I love early American history (War of Independence, Founding Fathers...ect). So I'll certainly watch the first episode or two to see what he says. Thanks sandi.

ED209 wrote:

susu.exp wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:So he thinks the soviets should be given the vast majority of credit for defeating Nazi Germany in the 1940's. And that all the focus on western battles is entirely disproportionate.

An interesting take on things, but is it accurate?

It´s accurate. The thing you can start a controversy about is whether the contribution of the western allies was that small because they were unable or unwilling to do more. Stalin was promised the opening of a western front again and again and then told that for some reason that´d be delayed. When D-Day came around the Soviet Union already controlled the area they had held prior to the German attack, with the resources to press onwards and could have probably taken all of Europe. That there finally was an invasion to some degree was about denying western europe to the SU. There was strong anti-soviet sentiment in the US and the UK and there are quite a few sources pointing to them mainly trying to forstall a german ground invasion of the UK and otherwise dragging on the war as long as possible, to leave the SU weakened post war....

Another interesting consideration is if stopping hitler (and not keeping stalin in check) was the overriding and primary concern of the western allies then how many were killed in concentration camps in 1943, 1944 that would not have otherwise died had they taken action earlier on.

Of course I must declare an interest here, because I do not hold exceptionally incoherent pro-establishment wealth-worshipping anarcho-capitalist beliefs then I clearly love the great stalin and all his works

WW2 is still a hot issue, 68 years later... It is easy for some to point at the Western allies and accuse them for being tardy, but that is to ignore a couple of historical facts. The US Army was a peacetime army in 1941 when Japan attacked in the Pacific and Germany declared war shortly afterwards. The US armed forces was only some 150,000 men (IIRC); by the end of the war, 16 million had served. Building an army - training soldiers and not least officers ("90 day wonders"), and collecting materiel ranging literally from needles to battleships - takes some time. To achieve it in such short time is impressive. As for the British, a lot of heavy equipment (and plenty of personal equipment) had been lost when the BEF had to evacuate in 1940. Fighting the Battle of Britain and trying to keep the upper hand at sea took quite a bit of effort. In short, the Western allies were in no shape to mount an offensive on the European mainland in 1942. In 1943, the US (together with Brits and ANZAC troops) stemmed the Japanese advance in the Pacific. The Brits (plus Imperial troops and later the Americans) stopped the Germans in North Africa the same year.

When the tide had turned (basically, the Germans had lost the ability to mount strategic offensives), it was time to invade Europe. Unlike the Soviets, the Western Allies couldn't attack on a broad front; an invasion would have to be mounted from England, establishing a small bridgehead and expanding from it. A combined attack over a major body of water is vastly more complicated than deploying the same number of troops from positions on land. An invasion during the winter of 1943-44 would've run the risk of foul weather (it was bad enough as it was). Besides, the Western allies were democracies, and throwing soldiers at the enemy like Stalin did would've been unacceptable. Indeed, the Soviet losses could probably have been reduced if life hadn't been regarded as cheap in the USSR. Then there was the lend-lease aid, where the USSR received many thousands of tanks, trucks, trains, jeeps, planes and other supplies. Anyone claiming that the Western allies could've invaded Europe sooner are welcome to present a plausible plan based on historical facts and the intel they had back then.

Varangian wrote:
It is easy for some to point at the Western allies and accuse them for being tardy

If you mean by tardy, "gutless", it is indeed easy because there is lashings of truth in it.

Britain & France should have waded into Germany soon after 6th March 1936 under the rightful action of defending the Versailles treaty and kept on going way past the Rhineland. They had the resources and the Germans were not ready for hostilities.

Varangian wrote: .. but that is to ignore a couple of historical facts. The US Army was a peacetime army in 1941 when Japan attacked in the Pacific and Germany declared war shortly afterwards. The US armed forces was only some 150,000 men (IIRC); by the end of the war, 16 million had served. Building an army - training soldiers and not least officers ("90 day wonders"), and collecting materiel ranging literally from needles to battleships - takes some time. To achieve it in such short time is impressive.

I am in general agreement with this as far as it concerns America. There is a cracking trilogy of WWII by Rick Atkinson, one volume of which, is devoted to the birth of the American army - An Army at Dawn - which concerns the military build up and the blooding of their forces in North Africa. (The final volume has yet to appear by the way - that concerns the European Western front).

Varangian wrote:
As for the British, a lot of heavy equipment (and plenty of personal equipment) had been lost when the BEF had to evacuate in 1940. Fighting the Battle of Britain and trying to keep the upper hand at sea took quite a bit of effort. In short, the Western allies were in no shape to mount an offensive on the European mainland in 1942.

If only they had stood up to Hitler ...

I thought this might need to be moved to History... now I am seeing it going somewhere else.

Galactor wrote:

Varangian wrote:
It is easy for some to point at the Western allies and accuse them for being tardy

If you mean by tardy, "gutless", it is indeed easy because there is lashings of truth in it.

Britain & France should have waded into Germany soon after 6th March 1936 under the rightful action of defending the Versailles treaty and kept on going way past the Rhineland. They had the resources and the Germans were not ready for hostilities.

Cite? It's been a while before I read up on this, but I recall otherwise, at least for Britain.

Gutless = not go to war

Apparently.

Loren Michael wrote:Is that Oliver Stone emblazoned there?

Like Oliver conspiracy theory Stone?

No, that would be Oliver "film maker" Stone. Conspiracy theory? That doesn't even mean anything.

CdesignProponentsist
A video on "The Untold History of the US" posted by sandinista.

I have the strange feeling that it will describe the greatest evil that has ever befell the planet.

...since post ww2...if the shoe fits.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:No. But inaccuracies are no barrier for Oliver Stones "documentaries"

Such as? Examples? What other docs are you referring to?

Cito di Pense wrote:At this point, I'm fascinated by the difference between 'told history' and 'untold history'.

I take that as simply a propagandized version of history vs actual history.

susu.exp wrote:I love early American history (War of Independence, Founding Fathers...ect). So I'll certainly watch the first episode or two to see what he says. Thanks sandi.

It actually doesn't go back that far, starts at ww2 and ends with the present day. i still think you may enjoy it, if you enjoy historical docs that is.

Spearthrower wrote:
I thought this might need to be moved to History... now I am seeing it going somewhere else.

...and where would that be?

...and where would that be?

To Woo if Galactor continues. Note the comment about 'gutless'.

Spearthrower wrote:

...and where would that be?

To Woo if Galactor continues. Note the comment about 'gutless'.

oh...so you have some personal vendetta? Nothing to do with the OP.

sandinista wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

...and where would that be?

To Woo if Galactor continues. Note the comment about 'gutless'.

oh...so you have some personal vendetta? Nothing to do with the OP.

No, and I fail to see how you could possibly have read that from my words.

Try looking at them again. See how i referred to the notion of 'gutless = don't go to war' - this is not a historically competent position, yet it is asserted as fact.

Presumably, you'd be interested in maintaining a thread that focused on facts rather than fiction being asserted as fact?

Spearthrower wrote:Presumably, you'd be interested in maintaining a thread that focused on facts rather than fiction being asserted as fact?

No, really what I am interested in is posters just saying what they mean instead of writing in a code only they can understand and then wondering how their posts could have possibly been misunderstood.

sandinista wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Presumably, you'd be interested in maintaining a thread that focused on facts rather than fiction being asserted as fact?

No, really what I am interested in is posters just saying what they mean instead of writing in a code only they can understand and then wondering how their posts could have possibly been misunderstood.

It was clear to everyone else: an Oxford English dictionary will provide you with the 'code'.

Spearthrower wrote:
It was clear to everyone else: an Oxford English dictionary will provide you with the 'code'.

Spearthrower wrote:To Woo if Galactor continues. Note the comment about 'gutless'.

woo

oxford dictionary definition:Definition of woo
verb (woos, wooing, wooed)
[with object]

try to gain the love of (a woman), especially with a view to marriage: he wooed her with quotes from Shakespeare
seek the favour, support, or custom of: pop stars are being wooed by film companies eager to sign them up

yes, that really clears that up

sandinista wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
It was clear to everyone else: an Oxford English dictionary will provide you with the 'code'.

Spearthrower wrote:To Woo if Galactor continues. Note the comment about 'gutless'.

woo

oxford dictionary definition:Definition of woo
verb (woos, wooing, wooed)
[with object]

try to gain the love of (a woman), especially with a view to marriage: he wooed her with quotes from Shakespeare
seek the favour, support, or custom of: pop stars are being wooed by film companies eager to sign them up

yes, that really clears that up

Yeah, English is complex isn't it. I was using a noun, whereas you opted for a verb.

Basically though, when you said "so you have some personal vendetta?" you meant to use the pronoun 'I'.

Galactor wrote:

Varangian wrote:
It is easy for some to point at the Western allies and accuse them for being tardy

If you mean by tardy, "gutless", it is indeed easy because there is lashings of truth in it.

Britain & France should have waded into Germany soon after 6th March 1936 under the rightful action of defending the Versailles treaty and kept on going way past the Rhineland. They had the resources and the Germans were not ready for hostilities.

I was commenting on the situation in 1941, but sure, with 20/20 hindsight, it is easy to see what should've been done. One has to remember that many nations were unwilling to go to war in 1936 after having lost so many soliders less than 20 years before.

Galactor wrote:

Varangian wrote:
As for the British, a lot of heavy equipment (and plenty of personal equipment) had been lost when the BEF had to evacuate in 1940. Fighting the Battle of Britain and trying to keep the upper hand at sea took quite a bit of effort. In short, the Western allies were in no shape to mount an offensive on the European mainland in 1942.

If only they had stood up to Hitler ...

While I haven't read as much on the power games 1933-39 as I would like, Hitler's tactic of gobbling up a small piece every now and then (and, it has to be remembered, with other nations happy to play along, like Hungary and Poland) was successful - making "reasonable" demands on weak states which while other nations didn't think it was worth getting into armed hostilities over central European regions that were hard to assist militarily.

Spearthrower wrote:

sandinista wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
It was clear to everyone else: an Oxford English dictionary will provide you with the 'code'.

Spearthrower wrote:To Woo if Galactor continues. Note the comment about 'gutless'.

woo

oxford dictionary definition:Definition of woo
verb (woos, wooing, wooed)
[with object]

try to gain the love of (a woman), especially with a view to marriage: he wooed her with quotes from Shakespeare
seek the favour, support, or custom of: pop stars are being wooed by film companies eager to sign them up

yes, that really clears that up

Yeah, English is complex isn't it. I was using a noun, whereas you opted for a verb.

Basically though, when you said "so you have some personal vendetta?" you meant to use the pronoun 'I'.

actually...no. I have no vendettas on forums, that would be ridiculous.

sandinista wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

sandinista wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
It was clear to everyone else: an Oxford English dictionary will provide you with the 'code'.

Spearthrower wrote:To Woo if Galactor continues. Note the comment about 'gutless'.

woo

oxford dictionary definition:Definition of woo
verb (woos, wooing, wooed)
[with object]

try to gain the love of (a woman), especially with a view to marriage: he wooed her with quotes from Shakespeare
seek the favour, support, or custom of: pop stars are being wooed by film companies eager to sign them up

yes, that really clears that up

Yeah, English is complex isn't it. I was using a noun, whereas you opted for a verb.

Basically though, when you said "so you have some personal vendetta?" you meant to use the pronoun 'I'.

actually...no. I have no vendettas on forums, that would be ridiculous.

Ridiculous, but the first thing that crossed your mind?

I find many posts to be ridiculous.

Spearthrower wrote:

sandinista wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

...and where would that be?

To Woo if Galactor continues. Note the comment about 'gutless'.

oh...so you have some personal vendetta? Nothing to do with the OP.

No, and I fail to see how you could possibly have read that from my words.

Try looking at them again. See how i referred to the notion of 'gutless = don't go to war' - this is not a historically competent position, yet it is asserted as fact.

Presumably, you'd be interested in maintaining a thread that focused on facts rather than fiction being asserted as fact?

Interesting that you equate gutless with not going to war and then harp on about assertions, fact and fiction.

There wouldn't have been a war if the Allies had reacted to the occupation of the Rhineland. Hitler had specifically ordered his troops to retreat if the allies enforced the treaty of Versailles. And they would have been powerful enough to nip the whole thing in the bud before Hitler turned his eyes east.

So yes, the French and British acted spinelessly.

Quick fire riposte there.