Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire WWII Buffs

you had two madmen, hitler, and stalin, duking it out over who would be top dog, with both having repressive forms of top down government.
unfortunately, my people lived in the crossroads in croatia and slovakia, where they were duking it out. the russians were stopped in the polish war of 1922, and probably would have tried later. And i do think a lot of germans fighting on the eastern front, if not most of them, felt it was a fight against communism. But hitler's insane policies defeated them. There were so many times if he would have stayed out of it, the world would be a different place today. There were a lot of bad decisions based upon his insane decisions.

This idea that Churchill was some sort of genius who recongnized the danger of Hitler by himself is largely an invention of Mr. Churchill himself. What he was, even if he was rather eccentric personally, was a traditional British statesman in a rather conventional mold. As such, he followed the traditional English foreign policy all the way back to the late Middle Ages.

England/Britain always opposed the strongest continental power and usually painted the rulers of these powers as threats to all things decent. They did it with the Kaiser. They did it with Napoleon. They did it with Louis XIV and various other French kings. They did it with the Dutch. And they did it with Spain. England always tries to pull down the top dog on the continent if that power looks to be gaining too much influence. It is how they keep the balance of power.

And what’s more, as US influence wanes and the Cold War era recedes, you see them returning to it. Brexit is an example. A big part of the opposition to it is that the real English see it as a Franco/German racket to control Europe and that, of course, to the traditional English mind threatens England.

Whatever the reasons or what if's or could'a been's, I'm very glad that the US Army and Air Corps did not have to face 100% of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. Due to our logistic advantage the eventual outcome would have been the same (maybe*) but the casualty lists would have been orders of magnitude higher.



* given the hugely increased number of casualties it's possible that the US may have settled on a negotiated peace with Germany instead of insisting on unconditional surrender but that's under the "could'a been" subheading of the Pure Speculation column. The greatly increased number of dead American boys would have been a certainty.

During WW2 Germany was trying to build an empire within Europe while at the same time stop the Bolshevik influence which was flowing out of Russia into Europe.

FDR aligned with the Bolsheviks and the Bolsheviks won.

Now they're here.

And it worked. It was called the "Pax Britannica", but it took a certain level of competence that for example, was lacking in August of 1914. All the rulers you mention started crap forcing the Brit's hands....but more importantly their national interests. ALL OF THEM had plans to invade the British Isles. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

I agree Churchill wasn't the only one who recognized the danger of Hitler but he was the only one with balls to talk about it. Churchill didn't "ruin' the empire, wars outside his control did it. To suggest Hitler was going to stop at the Channel (even though he publicly sold this) is at best incredibly naive. Totalitarians HAVE to continuously expand in order to survive, PERIOD.

Churchill was an unabashed monarchist as well, and really despised the great unwashed.

Yep!

That's why we have the Bolsheviks in America.

By the end of the war, Patton realized that America had been fighting the wrong enemy and realized what the victory of the Bolsheviks would mean to the world.

75 years later it's becoming apparent that Patton was correct in that regard.

Of course, they had plans to invade England. England declared war on them and sent armies to the continent to fight them. See how that works.

Churchill was so jealous of any European country other than Britain having an imperial influence that he fought to allow the Bolsheviks to kill Europe other than to allow any other Western European power to flourish.

Now just look at the Western European nations.

The most ironic part of it all is,..Russia has pretty much expelled its Bolshevik influence. Western Europe and America has been left to deal with it.

Smart assed retort notwithstanding (not to mention glossing over the other moments in history), the German General Staff had those plans in the works WAY before war was declared(very nicely color coded too). War was declared because Hitler reneged on the deal to stop with the whole Sudetenland deal and knew the line was drawn in Poland, yet he did it anyway. Last I checked the Germans came across into France, See how that works...

Only after the nazis were destroyed, so you are half right..

HORSESHIT...

You may want to read up on Patton's opinion of the Germans people. He considered them to be far superior to the Russians.

Read The Unnecessary War by Patrick Buchanan. The British had long been jealous of the Germans,..dating back to the 19th century. In fact, it was a family feud. The royal families of both Britain and Germany were cousins.

The British royal family of today has German ancestry.

Look, a discussion can be enjoined to discuss the different approaches on how best to deal with the Nazis and the commies. Suffice it to say BOTH philosophies needed to be exterminated, but to suggest Churchill and the Brits WANTED to save the Soviets is absurd. As far as the Germans were concerned, my OPINION had the Brits and French not declared war on Germany after Poland, they would have probably turned EAST (as they planned to do anyway) and expand. So let's say they would have crushed and eliminated the Soviets, do you think they would not have eventually turned west? GMAFB, both the Nazis and Soviets needed to expand or die. A war would have been inevitable. But just think,had the west done what Churchill wanted to do back in 1919, that is invade Russia, crush the commies and reinstate the Romanovs, who is to say? lots of variables but coexistence with either the Soviets OR the Nazis is just not in the cards.

let's just say I hold Buchanan's opinion on WWII in low esteem... Of course they were family. Saxe-Coburg Gotha. WWI was a total WASTE, perpetrated by the great unwashed and a war mongering Kaiser and a General Staff eager to play soldier. When Victoria reigned (the Pax Britannica), there were no issues or at least not enough to go to war on a global scale

The "right" in America is now considered to be Nazis by the left. Trump is "literally Hitler",..and all that. Haven't you heard?

It should be becoming obvious how the narrative was developed during WW2.

Not to mention that the UK and France had a treaty with Poland and Germany knew it. You don't renege on defense treaties.

In 1939, Germany was more of an immediate threat than the Soviets. The old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" came into play here. Deal with the immediate threat and deal with the other one later. That's also why the Allies took a "Germany first" strategy and left Japan for after Germany was defeated.