|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: Status quo ante |
 |
|
| rockbilly wrote: |
USA cut off Japan's oil supply in '41--an unmistakable act of war. On any objective standard of analysis, the Allies were the aggressors in that war.
|
The US owned the oil that it cut off to Japan, it could have done whatever it wanted with the oil. The oil to Japan was cut off because of aggression and atrocities in China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
Soviet Russia would have crushed Hitler regardless of what Britain did and even if the U.S. had stayed out of the war. The scale of the war on the Eastern Front was far greater than in western Europe.
. |
Only including the huge amount of materials supplied by the USA. World War II would have been lost without the huge material reserves provided by the USA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hitler being a bad man has nothing to do with whether or not the war guarantee to Poland, and Poland acting as though the British were committed to it, were sound policies.
Poland got an absolutely atrocious result- invasion and conquest by Germany and the USSR with not a finger lifted by England and France. Close to 6 million dead, 16% of its population- the highest proportion of any major combatant in the war, 3 million of its Jewish population (90%) dead, and 45 years of Soviet rule. For what? Standing against Hitler? Italy sided with Hitler, changed sides mid-war, shot Mussolini, and are celebrated for it. Italy's Jewish population? 20% dead.
What did Britain and France get out of it? Dragged into a war that would lead to the eventual collapse of both their empires and reduction to 2nd rate status. France invaded and occupied. The Germans had a free hand to invade France and the Low countries thanks to Molotov-Von Ribbentrop. And for 45 years after the war they faced the threat of invasion and nuclear annihilation by the Soviet bloc.
Of course Hitler bears primary responsibility for the war. However, the Polish government, as well as those of Britain and France bear a large share as well.
| Quote: |
| On the Poland issue, if Germany was only interested in 'German lands' why then take Bohemia and Moravia? Why occupy Polish lands full of Polish people? |
You're confusing initial events with results from world events. The collapse of the Czech government led to the occupation of Czechoslovakia. The deceleration of total war with Poland and a full Polish response, combined with the Soviet invasion of Poland would lead to a full on conquest.
| Quote: |
| Poland did not invade Germany. There were other options to the Danzig problem. That was an excuse. To say that Poland started the war, is ridiculous they simply did not realize the character of Hitler or his ruthlessness. They were counting on rational behavior. |
The idea that a smaller power plays a disastrous game of chicken counting on a larger power to back its claim is a ridiculous idea? If you look at it, Poland's behavior was highly irrational. Surrounded by great powers, it decided to draw a hardline against one before ensuring that the other was ready to counter. As many a state caught between great powers learns to its chagrin, the rational result for the two great powers is to divide the state between themselves.
For some reason, people act like Germany and Japan's ideas of acquiring lands for colonial empires was somehow against the morality of the time. Remember, it was the British, French, and Americans who had achieved this. Germany knowingly lacked the means to match whatever ambition they had for a colonial empire spanning the globe. Japan merely saw itself as behaving as Britain had done.
And as far as the ruthless politician who felt that a Saxon people should rule over the lesser races of the world, Churchill fits that bill rather nicely.
| Quote: |
| Germany was the aggressor. Had it not invaded Poland, France and the UK would not have declared war against it. |
True, but remember the cause of the dispute was an area that was 95% ethnically German, had been ceded away by unfair treaty, and was being denied the right of self-determination.
| Quote: |
The USA would not have imposed those sanctions had Japan not launched a war against China and other parts of Asia. In fact the USA was quite slow in doing anything against Japan while it waged war.
|
But US-Japanese relations did not start there. They were relatively cordial until 1921, when at the behest of, you guessed it, Churchill, the British canceled their alliance with Japanese and sided with the Americans in enacting uneven ship treaties and favoring the Americans in maritime issues.
This was a TREMENDOUS betrayal to the Japanese. They had obligingly followed the international order and were a dutiful ally. The two Anglo powers engaging in betrayal and then acting together against the issues of the Asiatic power convinced the hardliners that the Japanese would always be regarded as a 2nd rate race and people by the Europeans and that the best answer to this was the Far-East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Japan looked at an America that had a Monroe Doctrine for its sphere, had expanded through repeated treaty violations and conquest, and now was reaching into the Far East that was in turn telling Japan not to behave as they had done.
=========================================
There is a tendency of Americans to strongly overplay their role in WWII. To be sure, America was the decisive power. But the two nations that bore the brunt of the fighting, took and inflicted huge numbers of casualties and tied down massive manpower and materiel resources are given 2nd rate coverage- The USSR and China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Hitler being a bad man has nothing to do with whether or not the war guarantee to Poland, and Poland acting as though the British were committed to it, were sound policies.
Poland got an absolutely atrocious result- invasion and conquest by Germany and the USSR with not a finger lifted by England and France. Close to 6 million dead, 16% of its population- the highest proportion of any major combatant in the war, 3 million of its Jewish population (90%) dead, and 45 years of Soviet rule. For what? Standing against Hitler? Italy sided with Hitler, changed sides mid-war, shot Mussolini, and are celebrated for it. Italy's Jewish population? 20% dead.
What did Britain and France get out of it? Dragged into a war that would lead to the eventual collapse of both their empires and reduction to 2nd rate status. France invaded and occupied. The Germans had a free hand to invade France and the Low countries thanks to Molotov-Von Ribbentrop. And for 45 years after the war they faced the threat of invasion and nuclear annihilation by the Soviet bloc.
Of course Hitler bears primary responsibility for the war. However, the Polish government, as well as those of Britain and France bear a large share as well.
| Quote: |
| On the Poland issue, if Germany was only interested in 'German lands' why then take Bohemia and Moravia? Why occupy Polish lands full of Polish people? |
You're confusing initial events with results from world events. The collapse of the Czech government led to the occupation of Czechoslovakia. The deceleration of total war with Poland and a full Polish response, combined with the Soviet invasion of Poland would lead to a full on conquest.
| Quote: |
| Poland did not invade Germany. There were other options to the Danzig problem. That was an excuse. To say that Poland started the war, is ridiculous they simply did not realize the character of Hitler or his ruthlessness. They were counting on rational behavior. |
The idea that a smaller power plays a disastrous game of chicken counting on a larger power to back its claim is a ridiculous idea? If you look at it, Poland's behavior was highly irrational. Surrounded by great powers, it decided to draw a hardline against one before ensuring that the other was ready to counter. As many a state caught between great powers learns to its chagrin, the rational result for the two great powers is to divide the state between themselves.
For some reason, people act like Germany and Japan's ideas of acquiring lands for colonial empires was somehow against the morality of the time. Remember, it was the British, French, and Americans who had achieved this. Germany knowingly lacked the means to match whatever ambition they had for a colonial empire spanning the globe. Japan merely saw itself as behaving as Britain had done.
And as far as the ruthless politician who felt that a Saxon people should rule over the lesser races of the world, Churchill fits that bill rather nicely.
| Quote: |
| Germany was the aggressor. Had it not invaded Poland, France and the UK would not have declared war against it. |
True, but remember the cause of the dispute was an area that was 95% ethnically German, had been ceded away by unfair treaty, and was being denied the right of self-determination.
| Quote: |
The USA would not have imposed those sanctions had Japan not launched a war against China and other parts of Asia. In fact the USA was quite slow in doing anything against Japan while it waged war.
|
But US-Japanese relations did not start there. They were relatively cordial until 1921, when at the behest of, you guessed it, Churchill, the British canceled their alliance with Japanese and sided with the Americans in enacting uneven ship treaties and favoring the Americans in maritime issues.
This was a TREMENDOUS betrayal to the Japanese. They had obligingly followed the international order and were a dutiful ally. The two Anglo powers engaging in betrayal and then acting together against the issues of the Asiatic power convinced the hardliners that the Japanese would always be regarded as a 2nd rate race and people by the Europeans and that the best answer to this was the Far-East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Japan looked at an America that had a Monroe Doctrine for its sphere, had expanded through repeated treaty violations and conquest, and now was reaching into the Far East that was in turn telling Japan not to behave as they had done.
=========================================
There is a tendency of Americans to strongly overplay their role in WWII. To be sure, America was the decisive power. But the two nations that bore the brunt of the fighting, took and inflicted huge numbers of casualties and tied down massive manpower and materiel resources are given 2nd rate coverage- The USSR and China. |
The German occupation of the Czech rump state had showed Poland, and the world, that there was only one option. Britain and France had been so eager for peace they threw the Czechs under a bus, what did they get? A broken promise and a cynical land grab of land that had never been German. The Soviets would also later learn the worth of a German promise.
Poland's actions were entirely rational, they had essentially two choices. Give up Danzig and fold like the Czechs or try to resist and hope that the French and British opened a second front. Obviously the latter never happened, but that does nothing to undermine the logic of their hopeless choice.
As for the Japanese you are right the British and US were no angels and were themselves colonial powers. Moreover, it is depressing to read the British assessments of the Japanese before the war. That arrogance would cost them dearly in 1942. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
As Churchhill said "Looking back it seems we always had victory grasped few know what a close thing it was.
If Brazil and cuba side with Germany and it was close. then the German navy gains an advantage in the Atlantic that would have given them a big strategic advantage over the British fleet.
Poland did not invade Germany. There were other options to the Danzig problem. That was an excuse. To say that Poland started the war, is ridiculous they simply did not realize the character of Hitler or his ruthlessness. They were counting on rational behavior. |
What possible strategic advantage could 1940s Brazil and Cuba pose to either the British homeland, navy or empire? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Poland got an absolutely atrocious result- invasion and conquest by Germany and the USSR with not a finger lifted by England and France. Close to 6 million dead, 16% of its population- the highest proportion of any major combatant in the war, 3 million of its Jewish population (90%) dead, and 45 years of Soviet rule. For what? Standing against Hitler? Italy sided with Hitler, changed sides mid-war, shot Mussolini, and are celebrated for it. Italy's Jewish population? 20% dead. |
Italy is a bad comparison. Czechoslovakia would be better since it was also in eastern Europe and was never an ally with Germany, but didn't put up a fight. Wonder what % of the Czech jewish population died. I'd say it was closer to Poland than Italy...
| Quote: |
| Of course Hitler bears primary responsibility for the war. However, the Polish government, as well as those of Britain and France bear a large share as well. |
The Polish government was between a rock and a hard place.
| Quote: |
| You're confusing initial events with results from world events. The collapse of the Czech government led to the occupation of Czechoslovakia. |
Because Hitler made it collapse. He was a genius in the beginning at getting what he wanted w/out using any force. That and the rest of the world was a pushover.
| Quote: |
| True, but remember the cause of the dispute was an area that was 95% ethnically German, had been ceded away by unfair treaty, and was being denied the right of self-determination. |
Oh please, that was just Hitler's lame justification. He had his eyes on all of Poland, Danzig was just an excuse to invade. If he just wanted German-majority areas, he wouldn't have taken over all of Czechoslovakia. And the events there are exactly why Poland decided to put up a fight.
| Quote: |
The USA would not have imposed those sanctions had Japan not launched a war against China and other parts of Asia. In fact the USA was quite slow in doing anything against Japan while it waged war.
|
| Quote: |
But US-Japanese relations did not start there. They were relatively cordial until 1921, when at the behest of, you guessed it, Churchill, the British canceled their alliance with Japanese and sided with the Americans in enacting uneven ship treaties and favoring the Americans in maritime issues.
This was a TREMENDOUS betrayal to the Japanese. They had obligingly followed the international order and were a dutiful ally. The two Anglo powers engaging in betrayal and then acting together against the issues of the Asiatic power convinced the hardliners that the Japanese would always be regarded as a 2nd rate race and people by the Europeans and that the best answer to this was the Far-East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Japan looked at an America that had a Monroe Doctrine for its sphere, had expanded through repeated treaty violations and conquest, and now was reaching into the Far East that was in turn telling Japan not to behave as they had done. |
Yes and no. It wasn't that straight forward. Japan did agree to the naval treaties. It is as not as if it was forced to do so under the barrell of the gun. It did view the UK and USA as being hypocritical for legit rasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
Soviet Russia would have crushed Hitler regardless of what Britain did and even if the U.S. had stayed out of the war. The scale of the war on the Eastern Front was far greater than in western Europe.
Japan, on the other hand, could have altered the outcome of the war by invading eastern Russia. They chose not to. |
That's because they lost a big battle in Mongolia to the USSR (actually referred to in Murakami's novel The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle) in 1939, then signed a non-aggression pact with them. |
Interesting point. After being repulsed once, the Japanese decided to go for easier targets in the south and east and leave the Soviets alone.
So, to restate, Soviet Russia would have crushed Hitler regardless of whether either Britain or the U.S.A. had stayed out of the war, and not even Japan could have altered the outcome.
That means Britain not only did the right thing by fighting Hitler, but also the prudent thing by choosing the (eventual) winning side. Churchill also delayed opening a western front, letting the Russians do all the work, so people who think like the OP ought to be satisfied. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| The German occupation of the Czech rump state had showed Poland, and the world, that there was only one option. Britain and France had been so eager for peace they threw the Czechs under a bus, what did they get? A broken promise and a cynical land grab of land that had never been German. The Soviets would also later learn the worth of a German promise. |
That's the conventional interpretation, and desire for peace after the bloodbath of WWI was very much present in the populations of European countries - including Germany itself. The main factor leading to the British government's decision to throw the Czechs under a bus, however, was their desire to support the dictatorship of Hitler as a bulwark against bolshevism. In other words, they pursued class interests rather than the national interest, and, as so often in the decision-making of that - and other - times, overestimated the strength of their own position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
Soviet Russia would have crushed Hitler regardless of what Britain did and even if the U.S. had stayed out of the war. The scale of the war on the Eastern Front was far greater than in western Europe.
. |
Only including the huge amount of materials supplied by the USA. World War II would have been lost without the huge material reserves provided by the USA. |
Debatable. I don't know enough about that to judge. The USA could still have stayed out of the war while supplying the Russians - or at any rate confined itself to naval conflict in the Atlantic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
Soviet Russia would have crushed Hitler regardless of what Britain did and even if the U.S. had stayed out of the war. The scale of the war on the Eastern Front was far greater than in western Europe.
Japan, on the other hand, could have altered the outcome of the war by invading eastern Russia. They chose not to. |
That's because they lost a big battle in Mongolia to the USSR (actually referred to in Murakami's novel The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle) in 1939, then signed a non-aggression pact with them. |
Interesting point. After being repulsed once, the Japanese decided to go for easier targets in the south and east and leave the Soviets alone.
So, to restate, Soviet Russia would have crushed Hitler regardless of whether either Britain or the U.S.A. had stayed out of the war, and not even Japan could have altered the outcome.
That means Britain not only did the right thing by fighting Hitler, but also the prudent thing by choosing the (eventual) winning side. Churchill also delayed opening a western front, letting the Russians do all the work, so people who think like the OP ought to be satisfied. |
If Britain had surrendered or been defeated then the Germans could very well have beaten the Soviets.
No Britain means no Balkan campaign, which means Barbarossa starts around two months earlier. So instead of German troops reaching Moscow in Nov. 1941 at the start of winter, they instead get there by late Summer/ early fall.
No Britain means no need to divert 1 million men to defending German skies, hundreds of thousands of 88s pointed horizontally at the Soviets and not up in the air. It means no diversion of resources to the atlantic wall, the panzer divisions in pas de calais , the Italian front and 230,000 prisoners after Tunis.
It means no need to divert resources to fueling a doomed naval war. More importantly it means no blockade, that potentially gives the Germans access to all the oil and materiel of war their merchant navy can carry.
No Britain means no air war over Germany which leaves Germany able to support its war machine unhindered with all the resources of Europe and beyond. The effect this would have on German strategic planning is immense. No danger of running out of oil, no pressure from anywhere other than the Russian front.
Finally, even if the Soviets were able to overcome all that, who would stop them getting to Paris? A Europe under Soviet yoke is almost as nightmarish as one under the Nazi heel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
Soviet Russia would have crushed Hitler regardless of what Britain did and even if the U.S. had stayed out of the war. The scale of the war on the Eastern Front was far greater than in western Europe.
Japan, on the other hand, could have altered the outcome of the war by invading eastern Russia. They chose not to. |
That's because they lost a big battle in Mongolia to the USSR (actually referred to in Murakami's novel The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle) in 1939, then signed a non-aggression pact with them. |
Interesting point. After being repulsed once, the Japanese decided to go for easier targets in the south and east and leave the Soviets alone.
So, to restate, Soviet Russia would have crushed Hitler regardless of whether either Britain or the U.S.A. had stayed out of the war, and not even Japan could have altered the outcome.
That means Britain not only did the right thing by fighting Hitler, but also the prudent thing by choosing the (eventual) winning side. Churchill also delayed opening a western front, letting the Russians do all the work, so people who think like the OP ought to be satisfied. |
If Britain had surrendered or been defeated then the Germans could very well have beaten the Soviets.
No Britain means no Balkan campaign, which means Barbarossa starts around two months earlier. So instead of German troops reaching Moscow in Nov. 1941 at the start of winter, they instead get there by late Summer/ early fall.
No Britain means no need to divert 1 million men to defending German skies, hundreds of thousands of 88s pointed horizontally at the Soviets and not up in the air. It means no diversion of resources to the atlantic wall, the panzer divisions in pas de calais , the Italian front and 230,000 prisoners after Tunis.
It means no need to divert resources to fueling a doomed naval war. More importantly it means no blockade, that potentially gives the Germans access to all the oil and materiel of war their merchant navy can carry.
No Britain means no air war over Germany which leaves Germany able to support its war machine unhindered with all the resources of Europe and beyond. The effect this would have on German strategic planning is immense. No danger of running out of oil, no pressure from anywhere other than the Russian front.
Finally, even if the Soviets were able to overcome all that, who would stop them getting to Paris? A Europe under Soviet yoke is almost as nightmarish as one under the Nazi heel. |
As a Brit, I'm happy to concede you are right and that we did make a difference. All the more reason, therefore, that we should not have stayed out of it - and hang all traitors and nazis who say otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
