[fifeboy]

Tricks Tricks:

Those damn Europeans will NEVER catch the Stig! NEVER!!!

[Thanos]

I can't express how much I genuinely hate revisionist conversations, no matter which side is doing the complaining. History happened the way it happened. It doesn't need to be nitpicked to death or turned into a silly "who's got the biggest dick" conversation by people who weren't around 70 years ago and who certainly have zero right to judge the decisions from 70 years ago. Hitler and Japan lost, which is a good thing, and Germany and Japan are now essential parts of the framework of Western democracy. We had to put up with worldwide Communism for about 45 years afterwards but it's gone too now because it fell apart under the crushing weight of it's own lies and it's denial of the reality of human nature. And this too is a good thing once again. So why get all you knickers knotted up over fantasy "what-if?" scenarios or the completely inappropriate assignment of blame onto people who are all long dead and buried?

This makes no sense to me.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Wow! First Kai and now you.

How anyone can equate the two is beyond belief. WW2 and Iraq in 2003 are so far apart it's not even funny. One was total war and one was a sideshow that had the president declaring, "Mission Accomplished" in a couple of months. In its entire time in Iraq, the USA probably suffered fewer casualties than the US did during the Normandy campaign (or any other major US campaign in WW2).

The scale of conflict, the number of deaths, the number of combat theatres, just about everything is so vastly different that it's not even like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing apples and watermelons.

I totally agree that the origins of WW2 are WW1 and the Versailles Treaty, and in fact it's almost universally agreed by historians that this was one of the major factors in WW2, but a very key difference is why each war was fought.

WW1, was essentially a chance for everyone to address their own nationals issues (Germany wanting to be a global superpower like the Brits, the French desperate for revenge for the War of 1870, the Austrians and Ottomans desperately trying to maintain crumbling empires etc), while WW2 was the literal apocalyptic war of good vs evil, whereupon both sides demonized the other and the losers were to be occupied and enslaved (at least from the Third Reich/Empire of Japan POVs).

Had the Nazis and Japanese won WW2, the world would be a vastly different and far darker place than it is today. For all our problems nowadays, it pales in comparison to how drastically the world would have changed if the Third Reich or the Empire of Japan had prevailed over us.

Comparatively speaking, if Saddam was still around today (and in power), the world would be pretty much the same - except for Iraqi citizens. Saddam, while undoubtably a brutal dictator and and evil, vicious man, had no dreams of global domination like Hitler did - and in comparing the two you make light of the tremendous sacrifices the previous generation made during WW2.

I'm not comparing the wars, I'm comparing the relative attitudes concerning the two wars.

[BartSimpson]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Oh and P.S. I didn't ask why you didn't get into the war sooner. I asked why you don't accept, today, that it was a mistake.

Because I maintain that America's mistake was after World War One when we allowed the Versailles Treaty to be imposed upon Germany. That we were late to yet another pointless European bloodbath a generation later is perfectly fine with me because the price in American blood was less than had we gone to war in 1939.

For that matter, the French and British declarations of war against Germany for the invasion of Poland were yet another act of antagonism against Germany. Why do I say that? Because Britain and France were supposedly standing up for Poland, right?

Well then why didn't France and Britain declare war on the USSR, too? They invaded Poland at the same time Germany did yet they got a pass from both France and the UK.

I also don't judge it as a mistake because I'm not going to judge the people of that time against the understanding of 70 years of hindsight. I will try to understand what they did based on what they knew and understood.

Otherwise we can play at 20/20 hindsight all over the place and that simply isn't constructive for anyone.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Otherwise we can play at 20/20 hindsight all over the place and that simply isn't constructive for anyone.

But you just spent about 12 posts playing
20/20 hindsight.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Wow! First Kai and now you.

How anyone can equate the two is beyond belief. WW2 and Iraq in 2003 are so far apart it's not even funny. One was total war and one was a sideshow that had the president declaring, "Mission Accomplished" in a couple of months. In its entire time in Iraq, the USA probably suffered fewer casualties than the US did during the Normandy campaign (or any other major US campaign in WW2).

The scale of conflict, the number of deaths, the number of combat theatres, just about everything is so vastly different that it's not even like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing apples and watermelons.

I totally agree that the origins of WW2 are WW1 and the Versailles Treaty, and in fact it's almost universally agreed by historians that this was one of the major factors in WW2, but a very key difference is why each war was fought.

WW1, was essentially a chance for everyone to address their own nationals issues (Germany wanting to be a global superpower like the Brits, the French desperate for revenge for the War of 1870, the Austrians and Ottomans desperately trying to maintain crumbling empires etc), while WW2 was the literal apocalyptic war of good vs evil, whereupon both sides demonized the other and the losers were to be occupied and enslaved (at least from the Third Reich/Empire of Japan POVs).

Had the Nazis and Japanese won WW2, the world would be a vastly different and far darker place than it is today. For all our problems nowadays, it pales in comparison to how drastically the world would have changed if the Third Reich or the Empire of Japan had prevailed over us.

Comparatively speaking, if Saddam was still around today (and in power), the world would be pretty much the same - except for Iraqi citizens. Saddam, while undoubtably a brutal dictator and and evil, vicious man, had no dreams of global domination like Hitler did - and in comparing the two you make light of the tremendous sacrifices the previous generation made during WW2.

I'm not comparing the wars, I'm comparing the relative attitudes concerning the two wars.

Even that is totally different - despite appeasement, after Hitler invaded Poland pretty much everyone in Europe knew that it was the start of WW2, while Iraq II was nothing more than a US president targeting an annoying country led by a total dick that had had the gall to tell the US to go fuck itself. The truth is that no matter how much Saddam was willing to give in to American demands, Dubya was coming after him, one way or another.

Now, if Saddam had invaded Kuwait or Saudi Arabia again, and/or was threatening a major war, European/Canadian attitudes would have been different. Remember, when he actually did so in 1991, the West (including all the states that didn't support the Coalition) intervened in force against him.

[commanderkai]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Wow! First Kai and now you.

I'm sorry, what? All I did was compare dictators, not the wars themselves.

[BartSimpson]

fifeboy fifeboy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Otherwise we can play at 20/20 hindsight all over the place and that simply isn't constructive for anyone.

But you just spent about 12 posts playing
20/20 hindsight.

Except that I didn't.

Feel free to access the archives of US newspapers of the period (other than the New York Times and the Boston Globe) and you'll find a decidedly anti-European and isolationist editorial bent and I've found that to be reflective of the popular attitudes of the period.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

fifeboy fifeboy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Otherwise we can play at 20/20 hindsight all over the place and that simply isn't constructive for anyone.

But you just spent about 12 posts playing
20/20 hindsight.

Except that I didn't.

Feel free to access the archives of US newspapers of the period (other than the New York Times and the Boston Globe) and you'll find a decidedly anti-European and isolationist editorial bent and I've found that to be reflective of the popular attitudes of the period.

And, as I pointed out several posts ago, neither did I. All I said is I wish Americans would just say they were wrong. You are still giving us the "opinion of the times." It's like if seventy five years from now,after the alien invasions of earth someone looks back and says "well, nobody believed the stories about crop circles."

[Thanos]

1,076,245 American dead/wounded and 30,314 missing in World War 2. Considering what the American people ended up paying for towards their part in winning that war I'd contend that their relative rightness or wrongness over skipping the first two years of the conflict is no longer relevant.

[Psudo]

fifeboy fifeboy:

How many Americans volunteered for service overseas before December 8, 1941?

Some disclaimers apply, but Wikipedia says about 8,759 Americans fought for Canada, at least 6,700 volunteered to fly with the RAF, and about 300 Americans fought for the Chinese.

fifeboy fifeboy:

Did any volunteer for the German military at the same time?

None are listed here.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Perhaps you could argue that if the aid under lend-lease was given freely, but it wasn't. The US received leases for bases around the world as well as payment, some of which was paid off until a few years ago.

Are you arguing that lend-lease was not an effective US contribution to the allied war effort? If so, you've conceded my point. If not, you're factually wrong. The specifics of the payment plan don't alter any of that.

bootlegga bootlegga:

As for effort, the Soviets lost upwards of 20 MILLION people in WW2, which far exceeds the efforts of the USA.

That is true about the Soviets, and it far exceeds the US death rate. What specifically do you mean by "efforts?"

And what part of my post is that intended to dispute? Is it directed at the part about "the USA fought in both the European and Pacific theaters to an extent unmatched by any other nation?" My point was that the USA was a major player in both theaters, where nearly every other nation was a major force in one or the other only. Russia and Britain both had some presence in the Pacific Theater, but nothing like the USA's. Consider causalities as an estimate of involvement: The USA suffered 350,000 causalities in the Pacific compared to 60,000 Russians and 50,000 British. What other nations were on both fronts?

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm not denigrating the efforts of the US in WW2

I think you are, but it's not a terribly important point.

bootlegga bootlegga:

unlike the prevailing US POV that we would have lost WW2 without them, the fact is the war in Europe was already turning well in the Allies favour by Dec. 1941.

So you're arguing that a Soviet Union that borders Spain is a victory?

Regardless of the specific definitions of victory and defeat, the war turned out better with US involvement than it would have been without it. Earlier and more US involvement would probably have been better still. That's "the prevailing US POV."

fifeboy fifeboy:

I didn't ask why you didn't get into the war sooner. I asked why you don't accept, today, that it was a mistake.

If "you" means "Americans," then I think we largely do agree that it was a mistake to wait so long. Maybe Americans 70 years ago didn't know the cost of their delay, maybe there was no way they could have known, but they were still wrong and it still cost Europe a huge number of lives. The only hypocritical part is when we today pretend that we would have known better in their situation, as if we're better people simply because we were born later.

fifeboy fifeboy:

All I said is I wish Americans would just say they were wrong.

When I said exactly that, you responded directly to that post but completely ignored that specific statement. Would you please explain to me why wish fulfillment does not deserve comment?

[fifeboy]

Psudo Psudo:

fifeboy fifeboy:

How many Americans volunteered for service overseas before December 8, 1941?

Psudo Psudo:

Some disclaimers apply, but Wikipedia says about 8,759 Americans fought for Canada, at least 6,700 volunteered to fly with the RAF, and about 300 Americans fought for the Chinese.

Very interesting. I don't know if there is any special notice taken by the Canadian Military of this sacrifice on Nov. 11. If there isn't there should be!

fifeboy fifeboy:

Did any volunteer for the German military at the same time?

None are listed here.
Interesting piece of local history in the part of Saskatchewan I lived in for 30 years. There is a small, one room cabin (actually a ruin) that is b uilt on a lake just off Hwy 155. It was built during the war by a German immigrant from St. Walburg who couldn't bring himself to go fight. He hid out for the war and went home to St. Walburg after it was over.

fifeboy fifeboy:

I didn't ask why you didn't get into the war sooner. I asked why you don't accept, today, that it was a mistake.

If "you" means "Americans," then I think we largely do agree that it was a mistake to wait so long. Maybe Americans 70 years ago didn't know the cost of their delay, maybe there was no way they could have known, but they were still wrong and it still cost Europe a huge number of lives. The only hypocritical part is when we today pretend that we would have known better in their situation, as if we're better people simply because we were born later.

fifeboy fifeboy:

All I said is I wish Americans would just say they were wrong.

When I said exactly that, you responded directly to that post but completely ignored that specific statement. Would you please explain to me why wish fulfillment does not deserve comment?

And I apologize for my oversite there. I guess I was too busy dealing with Bart who is always being .... well... Bart. Thank you Psudo.

[bootlegga]

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Perhaps you could argue that if the aid under lend-lease was given freely, but it wasn't. The US received leases for bases around the world as well as payment, some of which was paid off until a few years ago.

Are you arguing that lend-lease was not an effective US contribution to the allied war effort? If so, you've conceded my point. If not, you're factually wrong. The specifics of the payment plan don't alter any of that.

I'm not arguing that Lend-Lease was effective or ineffective, I simply stated that the US received payments for the weapons it sent to the Allies - which is not nearly as altruistic as you made it out to be.

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

As for effort, the Soviets lost upwards of 20 MILLION people in WW2, which far exceeds the efforts of the USA.

That is true about the Soviets, and it far exceeds the US death rate. What specifically do you mean by "efforts?"

And what part of my post is that intended to dispute? Is it directed at the part about "the USA fought in both the European and Pacific theaters to an extent unmatched by any other nation?" My point was that the USA was a major player in both theaters, where nearly every other nation was a major force in one or the other only. Russia and Britain both had some presence in the Pacific Theater, but nothing like the USA's. Consider causalities as an estimate of involvement: The USA suffered 350,000 causalities in the Pacific compared to 60,000 Russians and 50,000 British. What other nations were on both fronts?

The point is no matter the financial/material contribution of the US, which I fully admit was substantial, they got off easy compared to the Soviets, who had more soldiers under arms, suffered far more losses (both civilian and military). Nearly half of the Soviet Union was destroyed by war - how much of the USA was similiarly destroyed? ZERO - unless you want to take into account a few navy/air bases scattered around the Pacific.

Lots of nations fought on both fronts, although I agree that the Pacific was basically a US show. However, the UK, Australia, Canada and even the Dutch had forces in both theatres. The reason most nations did not put more effort into the Pacific was that Germany had been designated a primary target (and possibly because the US wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor - but that's purely speculation on my part).

Sure the Americans suffered more losses in the Pacific, but in Europe (the main combat theatre, everyone took far larger losses than the USA. Several European countries lost more than 10% of their pre-war population! US losses for the entire war were quite close to the UK in total numbers (roughly 416,000 to 383,000), but when percentage-wise the losses are the UK lost three times as many as the US did.

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm not denigrating the efforts of the US in WW2

I think you are, but it's not a terribly important point.

You're welcome to your opinion, even if it is incorrect. The US contribution AFTER it joined the conflict was unmatched, but IMHO, it loses some of its lustre because the US waited 2.25 years to join the war - which as I said earlier was nothing less than a struggle between good and evil.

I'm willing to give the US credit where it's due, but I'm not going to whitewash errors in US foreign policy because of its efforts in WW2.

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

unlike the prevailing US POV that we would have lost WW2 without them, the fact is the war in Europe was already turning well in the Allies favour by Dec. 1941.

So you're arguing that a Soviet Union that borders Spain is a victory?

We can engage in hypothetical arguments, but the fact is there is no guarantee that the USSR would have taken over all of Europe - hell, if Churchill had had his way, we would have fought the Commies right after the Nazis.

Psudo Psudo:

Regardless of the specific definitions of victory and defeat, the war turned out better with US involvement than it would have been without it. Earlier and more US involvement would probably have been better still. That's "the prevailing US POV."

Actually, I don't see that as the prevailing POV - from conversations I've had with Americans (both in real life and online) and American popular culture (movies/TV/books/etc), the prevailing opinion in the US seems to be, "We pulled your ass out of the fire", not "We should have been there sooner."

It's a difference of opinions, you guys have yours and we have ours. Neither is necessarily wrong - it's just how we see things.

[Thanos]

Two main factors existed on the eastern front that caused the far more massive death-toll that didn't occur in the west:

1) The fanatical and genocidal racism of the Nazis that was directed at Slavs in Poland/Serbia/Russia in a manner that never occurred in France, Italy, Scandinavia, etc.
2) The profligate wastage of the lives of Russian soldiers due to the field-level battle tactics imposed by Stalin himself. Except maybe for Japan no other combatant in the war was as recklessly wasteful with the lives of their own people as the Soviet Union was.

That the death toll in the west was nowhere near as awful as that in the east is something that should be of profound relief to us, not a point of recrimination. We behaved, most of the time, according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions which forced the Germans, most of the time, to behave the same way towards us. And we engaged in a strategy of warfare and a system of battlefield tactics that, if not specifically designed to reduce the number of our own casualties, really has to be viewed as morally superior to those employed by the Soviets.

To me suffering a much lower casualty rate than that of our enemies or erstwhile allies is something to be incredibly proud of. It is certainly not something to ever be ashamed of.

[fifeboy]

Thanos Thanos:

Two main factors existed on the eastern front that caused the far more massive death-toll that didn't occur in the west:

1) The fanatical and genocidal racism of the Nazis that was directed at Slavs in Poland/Serbia/Russia in a manner that never occurred in France, Italy, Scandinavia, etc.
2) The profligate wastage of the lives of Russian soldiers due to the field-level battle tactics imposed by Stalin himself. Except maybe for Japan no other combatant in the war was as recklessly wasteful with the lives of their own people as the Soviet Union was.

That the death toll in the west was nowhere near as awful as that in the east is something that should be of profound relief to us, not a point of recrimination. We behaved, most of the time, according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions which forced the Germans, most of the time, to behave the same way towards us. And we engaged in a strategy of warfare and a system of battlefield tactics that, if not specifically designed to reduce the number of our own casualties, really has to be viewed as morally superior to those employed by the Soviets.

To me suffering a much lower casualty rate than that of our enemies or erstwhile allies is something to be incredibly proud of. It is certainly not something to ever be ashamed of.

Thanks for that. Well said.