War Crimes

Discussion in 'General' started by pol o frithil, Dec 8, 2004.

?

were the allies right to stop fighting when they defeated germany and not drive stalin out of easter

  1. yes they were right to stop fighting.

    91.3%
  2. no they should have driven stalin home.

    4.3%
  3. no comme

    4.3%
  1. sappernz

    sappernz Member

    Attack Russia !. How insane would that be. Apart from the utter betrayal of the notion we were fighting for democracy and the destruction of any moral highground, would the world want the carnage to continue.
    I suggest that the prospect of more fighting, after destroying Nazi Germany, would lead to serious disciplinary problems.
    I would bet vast numbers of soldiers would mutiny and armies become a dangerous liability.
    Do not forget everyone was sick of the war, none more so than the soldiers, so I doubt there would be much enthusaiam for more slaughter.
    And would the families of men at the front remain quiet, very unlikly. The resulting civil uproar and unrest would be on a massive scale.
    The fact that a mentally unstable meglamaniac named Patton suggested it should show the folly of even contemplating such lunacy.
     
  2. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Much better put than me Sapper NZ. Patton? could anyone take him seriously?
    Sapper
     
  3. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    The fact that a mentally unstable meglamaniac named Patton suggested it should show the folly of even contemplating such lunacy.

    it is known that Rommel wanted to seek an armistise in normandy so they the allies and germans could attack "The Common Enemy in the East"
     
  4. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by angie999+Jan 2 2005, 12:52 PM-->(angie999 @ Jan 2 2005, 12:52 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by morse1001@Jan 2 2005, 10:54 AM
    Originally posted by angie999@Jan 2 2005, 10:27 AM
    <!--QuoteBegin-morse1001@Jan 1 2005, 08:26 PM
    lets not forget that both Churchill and FDR agreed to the Russian expansion. But that was because Churchill was drunk and FDr was trying to act that he was still fit enough to be a statesman.
    [post=30364]Quoted post[/post]

    If Churchill was drunk, it was probably because by Yalta he was pretty well being ignored by FDR and Stalin. He actually took a much harder line on this than FDR.
    [post=30368]Quoted post[/post]

    according to the various historys, Stalin spoke to Churchill and FDR seperately and with Churchill, he provided a great deal of brandy while he, himself, drank a clear fluid which he called "vodka"!
    [post=30370]Quoted post[/post]

    Maybe, but I still think that Stalin was not taking Churchill too seriously at this stage, compared to the more "compliant" - and more powerful - FDR.
    [post=30374]Quoted post[/post]
    [/b]
    Churchill was well known for his drinking abilities during his prime Ministership.
     
  5. sappernz

    sappernz Member

    Thank you Sapper. Words like that from you are high praise indeed.
    Mind you Sappers are always intelligent, articulate, handsom, charming and notoriously bad spellers.
     
  6. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    I wrote....could any one take Patton seriously? When asked to asssit in closing the Falaise gap, and preventing the escape of part of the German army..Thus shortening the war, Patton refused and was off capturing French coutryside, empty of any enemy troops, It was all to do with his feverish ego.

    The fame of Patton was built on his capture of parts of France that had no enemy at all. When asked to join in the war?...No way. Would you beleive he was so keen on touring France, that he ran out of petrol and was stranded for a while...Patton?

    Fortunately I have a very good long term memory, but unfortunately a shocking short ter o_O :unsure: m one!
    Sapper
     
  7. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    Churchill was well known for his drinking abilities during his prime Ministership.

    During his entire life, actually. But he was an alcoholic whose family life and performance of his duties were never affected by it, not to mention that, despite his smoking, drining and eating in excess he lived well into his tenth decade. :rolleyes:
     

    Attached Files:

  8. Ryuujin

    Ryuujin Member

    Nuclear weapons take a LOOONG time to make and aren't easily mass produced and wouldn't nessasarily win the war for either side. There is th epossibility the the USSR would've won, how many men could the west put into the meat grinder before giving up? The Russians werent nessasarily using human waves anymore and had a hell of alot of tanks, veteran crews and a sizable airforce. The logistics for the allies was alot worse (a whole ocean) and a perpetual war like this would allow Stalin to keep a good grip on his people have any of you read 1984?
     
  9. ElHulio99

    ElHulio99 Junior Member

    Even though Patton was an egotistical maniac, he still had a good idea, rearm the germans and turn them around
     
  10. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by ElHulio99@Jun 19 2005, 03:53 PM
    Even though Patton was an egotistical maniac, he still had a good idea, rearm the germans and turn them around
    [post=35498]Quoted post[/post]

    It has been written that by this stage Patton may have been suffering from brain damage, due the number of falls he had suffered during his equestrian days. I can see some sense in this, because the idea of rearming the Germans was simply daft at that particular point in time.
     
  11. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    because the idea of rearming the Germans was simply daft at that particular point in time.

    Yet in Indo-china, the british rearmed the japanese and used them to keep control in the country.
     
  12. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    I can see some sense in this, because the idea of rearming the Germans was simply daft at that particular point in time.

    It was known that Rommel wanted to stop the fighting in France in order that the allies and germany could turn against the Russians.
     
  13. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    Fair old difference between using a former enemy to maintain order and taking on the Red Army.

    There are photographs of armed German military police directing British military traffic in the closing days of the war and of German Ordnungspolizei working with British military police.
     
  14. smc66

    smc66 Member

    There was no political will to attack the Soviet Union in 1945. The break down in relations really only occurred in 1946. If anything the Americans did not see the danger until late prefering to work with Stalin and ignoring Churchill's fears. Also there were the Japanese to deal with and the initial agreement made at Yalta was for the Soviets to attack Manchuria as soon as the war in Europe was over. The decision to use the bomb came late in the day. Lastly, American troops were rapidly pulling out of Europe in the spring of 1945 much to the consternation of Churchill who knew the British were incapable of defending let alone attacking the Soviet Union.

    The upshot of this is that to attack the Soviet Union the Allies needed the Americans. Neither Roosevelt or Truman were initially interested in this.
     
  15. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Originally posted by smc66@Jun 20 2005, 08:39 PM

    The upshot of this is that to attack the Soviet Union the Allies needed the Americans. Neither Roosevelt or Truman were initially interested in this.
    [post=35515]Quoted post[/post]


    Anybody prepared to have a Hypothetical guess on the cost in human life if this insanity had occured?
     
  16. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Lastly, American troops were rapidly pulling out of Europe in the spring of 1945 much to the consternation of Churchill who knew the British were incapable of defending let alone attacking the Soviet Union.

    Given that Churchill was voted out of power because of voters disgruntled by the cost of the war, then I doubt if Churchill would have seriously considered a war against the Russians.

    Also, the Labour administration which replace Churchill was pro russianand in fact shared technology with them, this would indicate that they would not want a war with Russia.
     
  17. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    There was no way the Allies were going to go to war with the Soviets in 1945, using German troops. As I've said earlier, it would have made their entire wartime cause dishonorable.

    Himmler thought Eisenhower would make him the chief policeman for Europe and the SS generals thought the Americans and British would use those troops for the new war with the Soviets. There was no way, after Ike had seen Ohrdruf, that he or any Allied leader of the highest rank would put Himmler and his sadists in charge of anything.

    Patton was in bad shape by late 1945, very depressed, exhausted by war, and possibly suffering brain damage from various falls. He was miscast as proconsul in Bavaria, and was also basically anti-Semitic, so I'm not surprised by his odder statements.

    The tension between the Soviets and the West was simmering in 1945, but had not yet boiled over. There were public complaints about Stalin's high-handed behavior in Eastern Europe, but he still had massive sympathy for 20 million dead and wartime victories. It took a few years of his emergent paranoia and increasingly venomous behavior to turn his erstwhile allies against him.

    "Red Star/White Star '45" is a wargame...not reality.
     
  18. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Jun 20 2005, 04:38 PM

    but he still had massive sympathy for 20 million dead

    [post=35545]Quoted post[/post]



    The first time that figure appeared anywhere was in a interview Stalin gave to PRAVDA in May 1946 and even then, he is quoted as saying it was six million dead and fourteen million casualties
     
  19. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    The Idea that the Allies could have beaten Russia is just pure fantasy. There is no way they could have rolled straight on, they would have beaten the living daylights out of the Western Allies.

    How do you deal with the Russian Winter, and the long supply lines,remember that Russia stretches from Europe to the Pacific and with many thousands of miles to cover how in the name of all that is holy do you do that? Meanwhile the supply lines would be harried for thousands of miles. Dream Land.

    Besides, they were our Allies. Iraq is a classic example,no matter how powerful you may be, you cannot keep a people down if they do not wish it.

    Pure fantasy!
    Sapper
     
  20. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    The Idea that the Allies could have beaten Russia is just pure fantasy. There is no way they could have rolled straight on, they would have beaten the living daylights out of the Western Allies.

    How do you deal with the Russian Winter, and the long supply lines,remember that Russia stretches from Europe to the Pacific and with many thousands of miles to cover how in the name of all that is holy do you do that? Meanwhile the supply lines would be harried for thousands of miles. Dream Land.


    Not to mention that in 1945 the Red Army had reached an excellency level and monstruous might without paralell in military history.

    Ike's 95 divisions would have simply melted away after two weeks of fighting, after many, many casualties of both sides (which did not have the tactics to fight each other).

    What about an air match between John 'Johnnie' Johnson and Iván Kozhiedub? :huh:

    I remember Kozhiedub downing 4 P-51s in 5 minutes over Romania with his Yak-9 after he had been taken for a German. :eek:
     

Share This Page