By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - World War 2:Who was the right one?

 

Who was right in the long term?

Soviet Union 31 15.98%
 
Nazi Germany 53 27.32%
 
USA\UK 110 56.70%
 
Total:194
MDMAniac on 12 November 2011
mai said:

An epitome of mythological consciousness. Really, why do one need a knowledge, when there's a believe? I weep for humanity.


No, it's just that you're smart too much for this discussion ;)

If you think about it, this topic gives you very nice example how people actually think en masse, and the funniest thing is that it's not much different from how they thought back then at times of WW2 itself. I'm talking about what you called "mythological consciousness".



Around the Network
MDMAniac on 12 November 2011
Phobos said:

Im german so Im allowed to say Stalin was the best in the world and never killed anybody, but if I say Hitler didnt...no I dont continue, I dont want to go to prison, because there is no free speach on one very specific topic in my country.

And dont understand me wrong - this is not about believing or not believing...

And Hitler was just a Wallstreet-bitch...but nobody is asking where Hitler get the money from 1923 - 1933, and no, only few came from people like Thyssen and all the ohter tycoons.

Every war is about making cash and to get loos of all the young angry men and to distract the people from domestically problems.

And the people are playing this game...zzz

Not more, not less.


1) Don't worry, this is not for too long, there is work in progress to change this and put as much blame on Russia as possible, it has been taking several years already. Be patient, and soon they'll even pay contributions to you xD

2) This is a way of really smart people, as it ever was. 

3) And this  is a way of stupid commoners shall follow, as it ever was, too. Why should it get changed?



snakenobi on 12 November 2011
Marks said:


Yeah the allies (from WWI) weren't really thinking it through when they put all that debt on Germany after WWI. If they hadn't made such ridiculous demands for reparations and everything else that was in the treaty there may not have been a WWII. So that was definitely a fuck-up by USA/UK/France (and whoever else).

And as for your bit on "economic warfare" I really don't see how you can call that evil or consider that bad. Economic sanctions are used all the time, even in modern times. Japan was invading everything it possibly could in the South Pacific and into China...so USA decided to cut off their oil supply which was a big deal since USA provided nearly all of Japan's oil. It seems to me like just a good effort to stop the Japanese advance...unfortunately Japan decided to retaliate on Pearl Harbor.

so you're saying USA-BRITISH empire has the right to doctate who will invade who when they themselves have invaded so many lands themselves

 

yes invading china was wrong but ANGLO-AMERICAN EMPIRE idd the same thing themselves and once they had secured lands andecnomics,they then would regulate others.

I will look up the 1933 transfer agreement you mentioned, I haven't heard of that. 

it will be a shocker if you don't know that much about banking fraud,get back to me when you do.I wanna know the expression

And yeah I know many civilians died in the bombing runs in Germany and Japan by the allies, but they were a necessary evil. I even stand by America's decision to use the atomic bombs.The Japanese didn't know the meaning of the word surrender back then, they were honorable people that would die fighting rather than surrender...drastic measures, i.e. the atomic bomb, were necessary to end the war. Who knows how much longer it would have gone on for, and how many allied lives would have been lost if they didn't.

so u are worried about allied lives but not axis or other lives?

that sick

And as for the bombings in Germany I'm pretty sure the targets were factories/industrial areas...the target wasn't civilians. Civilian casualties were just collateral damage. 

still its a crime

u can't give such a bad excuse and get away

that way,germany and japan and countless other countries throughout history will give an excuse that they were oppressed and so they revolted,a rhetoric example

I'm not saying USA and UK were perfect, but they did what was necessary to win a war.

so it was about 'winning'?

and that they are right when they provoked the war in the first place?

Killing 6 million Jews and 5 million or so non-Jews in the holocaust had nothing to do with the war, where as the Atomic Bombs (which unfortunately killed hundreds of thousands of civilians) was to force Japan to surrender. 

funny how you use 'unfortunatley' to tone down one of the biggest crimes of all time





NotStan on 12 November 2011

None of them, all are at fault and none deserve to be praised more than the other.

Germans got screwed over at Versailles and pretty much bred hate and contempt in that country which allowed the likes of Hitler to take power.

Germans themselves supported Lenin's return to Russia after he was exiled in an attempt to start a revolution that would end their involvement on the Eastern front in 1918. (During the first world war) so they've effectively created their own enemy .

West had used atrocious means to end the conflict and took their time getting involved in the conflict in the first place - how many millions would have been saved had the threat of Nazi Germany been recognized earlier. Claiming that the "Allies" are innocent is just ludicrous and shows how brainwashed you are. Don't even start on the nuclear bombs, which are totally unjustified.

Japanese have played their part in Asia, killing millions there too through raping and pillaging and conquering.

No one was right, and your simplification of the biggest conflict in the last century is insulting to the victims during the conflict and the ones that followed afterwards as a result of it.

Just dropping my two cents here.



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.

Ssenkahdavic on 12 November 2011

Arguing is completely pointless in this regards.  There is no winner/loser, no chance for compromise, no ideals changed.

It is like pushing on a wall.  No matter how hard you try, it just wont move. 

 

Who was right and who was wrong?  It does not matter anymore.  What matters is we learn from the mistakes of the past and try not to duplicate them in the future.



 

  

The Only True Next Gen Game - Hero-U

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Robert A. Heinlein

Around the Network
MDMAniac on 12 November 2011

snakenobi said:

And as for the bombings in Germany I'm pretty sure the targets were factories/industrial areas...the target wasn't civilians. Civilian casualties were just collateral damage. 


The amount of ignorance in this thread is astonishing. Targetting civilians for moral effect was quite normal back then, the firebombing was _designed_ for that specific purpose. And to be honest, it's quite normal nowadays, too. There is little to none difference in that aspect between RAF doctrine back then and "Shock and Awe" as of today, what they both proposed is essentially Douhet's old idea of destroying enemy's morale and will to fight by drastic means of strategic bombings. It requires us to use the term "collaterial damages" today though and is heavily argued about to be not efficient enough, but in past RAF hoped even to provoke uprisings with it.

Even wiki (being quite a bleak source overall for such sort of knowledge due to its overexposure) still might explain this to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing not to bother with books like http://books.google.com/books?id=TWEEW8SBvEAC or http://books.google.com/books?id=xHZnTAPQFc8C



dr3b on 12 November 2011

I think Joelcool7 sums things up about right, he says just about everything I wanted to say after reading the OP.

One a side note the sanctions and terms imposed on Germany after WWI were a large factor in the rise of Nazi Germany during the 20's and 30's.



Phobos on 12 November 2011

It seems to be, that most of you have there "knowledge" on WWII issues from schoolbooks and newspaper
- and totally are forgetting that always the winner writs the history.

Its not about having right, but it's about having the military power, money and the mass media to take the right.

@ MDMAniac

The Russians are not to blame, but the Wallstreet.

Who is to blame:
Morgan, Rockefeller, Rothschild, Warburg...

The big banks are the biggest shareholders of the big companys of the world.
And the biggest sharholders of the banks are insurence companys - and the biggest shareholders of them are - again - the banks. So you cant get so easy the few people and families which are ruling the world since 150 years.

The players are the real owners of the big banks and insurence companys,
the world is the chessboard
and the nations are the chessmen.



 

 

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value..."

 

Alan Greenspan, 1967

Phobos on 12 November 2011
dr3b said:

One a side note the sanctions and terms imposed on Germany after WWI were a large factor in the rise of Nazi Germany during the 20's and 30's.

Its not just a side note - its one very, very important fact to understand many german actions after 1923.

But this fact - the illegal naval blockade AFTER the ending of WWI - is very often (nearly alway, nothing about it in german schoolbooks) brushed under the carpet - becaus the winner writs the history and is allowed to say, whats important and whars not so important.



 

 

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value..."

 

Alan Greenspan, 1967

snakenobi on 12 November 2011
MDMAniac said:

snakenobi said:

And as for the bombings in Germany I'm pretty sure the targets were factories/industrial areas...the target wasn't civilians. Civilian casualties were just collateral damage. 


The amount of ignorance in this thread is astonishing. Targetting civilians for moral effect was quite normal back then, the firebombing was _designed_ for that specific purpose. And to be honest, it's quite normal nowadays, too. There is little to none difference in that aspect between RAF doctrine back then and "Shock and Awe" as of today, what they both proposed is essentially Douhet's old idea of destroying enemy's morale and will to fight by drastic means of strategic bombings. It requires us to use the term "collaterial damages" today though and is heavily argued about to be not efficient enough, but in past RAF hoped even to provoke uprisings with it.

Even wiki (being quite a bleak source overall for such sort of knowledge due to its overexposure) still might explain this to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing not to bother with books like http://books.google.com/books?id=TWEEW8SBvEAC or http://books.google.com/books?id=xHZnTAPQFc8C

hey that was MARK's comment

 

i just highlighted in by bolded and underlind it in my reply

 

quote MARK not me