to be mentioned for anything post summer 1944. It was a great design at the start of the war, but decidely inferior untill the last few months when it didnt even matter. The -190 was the best, but not superior to the allied aircraft.



Disagreed and you are believing a myth that everyone else seems to believe. 



syscom3 said:
 

> Great pilots fought to the strengths of their aircraft and avoided the weakness's. And the fact that allied pilots consistently shot down in great numbers -109's and -190's proves that the German fighters were not invincible nor superior. And the fact that plnty of allied fighters were also shot down proves their fighters were also not invincible.



Vast quantity. Superior numbers!


----------



## Soren (Jun 25, 2006)

Adler you might as-well spare yourself the effort, I mean the guy thinks the T-34 was the equal of the Panther for christ sake!


----------



## Hop (Jun 25, 2006)

The Germans didn't have a proximity fuse in service. Some experiments towards the end of the war, but nothing in service.

As to the V-2, one of the drawbacks was the fact it didn't have a proximity fuse, which meant it buried itself before exploding, doing less damage.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 25, 2006)

Hop said:


> T....
> As to the V-2, one of the drawbacks was the fact it didn't have a proximity fuse, which meant it buried itself before exploding, doing less damage.



That actually created far more damage by creating a seismic effect that destroyed foundations. It didnt flatten as many buildings, but it made them as unsafe as to be impossible to occupy.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 25, 2006)

Soren said:


> Adler you might as-well spare yourself the effort, I mean the guy thinks the T-34 was the equal of the Panther for christ sake!



If the T34 wasnt so good, why did the Germans think of actually copying it.

It had a great gun, well sloped armour and was simple enough to be built by the thousands and crewed and operated by peasants.

Probably the best tank of WW2


----------



## Soren (Jun 25, 2006)

You know I think you're right about the V-2 Hop, I was looking through some doc's on the V-2 and could find nothing on any proximity fuse. Plans were made to use one however, and not just in the V-2 but in various guided missiles - these plans were however not fulfilled partly because it was realized it would have zero effect on the war and partly because of fear that countermeasures would be developed which would render the huge effort of deploying them useless.



syscom3 said:


> If the T34 wasnt so good, why did the Germans think of actually copying it.



That was in 41 for christs sake syscom3 ! And the Germans in no way intended to copy it, and didn't either. The Panther shared nothing with the T-34 except for its sloping armor, and even this had been used on tanks before and can therefore not be considered copying.



> It had a great gun, well sloped armour and was simple enough to be built by the thousands and crewed and operated by peasants.



A gun which couldn't harm the Tiger Ausf.E unless it came within 100m of its side armor, and a sloped armor protection which could be penetrated frontally as far away as over 2km by the 88mm Kwk36 L/56 main gun of the Tiger Ausf.E. (And at even longer distances by the Panther's 75mm Kwk42 L/70 main gun)

And about the Panther's debut at Kursk, while it initially revealed allot of teething problems(Which shortly after were solved), it also demonstrated the tremendously superior firepower of this new German tank as this Russian radio message testifies: 

"_Enemy introduced new tank ! Shape roughly similar to 'Tridsatchedverka' (T-34). Tank is heavily armored, weight is est. 40-50 tons. Armament is probably 88mm AA gun. We had losses at combat ranges beyond 2,000m...._" - From July 8th 1943.



> Probably the best tank of WW2



Probably the worst by late 1943 and onwards. Even the US Sherman can be considered better by 1944 with the introduction of the EasyEight.

Fact is the T-34 was outdated already in 42 and remained outdated from then on throughout the war - it litterally became gun-fodder throughout the second half of the war. 

The only thing which stayed superior about the T-34 was its ease of manufacturing.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 25, 2006)

Germany thought of copying the T-34, but never did. If you compare the T-34/76 to it's German couterparts of 1941 you can quickly understand why the Germans considered copying it. The Wehrmacht hadn't even fielded the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F/2 or the L/60 equipped Pz.Kpfw III Ausf J let alone the Tiger or Panther. Germany never did copy the T-34 though, they designed something far superior, the Pz.Kpfw V 'Panther'. 

The T-34 was a simple and robust design, it had all the makings of a great tank. Strong armour, powerful cannon and mobility made this tank the greatest tank in the world until 1942. But the introduction of the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F/2 and Pz.Kpfw VI Ausf E in that year rendered the T-34/76 an obselete design. 
1942 saw the Tigers introduction onto the battlefield and what a show it put on. The Soviet Army was undeniably shocked, the bar had been raised to levels no one before would have dreamed of. At the time the Soviets, or West knew how complex this Tiger was. And the mere sight of one of these monsters caused fear, and if one pointed it's cannon at you it was time to abandon. 
Spearheading the assault, and supported by the Pz.Kpfw IV these armoured assaults put the T-34 to shame. As the Tigers would simply destroy dozens before being made inoperable themselves, mostly by breaking down or getting stuck. Even in those circumstances, the Tiger was an effective tank destroyer and could halt any Soviet counter-offensive sometimes on their own! 

Now you're thinking "but I'm talking about Panther vs. T-34." Well, I'm getting there. By the time the Panther was put on to the field, it was 1943. The Soviets had learnt to fear the Tiger, and the Panther was just another shock in waiting. But as we know the performance it first put forward was pretty pathetic for what would become the greatest tank of the war. 
First reports of the Panther did come as a '88 equipped tank' which was knocking out the Soviet tanks at anything up to 2,500 m! The Panther's cannon was superior to both the 76mm and 85mm T-34 cannons, and none could hope to strike back at the same distances. The optical equipment in a T-34 wouldn't give them a chance in hell to hit anything anyway. Some n Stalingrad were coming out with NO optical equipment, and aiming was done by looking down the barrel! The Panther, however, had the most precise optics of the war. And had superior radio to anything Soviet, making it a more flexiable tank. 

The armour of the Panther was superior in thickness and sloping. On all sides, on top and underneath. It was on par with the IS-2, and that was a Soviet design itself superior to the T-34. Panthers would often destroy dozens of T-34s with little loss to themselves. I've seen ratios in battles of 70 : 2 between T-34s and Panthers , and there well could be higher. 

The Panther was mobile, commented on by the 6th Grenadier Guards who captured a Panther G in the Ardennes. They state that the Panther was able to hold the road in any amount of ice, while their own tanks (Churchills) were slipping and sliding all over the place. 

While the T-34 was simple, it lacked all the various internal equipment that would make the tank much more flexible. And while it could be controlled, to some extent, by barely trained people ... it's not a good thing. The Wehrmacht was made up of soldiers, not peasants. They don't want to have farmers driving tanks, they want soldiers. And many T-34s were not started, as the peasants that are so often said to be able to control the T-34 easily wouldn't know which lever to push when, and a lot had the unfortunate incident of trapping their hands in the loading mechanism, the same happened in the IS-2. 

The reliabilty of the Panther was an issue in the first two marks, D and A. But by the G the problems were largely solved. And the production would have been extremely high had Germany not wasted resources on hundreds of dead end projects, and costly tanks. Had we seen a complete replacement of German armour by the Panther and Panther alone ... you'd have seen a lot more dead Allies and Soviets on the battlefield. 

The T-34 was the best in the world in 1941, when the Germans thought of copying it. The Tiger beat it. The Panther beat that. And the King Tiger was the most powerful tank ever to see the battlefield during World War II.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 25, 2006)

You beat me to it, Soren. And that radio transmission was the one I was thinking of, but couldn't remember where I have it. I've seen it on some site too, but I can't remember which one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 26, 2006)

Hmm good interesting info. Tanks are deffinatly a weak spot of mine.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jun 28, 2006)

I intended this to be a short, quote-free post. Oh well, here goes!:


*DerAdler:*



> Hell it was the basis for the AK-47 which still today is one of the best weapons ever built.



True in a way, but that statement is very misleading.


*Syscom:*



> The Me-109 doesnt even deserve to be mentioned for anything post summer 1944. It was a great design at the start of the war, but decidely inferior untill the last few months when it didnt even matter.



It wasn't user-friendly, but I do really like the 'Kurfurst' - I think the kinks were ironed out, though unfortunately I feel the 'Emil' was inferior to the Spitfire MkII.



> US fire control of the artillery were the best in the world.



Several Sherman kills @ 6 miles impresses me (German "88's"). Soviet artillery was also great, as was British.



> German tanks and halftracks were superior to the allies,



Tanks yes, halftracks no.



> except for the T34, which could give the Panther a run for its money.



I'll back you up on that one.



> Allied proximity shells were superior to the German ones.





> Bollocks, where have you heard this ?



I've heard this too, though they were in development. I think he especially means Flak shells?


*Soren:*



> And don't even get me started on the halftracks !



Actually, the US halftracks proved superior to the Famo's and Hanomags - surprizing result.



> But if you want to discuss shells I can tell you the Germans were light years ahead of the Allies in terms of quality, precision 'and' fusing!



Not with slave and saboteur labour, no.



> Yes, and the K98k is the best bolt action rifle design of all time



I take it you weren't being serious?



> And the German also had the Stg44, the best infantry small-arm of WWII.



Hard to disagree with that.



> And although the Garand IS superior to the K43



Surely you mean the G41?



> No syscom3, the US designs won the day because of quantity quantity quantity...



I think it was because of the asymetric equation of comparable quality, plus far superior quantity.



> The Panther shared nothing with the T-34 except for its sloping armor, and even this had been used on tanks before and can therefore not be considered copying.



It re-wrote the rulebook! Sloping armour, high power-weight ratio, high speed, overhanging dual-purpose gun. The Panther was, essentially a Germanised T34 - with all the good and bad points that entails.

These had proven to work on the T34 and needed to be 'emulated' on the next-gen Panzers.

Having said all this, you may be one of those who thinks the AK47 is a Stg44 clone?



> A gun which couldn't harm the Tiger Ausf.E unless it came within 100m of its side armor



The T34/85, SU85, SU100 and SU122 certainly could kill a Tiger and were still essentially the same vehicle.

'sides the Tiger was a heavy battle and breakthrough tank, the T34 was a Medium/exploitation tank, the comparison's unfair.



> and a sloped armor protection which could be penetrated frontally as far away as over 2km by the 88mm Kwk36 L/56 main gun of the Tiger Ausf.E. (And at even longer distances by the Panther's 75mm Kwk42 L/70 main gun)



Lucky shots, against a (fast travelling/quality) T34 the shot could bounce at a few hundred metres!



> Probably the worst by late 1943 and onwards. Even the US Sherman can be considered better by 1944 with the introduction of the EasyEight.



T34 development wasn't stagnant either, T34/85 anyone?

The E8 was very nice though.



> it litterally became gun-fodder throughout the second half of the war.



Well, it was often deliberately used as target practise.


*PlanD:*

There were 50mm/L60 equiped PzIII's in '41, and PzIV Specials come to think.

The PzIII AusfJ could manage a T34, but only if it was an elite German crew vs a crap Soviet crew (as was often the case).



> But the introduction of the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F/2 and Pz.Kpfw VI Ausf E in that year rendered the T-34/76 an obselete design.



The same happened with the Grant/Sherman, however most Allies used new tactics, whereas the Soviets on the whole didn't.



> As the Tigers would simply destroy dozens before being made inoperable themselves, mostly by breaking down or getting stuck.



The Soviets did intelligently use Arty, mines and Sturmoviks though, where the Tiger was much more vulnerable than the T34 and a T34 could kill a Tiger, as could other Soviet AFV's.



> Even in those circumstances, the Tiger was an effective tank destroyer and could halt any Soviet counter-offensive sometimes on their own!



Yup.



> The Panther's cannon was superior to both the 76mm and 85mm T-34 cannons, and none could hope to strike back at the same distances. The optical equipment in a T-34 wouldn't give them a chance in hell to hit anything anyway.



It would be possible to frontally kill a Panther with a T34/85 up close only, due to the small vulnerable are presented, combined with the lesser accuracy of the Soviet gun. - I've given you that, please don't exgaggerate now!



> The Panther, however, had the most precise optics of the war. And had superior radio to anything Soviet, making it a more flexiable tank.



Yes.



> The armour of the Panther was superior in thickness and sloping.



Nope, the sides were thicker on the T34 and the sloping was better everywhere - usually a perfect 60 degrees rather than the dodgy 80 on the Panther, it also had a lower silhouette and faster acceleration.



> It was on par with the IS-2, and that was a Soviet design itself superior to the T-34.



Now that is an interesting comparison, stilletto vs sledgehammer!



> Panthers would often destroy dozens of T-34s with little loss to themselves. I've seen ratios in battles of 70 : 2 between T-34s and Panthers , and there well could be higher.



This is more down to the improper use of the T34 than anything.



> and a lot had the unfortunate incident of trapping their hands in the loading mechanism



I think you're getting confused with the T72 prototypes auto-loader - a common myth in the West.

However the turret ring was easy to get trapped in!



> The reliabilty of the Panther was an issue in the first two marks, D and A. But by the G the problems were largely solved. And the production would have been extremely high had Germany not wasted resources on hundreds of dead end projects, and costly tanks. Had we seen a complete replacement of German armour by the Panther and Panther alone ... you'd have seen a lot more dead Allies and Soviets on the battlefield.



Good statement, the JagdPanther too was a very useful variant.



> And the King Tiger was the most powerful tank ever to see the battlefield during World War II.



In theory, yes, but in reality poor quality and other deprivations meant that it wasn't.


On the Kubel vs Jeep thing:

IMHO in the West, the jeep was perhaps equal to the kubel, except in NA where the air-cooled, longer-ranged Kubel had the advantage.


On US vs Axis planes:

All US planes seemed to have good range - this makes much more sense to me than the Shermans reliability/numbers arguement.

However more fuel has it's disadvantages...


On the quantity v quality thing:

I've seen Allied and Axis production reels as Engineering is my 'bag'. The Allied planes and ammo were excellent quality and design.

The Sherman and T34 however were stupidly left unupgraded - as soon as was possible all in-production Shermans should have recieved the 17pdr and all T34's the 85mm (sooner).

On the whole though, ease of production is a major design plus.

"Quantity IS a quality!"

- Yosef Stalin


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2006)

Schwarzpanzer are you trying to tell me that the Stg 44 was not the basis for the AK-47? I hope you are not. The AK-47 is a very different gun but it was adapted from the design of the Stg 44.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2006)

Oh god here we go again !! 

Schwarz all of the above we have discussed endlessly in other threads, so leave it out of this one !!!!

Now I'm going to create a new thread where you, Schwarz, in order to prove your claims will post all your sources, thank you!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2006)

_"There were 50mm/L60 equiped PzIII's in '41, and PzIV Specials come to think."_

I will reply to this one part, as it is so easily proven wrong. Schwarz, if you thought and read a little more you would have never made that statement. 

Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 : 175 produced from March - July, 1942. Plus 25 converted from F/1. Chassis # : 82370 - 82650. 

Mostly sent to front-line as replacement units, all in 1942. 

Pz.Kpfw III Ausf J (Sd Kfz 141/1*) : 1,067 produced from December 1941 to July, 1942. Chassis # : 72001 - 74100, 68001 - 69000. 

Deployed early 1942 in five new tank detachments for the 3rd, 16th, 29th and 60th Motorised Infantry Divisions, and the SS Motorised Infantry Divsion 'Wiking'. 

*The Sd Kfz 141/1 was equipped with the KwK 39 L/60 50mm cannon. The armament was changed mid-production of the Pz.Kpfw III Ausf J (Sd Kfz 141). 

As is plainly clear, both the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F/2 and Pz.Kpfw III Ausf J (Sd Kfz 141/1) were not on the battlefield in 1941. 

Source: *Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two: 1933 - 1945* - Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle. Technical Editor - Thomas L. Jentz. Cassell - 2003 reprint of 1999 edition. 

Schwarz take note of source!!!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Schwarzpanzer are you trying to tell me that the Stg 44 was not the basis for the AK-47? I hope you are not. The AK-47 is a very different gun but it was adapted from the design of the Stg 44.




I do beleive it does but to me (just an opinion) more closely resembles the H&K MP5


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2006)

Soren said:


> Now I'm going to create a new thread where you, Schwarz, in order to prove your claims will post all your sources, thank you!


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 27, 2018)

Tiger said:


> France? Do you think that the French input into the treaty of Versailles put Germany in a position were a leader like Hitler could rise to power and there by causing the war? The British and American input was not anywhere as near as the harsh punishment wanted by the French. If the treaty had been realistic would it have prevented WW2?
> 
> I asked this on another forum and got some interesting answers, discuss away!


I think there is a lot of merit in your query. The French were the most vindictive in setting harsh terms against Germany, setting the stage for WW11 and the rise of Hitler to power as Chancellor in 1933-


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2018)

Ultimately only one country is to blame for the start of WW2 in Europe, and that is Germany. There however were many contributing factors, i.e., Treaty of Versailles, the economy, land treaties, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2018)

There is absolutely no doubt that Germany under Hitler started WW2 as far as Europe is concerned however Hitler had many more supporters in Europe in 1939 than anyone admitted to in 1945, Japan was already at war with China. If economic depression is an excuse to invade a neighbour then Canada-USA-Mexico should have had a war too

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2018)

I did not say it was an excuse, I said it was a contributing factor...


----------



## The Basket (Jan 28, 2018)

AK v StG? I would say that the StG certainly pushed the AK but it's not a copy or a clone.
As far as ww2 there certainly was players. Is the Spanish civil war part of ww2? Is the Japanese invasion of China? Soviet invasion of Finland? Italians in Abyssinia?
I am not sure ww2 started on a particular day but was a culmination of events over a period of time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I did not say it was an excuse, I said it was a contributing factor...


I didn't say that you did Adler. In 1930s Germany people were not as well off as they previously had been, they were still better off than most people in the world as a nation and as individuals.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 28, 2018)

In many ways, including reparations, the Treaty of Vienna, which ended the Napoleonic Wars, was more vindictive than the Treaty of Versailles. The main difference was that Metternich and the [Un]Holy Alliance actively intervened to keep that horror of anti-monarchism suppressed, while the victors of WWI actively ignored the development of fascism. 

Of course, the Treaty of Vienna rewrote the map of Europe, even more so than did Versailles: the number of German states was reduced, Poland was eradicated, as was every republic in Italy except San Marino was put under the Austrian thumb.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 28, 2018)

Check out the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
The Germans cant complain about Treaty of Versailles when they themselves imposed an extrmemly harsh treaty on the Soviets.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2018)

I think you can find examples of this throughout history. It’s not about just or unjust in this tense, but more of how it contributed.

You have to remember that usually it’s not the heads of state and country leadership that is suffering, and likewise it is not the civilian population dictating the terms.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 28, 2018)

I would say that WW1 and WW2 are actually the same war with a gap in the middle.

If you look at the Russo-Japanese war 1904-1905 then did WW2 start there?
or the Franco-Prussian war in 1870?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2018)

People can always complain, I have major issues with the terms of the Treaty of Picquigny in 1475.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2018)

The Basket said:


> I would say that WW1 and WW2 are actually the same war with a gap in the middle.
> 
> If you look at the Russo-Japanese war 1904-1905 then did WW2 start there?
> or the Franco-Prussian war in 1870?



I agree completely. WW1 and WW2 were really the same conflict, with a 21 year cease fire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2018)

pbehn said:


> People can always complain, I have major issues with the terms of the Treaty of Picquigny in 1475.



Oh really, I have major issues with the terms of the Treaty of Lutatius! Beat that!


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh really, I have major issues with the terms of the Treaty of Lutatius! Beat that!


I always knew you were a Xanthippus fan boy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 28, 2018)

pbehn said:


> People can always complain, I have major issues with the terms of the Treaty of Picquigny in 1475.


One must be mindful.
there are still people out there who celebrate stuff from hundreds of years ago to show thier national pride.
So treaties and long forgotten battles are still been fought over in the minds of these people.
rightly or wrongly. 
Anyhoo...is the treaty of Versailles still actually in place?...i could do with some of that German money about now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jan 28, 2018)

I joined the forum in 2008, and notice that most of the discussion occurred before that. I don’t believe that Ive commented on this thread before.

It’s a bit of a nonsense to argue “who started WWII” in my opinion. Working on the principal of “it takes two to have a fight”, you would have to draw the conclusion that a fight started, between two adult nations. For me its as simple as this….both sides started but who was the side most culpable for the outbreak of war?

Certainly there are extenuating circumstances on the german side, but so too are there extenuating circumstances for the other side as well. Those background issues did not, of themselves lead to war. Any realistic assessment of the lead in to WWII has to conclude that there was no-one standing behind Germany forcing their hand. The germans had a list of grievances, for sure, just as nearly every other nation in the world had grievances. With some notable exceptions like Italy and japan, Most nations were driven by the desire to maintain peace. In recent years there have been some outrageous claims made that in fact Germany was forced to war, but im not seeing that. I think the germans were shocked by their defeat in 1918, and offended by what many saw as a trick peace treaty and an unfair one. The economic collapse, the rise of ultra nationalism and militarism, never far from the surface in Germany (until after 1945) all contributed to Germany’s list of complaints, but none of them explain germany’s decision to engage in an aggressive war, and in so doing bring misery to themselves and most of the world with it.

The question posed is the wrong one to ask. Germany is not the cause of WWII, at least not the sole cause. But Germany stands alone and guilty as being the nation that decided to embark on an aggressive war, for whatever reason. But still guilty nevertheless.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 28, 2018)

Thats a very sticky wicket you're bowling on.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2018)

The Basket said:


> One must be mindful.
> there are still people out there who celebrate stuff from hundreds of years ago to show thier national pride.
> So treaties and long forgotten battles are still been fought over in the minds of these people.
> rightly or wrongly.
> Anyhoo...is the treaty of Versailles still actually in place?...i could do with some of that German money about now.


I know what you mean, having worked around the world for years I became accustomed to being responsible for all the ills in that country after a certain hour in a bar. I caused potato famines, nuclear attacks, mass starvation and religious persecution throughout the globe. My personal rejection of Napoleon caused disaster in Europe and my support for a tyrant like Horatio Nelson set back European culture for decades. However my worst personal failing turned out to be at the Battle of Killiecrankie. Laughing hysterically at the name in a bar in Wick set my career in Scotland on a course from which it never recovered. Happily there were other places to work.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 28, 2018)

I do find it odd that certain groups have photographic memories one moment and total amnesia the next.
However Gavrilo Princip did some shooting for a Yugoslav homeland and to be free of Austria.
And guess what....after WW1 the Yugo state was created and the Austrian empire folded. So Mr Princip got his goals. Probably the only major player in WW1 who achieved his to do list. Not sure about Yugoslavia if that will be succesful but time will tell on that one.
Arguing with a extreme nationalist is about useful as a chocolate teapot.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 28, 2018)

parsifal said:


> I joined the forum in 2008, and notice that most of the discussion occurred before that. I don’t believe that Ive commented on this thread before.
> 
> It’s a bit of a nonsense to argue “who started WWII” in my opinion. Working on the principal of “it takes two to have a fight”, you would have to draw the conclusion that a fight started, between two adult nations. For me its as simple as this….both sides started but who was the side most culpable for the outbreak of war?
> 
> ...



Hmmm...not sure I agree with all your points. Germany was not alone in embarking on an aggressive war. Japan and Italy both did similarly, albeit to differing extents. 

While I have some sympathy for the view that the Versailles Treaty was overly harsh, that does not provide justification for Germany to invade all of Poland, Western Europe and the Soviet Union. Had Hitler and his cronies elected opted for more limited objectives, say a remilitarized Germany and adjustment of borders to bring in certain regions that contained a large proportion of ethnic Germans (eg Sudetenland), then we probably wouldn't be talking about WW2. While it would have offended France and Britain, it's possible that a more reasonable (and ultimately peaceful) accommodation could have been reached. 

Unfortunately, there was no such appetite for limited objectives within the Nazi hierarchy. When presented with the option of pausing to consolidate or embarking on (yet) another offensive, Germany consistently chose the latter route. The same was true of Imperial Japan. The nationalistic/racist propaganda which said that "our race is better than the races currently occupying those lands" drove an insatiable desire to own more land and subjugate those peoples who were "beneath us". One could argue this was simply an extension of the imperialism perpetrated by many nations in the preceding 150 years but no other nations matched Germany or Japan for their oppressive subjugation of other peoples during this period of rabid expansionism (1937-1945).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2018)

Sadly for the world Germany was a brand new nation only formed in 1871. Experience in Africa and elsewhere shows that newly formed nations take decades or even centuries to settle into a coherent system.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 28, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Check out the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
> The Germans cant complain about Treaty of Versailles when they themselves imposed an extrmemly harsh treaty on the Soviets.




The pre-WWII Germans were just such special snowflakes that other people have had to apologize for their behavior for decades.

Brest-Litovsk was harsh, probably harsher than Versailles but no one uses it to justify Soviet invasions of Ukraine, Georgia, Poland, or the Baltics.


----------

