Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
like I said before, why this obsession with ancient history, its was then-this is now, move on, I have better things to discuss. Idoubt if there are any people on this forum that actually served in WW2, so all of this is just heresay.
First of all it is not ancient history. It is less than 100 years ago, though I am not sure you know that?
Second not only have there been a large number of books written by many people who were there, there also are video and audio accounts done both during and after the war.
If that is not enough there are newspapers, audio and film news with thousands upon thousands of pictures, diary's and the war was heavily documented.
There is a lot of information out there. Decisions and actions made during the war have a direct effect on many current world issues. There are still even a lot of WWII weapons in use around the world.
If you do not wish to discuss it nobody is forcing you.
like I said before, why this obsession with ancient history, its was then-this is now, move on, I have better things to discuss. Idoubt if there are any people on this forum that actually served in WW2, so all of this is just heresay.
And yet you've posted to this thread no less than seven times.
Your first two posts - in this thread about history in the history forum - are on topic. In your third post, you complain that people are 'fixated' on these things that happened in the past.
People aren't 'fixated' (I'm guessing you only mean other people, especially those who disagree with your thoughts on a particular topic). Rather, they're discussing history in a forum dedicated to history in which you are also choosing to post.
Your next three posts are on topic, but your last post here is another complaint about why people are discussing history (this time you use 'obsession' rather than 'fixation' as your ad hominem du jour).
Care to explain why you're even engaging in this topic when you can't stop complaining that it is inexplicable that people do so? You know, there are lots of forums that don't interest me, but I don't wander into them and tell people they're 'fixated' and 'obsessed' just because they like talking about things in which I am disinterested.
Without US convoying protection and Lend-Lease materials, the UK might have slowly starved.
The Soviet Union did more to defeat Hitler than the US & UK combined.
Hitler could never have pulled off an invasion of the UK. He COULD have launched a combined air/submarine/cross channel/airborne attack that would have suffered huge losses and MAYBE scared the UK into agreeing to a truce. I say MAYBE because Hitler had no stomach for such losses. Without his tanks (and fuel, which was scarce), there is no blitzkreig. The British did not so much win the Battle of Britain as the Germans lost it.
In effect, the UK could not have won without the US and the Soviet Union. The US could not have won without the UK and the Soviet Union. The Soviets likely would have won just so long as they had Lend-Lease supplies. There was no way that Stalin would ever give in to Hitler, once Barbarossa was launched. The Soviets lost millions of men, thousands of aircraft and tanks and large chunks of land in the first month of the invasion. The Germans were very close to Moscow, had virtually destroyed Stalingrad and had put Leningrad under a siege that lasted nearly 3 years and killed more than a million Russians. It did not matter. Stalin was head and shoulders above Hitler in terms of natural resources, historical acumen, land mass and soldiers. The Russians could keep attacking the Germans and losing men because they had a huge reserve of manpower. The Germans did not have a huge reserve of manpower, did not have significant war plant, did not have access to oil reserves outside those in Rumania, did not have enough trucks and relied too much on horses and wagons.
As it turns out, Hitler did not make a mistake in opening a two front war. The UK was on the ropes. The Soviets had millions of men in Poland, facing just 20 divisions protecting Germany, and there were millions more Soviet troops less than 100 miles from the Rumanian oil fields. Hitler needed fuel to fight a war and he needed a buffer. Many people think that his non-aggression pact with Stalin was a huge blunder, as it cost the Wermacht an additional 300 miles in some cases. With the stroke of a pen, Hitler doomed his armies to travel over and fight for hundreds of miles of territory.
like I said before, why this obsession with ancient history, its was then-this is now, move on, I have better things to discuss. Idoubt if there are any people on this forum that actually served in WW2, so all of this is just heresay.
Nice Cop Out!
And they say the American educational system is in tatters.
Considering the commotion cause by the fictional film U-571 over in the UK I guess it is relevant with some folks there.
I do recall when just starting in the workforce out of my teens a colleague who was former Hitler Youth member could never understand the USA fascination for WW2 and all things Nazi. I can imagine how he would feel now with WW2 this and Hitler that on the cable channels.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all it is not ancient history. It is less than 100 years ago, though I am not sure you know that?
