Posts | ||
---|---|---|
A different view on WWII | Locked | |
Thread Options | 1 2 | |
|
Sep 9 2009 Anchor | |
Let's add a sentence that is true: history is written by the winners. |
||
|
Sep 9 2009 Anchor | |
Oh there's no doubt about it, Hitler did not want war. There's no need to question it, because no one does. He just wanted more land and resources, and a race of people dead. But unfortunately, that kind of crap doesn't fly well, and in this case it crashed into a fan. Most people understand blood will be shed (especially when they're looking to start a genocide anyway), and so they act knowing the possible consequences their actions could bring. The fact his attempt to carry out his wishes was met with greater resistance than his ideal jackpot scenario does not make his intentions any more innocent. Looking at the questions in the end, I believe most of them orient less from a strategic point of view, and more from the fact that hindsight is 20 / 20 and has the tendency to be biased (and by that I'm not talking about the 'history is written by the winners' saying, but the logical fallacy of assuming the decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decisions). Other rhetorical questions just don't seem to make sense. Offering peace after starting a few invasions seems similar to punching someone and then trying to call a truce; it isn't proof that you did not want war, the only thing it really proves is that you want to get away with it. Seeing how the man was writing about conquering to the east, I can see him not wanting to have to split his attention to a war in the west. He may not have wanted war on that front, but he still asked for it. There's also a lot of assumptions such as saying the Siegfried Line was built to protect Germany from France. Why is this fact, because they said so? It's like when nations say their long range rocket tests are for peaceful space programs, and their nuclear facilities for energy. Both sides are going to be cranking out their propaganda machine. It's hard to believe either side (as they say, "the first casualty of war..."), but I can't see this as evidence that Germany was acting in defense. To insert my own hindsight bias here, I think someone would have to be bat shit crazy even in that era to think they could conquer the world. Maybe someone truly believed it was strategically possible, but I can't see it given the kind of effort it would require. That said, Europa and her resources are not the world. And I can easily picture a country (one in hard times at that) trying to expand its borders for that kind of a target (especially when they write about these intentions). Hitler may not have wanted war, but he wanted the results of winning them and so war was fought. From there's its just a matter of defending your own home/castle/resources/metaphorical back scratchers.
By waiting until 1941 when their borders were mysteriously and conveniently closer? Edited by: Cryrid |
||
|
Sep 10 2009 Anchor | |
History is written by the winners, no doubt about that, but after a few decades wars should be analyzed with different points of view. Countries which were defeated can see their role in past events change according to recent and more adequate analysis. When discussing History, propaganda should be left where it is. I particularly like the concept behind the creation of that article (revelation which prove well radicated stereotypes wrong are always welcome), but I think it completely missed the point: I believe it's virtually impossible to analyze the events which led to WWII without thinking about WWI. I personally see the second World War as a direct consequence of the Great War... it's no secret that the post-GW treaties were exaggerate and effectively led to the downfall of Germany, so what would you expect from the citizens of a country who see it falling because of foreign powers? If I were a German who lived in 1920-1930, I would hate the Americans, British and French for what they did. Well, who wouldn't? Now, at this point, although Hitler's supposed will to conquer the world may be seriously questioned, his main intentions were clear. He was driven by strong racism and feel of revenge towards the countries who led to Germany's serious instability some 25 years before. I'm not saying that the winners' view is correct, and I'm not justifying him either... it's just that I think reasoned balance is needed when discussing subjects like this. Also: the article mentions 29 German submarines, but it doesn't take in consideration the fact that a better handled alliance with Italy might have led to the creation of a fearsome submarine fleet. The Italians were even planning a submarine attack on New York, which was never carried out because the Germans did not want to deploy a much needed tanker. Although striking the US was pretty inconclusive, saying that the Axis did not have the power and tools to carry out attacks of that kind is false. Another absurd thing, IMHO, is how the Germans are considered the "bad guys" in WWI as well. Back then, the only real bad guys who conquered lands and turned their inhabitants into slaves were the British, not the Germans. They sent people who had virtually nothing to do with the war to die, and I'm not refering only to the soldiers who came from Britain's colonies: Italy, the country I am from, was strongly encouraged to join the war following the promise that Italy's unification would have been completed after the war. It didn't happen, at least not as hoped (considering the price in terms of human lives, which turned out to be 750.000) and many war veterans, including the poet Gabriele D'Annunzio, severely protested and brought the "Vittoria Mutilata" (Very Heavily Wounded Victory) problem to the attention of all Italians. That led to the rise of Benito Mussolini's Fascist party, and for the ones who don't know it Adolf Hitler decided to follow Mussolini's footsteps after a failed putsch (I hope I spelled it correctly). In poor words, Mussolini "legitimately" gained power and Hitler did the same because he realized a coup would have never led to the achievement of his objectives. The second part of this comment may sound a bit OT, but the discussion is about WWII and it's not only the Germans' role who needs to be reconsidered. No doubt they constituted the main entity in action, but if someone really has to analyze WWII everything needs to be done correctly. |
||
Sep 10 2009 Anchor | ||
Sounds to me Mobius that you may be somewhat bitter that your country didnt achieve what it was hoping to in World War 2. And although im not a supporter of the British when it comes to their past Imperialism lets not forget that Italy was once guilty of the very same thing (i refer to the Roman Empire). I have to agree with Cryrid about Hitler not wanting war, he would have much preferred that all the other countries of Europe just give themselves over to him without war but damn them for wanting to stay independant! (thats sarcasm by the way). Also i'm not sure that the roles of countries such as Germany in World War 2 needs to be reconsidered. It's always seemed to me that both Hitler and Mussolini were out to gain power and territory for themselves and i can't recall seeing much to contradict that. |
||
|
Sep 10 2009 Anchor | |
Also consider the fact that the Italians towards the end of the war began fighting the Germans, they didn't like each other, they just wanted a similar goal. And yes in WW1 I did not like the British either, they sacrificed other people who had nothing to do with the war meaninglessly. Just look at the Gallipoli campaign and the Boer War earlier before the war. They are often seen as the 'Good Guys' when just like many other's they did brutal slaughter. Same as the Cossacks of WW1. In WW2 the British people were battered mercilessly, which was karma coming back to them. But I don't want to glorify the Axis (at least some of them) because of course, Germany and Japan in particular commited mass genocide. -- Can you tell me doctor why I still can't get to sleep? |
||
|
Sep 10 2009 Anchor | |
Range_Finder: There was nothing to achieve in WWII. The whole war was pointless, and Italy should have remained neutral (just like Spain and Switzerland)... it was fairly obvious that the country did not have the same industrial might Britain, Japan, Germany and the US had. In a World War, if you don't have many hundred industries replacing combat losses and providing additional war machines... well, you can't win even if you have millions of men who are ready to die. At least WWI was fought with the unification in mind, but WWII didn't make sense. At all. Speaking of the Roman Empire, I don't think it can be compared to the British one in terms of imperialism. At some point in History, 80% of Rome's inhabitants were foreigners with different cultures and were also very well accepted. Now, tell me if London was the same in 1700-1800. The difference in terms of racism is simple and notable... if the British weren't so racist back then, the ones who colonized America would have mixed their culture with that of the legitimate inhabitants of that place and Americans would be different now. Just look at Southern America: the Spanish and Portuguese mixed with those populations, and gave birth to new people. It wouldn't have been possible with racism. About the last part of your post: I believe no one here is trying to justify Hitler or Mussolini's actions... the point is that episodes which occurred decades ago should be discussing without taking propaganda into account. History proved how even the "good guys" killed thousands and thousands of civilians during the conflict (Dresden, anyone?). Hitler may have been pointed out as a monster who was trying to conquer the world, but don't forget that Josif Stalin was not any better... he wasn't initially blamed for what he did only because Russia was fighting Germany. Then, all of a sudden, he became the personification of the Devil. Handgun_Hero: At the end of the war there was a civil war in Italy. Italians killed other Italians and Germans, while the Germans did not hesitate in killing hundreds and hundreds of civilians. The problem is that people don't know what happened, and think the whole country turned against Germany (which isn't true). The whole discussion reminds a political debate on the Italian Resistance. The basic concept is the same: so many decades have passed since then, it's time to analyze things as they are without falling into stereotypes and illusions. If it can be proved that the "good guys" commited horrible actions, everyone needs to take that into account. Quite accordingly, if the "bad guys" were not as bad as thought (despite having commited horrible actions as well), people need to analyze them without being influenced by very old and obsolete propaganda. If History books need to be changed, so be it. I agree with your vision of the British. In WW1 they surely weren't the good guys, but the consequent victory and their role in WW2 effectively helped people forgetting about what the British have done for centuries. Edited by: Mobius89 |
||
|
Sep 10 2009 Anchor | |
Well now that you put it that way I get you. So the war in Italy was a Civil War and 3 way with the Germans involved, just like the war in China between Nationalist China, Communist China and Japan? It's quite interesting too that many people began turning on each other. Think of Vichy France. Their soldiers were once united with the Allies against Germany, but then they just ran off like cowards and began fighting the allies just because they had a little pressure from Germany. I hate Vichy. -- Can you tell me doctor why I still can't get to sleep? |
||
|
Sep 11 2009 Anchor | |
The point is that nationalities have no relevance when it comes to political ideas. The Italian Resistance was essentially driven by Communism (and, in fact, Italy had the strongest Communist party in Europe during the Cold War... perhaps slightly inferior to the Greek one). You know, political ideals can turn people you once lived with into "traitors" to your cause, thus giving you a valid reason to commit "justified" crimes. How many people have been killed by civilians with the excuse of being "traitors"? |
||
|
Sep 11 2009 Anchor | |
It seems alot of wars are started simply by bad communication and greed ... As for finding out exactly why germany went fucking ballistic would be kinda hard ... separating all the fact from propoganda is like separating sugar from flower ... |
||
|
Sep 11 2009 Anchor | |
You know not many people know about the, 'Unknown Wars," that happened in WW2 such as the War of Continuance, the war in South East Asia, the small wars with Thailand, Syria and the war in China. -- Can you tell me doctor why I still can't get to sleep? |
||
|
Sep 13 2009 Anchor | |
Another unsung episode was the Winter War - it had very important consequences on WWII, but I didn't know anything about it unless I did some research on the Internet. For some unknown reason, the Winter War is not mentioned in Italian History books... I remember a potential reason to that, but the whole thing is weird and unacceptable. Well, History books aren't 100% reliable. Judging from comments I read throughout the Internet, American and British books do not report what really happened to Italy, and probably don't give the Winter War the importance it deserves. Additionally, because of the Cold War, most people in the West don't know that Russia took care of most German assets... claiming that the USA did most of the job is completely false, although they have a point in claiming that they basically took care of the Japanese all by themselves (with some external support). |
||
|
Sep 13 2009 Anchor | |
Russia indeed destroyed the brunt of the German forces, and the fighting on the Eastern Front was far more brutal than the Western Front. And why would the Winter War be in Italian history books, I thought it was between Germany/Finland and the Soviet Union? -- Can you tell me doctor why I still can't get to sleep? |
||
|
Sep 13 2009 Anchor | |
Well, that doesn't justify the total absence of that war. It may have had nothing to do with Italy (which is partially false, considering that the Finnish made use of some Italian military assets) but excluding it from History books is a bit excessive. The Winter War is basically what led Germany to invade Russia, so its importance is very high. |
||
|
Sep 13 2009 Anchor | |
|
||
|
Sep 13 2009 Anchor | |
But wasn't the Winter War before Italy began to get involved? And the Winter War was between Finland and the Soviet Union, it was the War of Continuance that Germany got involved with? That just struck my mind there. -- Can you tell me doctor why I still can't get to sleep? |
||
|
Sep 13 2009 Anchor | |
I wasn't refering to an actual partecipation of Italy, but rather to the fact that the Finnish made use of planes (and possibly other military assets) coming from other countries. They used some Italian FIAT fighters and American Brewsters, just to provide an example. During the Continuance War, the Finnish made an extensive use of German Bf-109s. |
||
|
Sep 13 2009 Anchor | |
I've never heard of the winter war untill you mentioned it ... it definitely wasn't in the american history books either ... but i bet if you go over to finland they probably talk about it how they kicked russia's ass all the time ... But there are alot of wars that aren't really talked about ... If you mention the korean war (a war that america was pretty heavily involved in) to some americans i bet you 1/3 of them wouldn't of heard of it ... then there is a whole slew of wars in asia that no one ever talks about ... there are tons of interesting skirmishes throughout history where people are like "oh did that happen?" |
||
|
Sep 13 2009 Anchor | |
Finland had their asses kicked severly by the Soviet Union in the Winter War. They were heavily outnumbered. In the War of Continuance it was the other way around. I agree, there isn't much documentation on Korea at all an no one knows much about it, and Australia also was heavily involved in it but no one mentions it. Very interesting skirmishes in history indeed, the Eureka Stockade was an interesting skirmish fought between European miners in Australia and the British colonial troops in Australia during the 1800s. -- Can you tell me doctor why I still can't get to sleep? |
||
|
Sep 14 2009 Anchor | |
Well, either certain wars are unknown or considered depending on personal interests. If you ask a British about the Battle of Britain, you'd surely hear a lot of things about "the battle that turned the tide of the war", "the planes (Hurricane&Spitfire) that won the war" and many other things... ...even if the Battle of Britain didn't change anything in Stalingrad and the Pacific theater of operation, just to mention a couple of examples. Edited by: Mobius89 |
||
|
Sep 14 2009 Anchor | |
The Battle of Britain didn't change anything, except it kept Britain in the war is all. -- Can you tell me doctor why I still can't get to sleep? |
||
|
Sep 15 2009 Anchor | |
The phrase "___ that won the game" or "____ that won the war" is never true ... its a combination of things that caused the game/war to be won ... dunno why i pointed that out ... but i did |
||
Sep 18 2009 Anchor | ||
- of course quote does not exist Edited by: Pendrokar |
||
Dec 16 2009 Anchor | ||
That is actually quite interesting.. I wonder if there is any documental that supports this.. Anyone knows of any other souce of info about this.. I would like to read more about the topic..please |
||
|
Dec 16 2009 Anchor | |
|
Dec 17 2009 Anchor | |
*desparately tries to find that one comic image where there is a group of people and one person jumps in, says one word and they start arguing* |
Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.