Jump to content

WW2 POLITICS


Phil Perry
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Germans didn't really rule France between 1940 and 1944.

 

The French government had negotiated a great deal with the Third Reich and were in a transition period.

 

There was some minor disagreement over the Belgium Backstop but nothing a good panzer division couldn't handle.

 

Britain was invited to join but the British prime minister at the time preferred to crash out over a cliff edge with no deal.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose we only ever hear the WWll history of those countries that Germany overran in 1939/40 from the Allies' side. There's no doubt that the Germans did what we are told they did, but we never hear of how day-to-day life really was. The impression we are given is that there was an SS member on every corner, and a sideways glance got you a one-way trip to imprisonment. But I wonder if life went on virtually as normal - bakers baked bread, barbers cut hair, cafes remained the place to go at the end of a day's work. 

 

Someone should start interviewing those who were teenagers or older during those times to get an unbiased description of life. Those teenagers are now in their eighties and we don't have much time left to get this information.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that the cause of the war was basicly the onerous treaty that finished WW1.

 

Hitler plaid up the iniquity of it and kept pushing the nationalistic point.

 

If Britain had used common sense they would have seen it coming and armed themselves before Hitler was posturing.

 

The British PM went to Germany ad talked tp Hitler, coming back with the waved in the air piece of paper and spouting Peace in our time.

 

A lot of people have criticised him for that, but I think Britain was nowhere near capable of facing Germany down then.

 

It was just before my time, but I can remember the war and the very best thing to happen during the war, was the dropping of the atomic bomb. No matter what anyone thinks about the morals of it, I am sure it saved lives in the long run, Japanese as well as Allied.

 

France of course was split and the Vichy government ruled for the Germans.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Yenn. WW2 was basically a continuation of WW1.

 

It was only the freak thing of Churchill being in power that caused the poms to be in it at all. The alternative, lord halifax, was not going to war with Germany.

 

And I also thank the atom bomb for the peaceful time I have lived in. The atom bomb put the top leaders in the front line and stopped them starting wars, well at least until they found that backwards countries which had no atom bombs were safe to go to war with, at least for the top brass.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 America is the ONLY country which has used atom Bomb(s) in anger and they must live with that fact. I don't swallow the line that it was necessary. The rate Russia was acquiring territory was also a big influence on ending the war sooner rather than later. The war had  already ended in Europe. America's Industrial strength would win the Pacific war. That was known by the Japanese commanders earlier on but they never surrender. It's dishonourable. That's why they treat prisoners of war so badly. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia was acquiring territory because the yanks and the Poms with the French couldn't get there first. If the atomic bomb hadn't been dropped it would have left many more dead, although they would have been military rather than civilian.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding was that the 3 days from Hiroshima to Nagasaki was to give them a chance to surrender but they didn't.

 

Personally, I reckon they should have demonstrated the power of the bomb before using it as they did, and this was the war crime.

 

In hindsight, they probably would not have surrendered on the basis of a demonstration, but it would have influenced me to know that they ( the US ) had tried to do it humanely.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the Japanese on Okinawa. Not only suicides amongst the military, but vast numbers of civilians died, many as the result of their believing the propaganda that the Yanks would rape and slaughter.

 

The difficult decision that Truman had to make was the approve the deaths of potential enemy combatants and reduce deaths and casualties amongst his own, or to suffer the deaths of many more from both sides, including Japanese civilians and Allied POWs, if the Japanese Homelands were invaded. 

 

As General Patton said to his troops in Europe in 1944, "You don't win a war by dying for your country. You win a war by making the other bastard die for his."

 

And of course the Yanks have been the only ones to have used the atomic bomb. The two bombs on Japan did their task in ending the fighting. As soon as everyone saw the devastation atomic bombs could cause and compared that to the devastation of HE bombs, they realised that these bombs could not be used safely for the country which did use them. From the start of the Cold War until the present,  atomic weapons have become the new sabre that militarist countries rattle at each other. But just look at the deaths caused by "conventional" weapons in that period.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt it was, but the people doing that are the fighting troops and it's OK to kill those who are trying to kill you.. . Dropping bombs on Dresden was also a war crime. It was just civilians not even steel works like the Rhur. Even though Hitler bombed London and did some pretty rotten things, killing  non combatants/civilians is against the Geneva conventions. OK war is war and some don't care or obey any rules but the definition is there.. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 America is the ONLY country which has used atom Bomb(s) in anger and they must live with that fact. I don't swallow the line that it was necessary. The rate Russia was acquiring territory was also a big influence on ending the war sooner rather than later...

 

The main reason Japan surrendered is because the Soviets attacked them. Japan's army had learned the hard way that it could not stand up to the Red Army.  They knew what the Bosheviks had done to Russia's own Royal family and feared their revered Emperor would be next.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will never know for sure Old K, and there is no doubt that the Russians shook them. I reckon they realised that the Germans had been right and they should have attacked Russia instead of the US. But I think those atom bombs were the main reason for surrendering.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will never know for sure Old K...

 

I agree. 

 

...there is no doubt that the Russians shook them. I reckon they realised that the Germans had been right and they should have attacked Russia instead of the US...

 

Invading Siberia would have provided most of the resources they needed, but Zhukov beat them. The Japanese army fought to the last man, but lost.  

 

When they turned their attention south, this allowed Stalin to move his forces west, just in time to stop the Nazis.

 

This master spy probably saved the world from fascism:

 

http://richardsorge.com

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge

 

...But I think those atom bombs were the main reason for surrendering.

 

That's what the US wants us to believe, but the Japanese leadership was prepared to lose whole cities.

 

(People don't realise that firebombing probably did more damage and killed more civilians than the two A-Bombs.)

 

I suspect the entry of the soviets into the war was a greater threat.

 

Either way, I accept that the rapid capitulation of Japan saved lots of lives on both sides.

 

The Americans expected to lose hundreds of thousands of troops in the invasion of the Home Islands. At war's end, Japan still had over ten thousand aircraft and plenty of kamikase pilots.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America had to justify it's use of those bombs and has done that. Think about it. They can't actually admit they wanted to show off their might as well to the Russians  and others, they had an effective and frightening weapon ,exclusively.   There's been plenty written on this and the Japanese populace were very desirous of protecting the Emperor who was a God King.. and the yanks had to assure them that would happen, or no surrender.. They still haven't gotten back Russian conquered territory.  Being killed by a big bomb or sacrificing ones life by suicide,(which they were all prepared to do) would not make a lot of difference to them.  Death  before dishonour,. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the bomb was dropped I was really happy, I had endured years of living under the flight path of German bombers, I had lost friends who had gone to the war and I had a few near misses. I don't know what would have happened if England had not declared war on Germany, but I don't think Europe would be as good a place as it is now. Wars may not be good or sensible but sometimes there is no alternative. If England had armed itself before the war started, maybe it would never have allowed Hitler to walk into Poland and the war would have been averted. Who knows?

 

The A bomb was needed and I don't think it was a case of the USA big noting itself. Just a case of lets get this over with.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can recall reading an article that when the Americans occupied Japan, thinking it was truly beaten and absolutely bereft of any fighting equipment, they discovered (to their utter amazement) that the Japs had 2,500 warplanes in hiding, each one primed to attack any American invasion force with maximum Kamikaze destruction.

 

It was only the lack of Japanese pilots, plus the dropping of the atom bombs, that prevented this force from being launched.

 

Remember, the Japanese did not surrender totally and unconditionally, it was a negotiated settlement over several days, whereby the Americans agreed the Japs could keep the Japanese Emperor in place, as their head - even though the Emperor was complicit in War Crimes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting article written to coincide with the 80th. anniversary of the signing of the German/USSR nonaggression pact. It's written by Sergey Naryshkin, head of the Russian Historical Society and the SVR, Russia's foreign intelligence agency. It's also in connection with an historical exhibition of archives in Moscow to mark the anniversary.

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/official-word/467554-nonagression-pact-ussr-germany/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting article written to coincide with the 80th. anniversary of the signing of the German/USSR nonaggression pact. It's written by Sergey Naryshkin, head of the Russian Historical Society and the SVR, Russia's foreign intelligence agency. It's also in connection with an historical exhibition of archives in Moscow to mark the anniversary.

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/official-word/467554-nonagression-pact-ussr-germany/

 

 

 

 

 

How true is this statement at the end of the article: We can only learn important, relevant lessons from history if we embed ourselves in the context of that period, study original sources, and take into account a range of expert opinions shared by professional historians.

 

When you read an article like this one, you begin to realise that what we have been told as descendants of those politicians of the first third of the 20th Century is not the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. We must be thankful for the gift of access to the Internet so that ALL the facts of History are available to us.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...