A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

russia vs. japan in 1941 [WAS: 50% of NAZI oil..]



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old October 22nd 03, 04:38 AM
kirill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



The Black Monk wrote:

Instead, of course, Hitler's war was a
crusade only for his grotesque and evil ideology, as bad as if not
worse than the Bolshevism he fought.


There is simply no comparison between the explicit genocide
promulgated by the Nazi ideology and the de facto repressive
implementation of "communism" in the USSR. All this talk
about "famine holocausts" is nothing but revisionist and
Nazi apologist drivel especially considering that it originates
from areas that never suffered through any Soviet famine and
which actively supported Hitler during WWII.
  #32  
Old October 22nd 03, 04:58 AM
Christophe Chazot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

(snip)


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find


For sure, but not (with all respect) in the second. They were invaded,
defeated, surrendered, collaborated or resisted according to taste, and

then
liberated themselves with the help of a third of a million US and UK

troops.
For most of the war, most of the time, most of them weren't involved.


Figures dont't really agree, you know. France sent 8,410,000 soldiers to the
front. Out of them, 1,357,800 were killed and 3,595,000 wounded. The only
country that suffered higher losses in this war was Russia.

Yours,
Christophe


  #33  
Old October 22nd 03, 05:52 AM
Seraphim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in news:bn3guk
:

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Well yes but the army retained the upper hand, its not as if they
were doing nothing. There was this little war going on in China
If you read Yamamoto's biography its clear that the navy OPPOSED
war with the western powers.


Where in the world did you get this information? The Japanese army
longed to attack Russia. The Japanese navy longed to attack into the
"southern treasure chest", incidentally liberating Asia from British,
Dutch, and American imperialism.


From the biography of Admiral Yamamoto which was written
by Hiroyuki Agawa published by Kodansha International


Right, but how do you jump from "Admiral Yamamoto opposed the war" to
"The Navy opposed the war"?

Admiral Yamamoto was fairly atypical among Japanese Navel offices in that
he had spent a fair amount of time in the US. He therefor had a somewhat
better appreciation than most in Japan of the ability of America to
simply crush Japan in terms of Industrial output.
  #34  
Old October 22nd 03, 08:38 AM
B2431
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: kirill
Date: 10/21/2003 10:38 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:



The Black Monk wrote:

Instead, of course, Hitler's war was a
crusade only for his grotesque and evil ideology, as bad as if not
worse than the Bolshevism he fought.


There is simply no comparison between the explicit genocide
promulgated by the Nazi ideology and the de facto repressive
implementation of "communism" in the USSR. All this talk
about "famine holocausts" is nothing but revisionist and
Nazi apologist drivel especially considering that it originates
from areas that never suffered through any Soviet famine and
which actively supported Hitler during WWII.

Ok, the Nazis had a semi open program of mass murder (read leibensraum,
transportation to the occupied territories etc) and the Soviets had a secret
program. That does not change the fact that many millions of innocent civilions
were deliberately murdered in both cases. The Nazis only had 12 years vs. the
Lenin-Stalin period's 36. Stalin's gulags were in business before the Nazi
concentration camp system. The gulag system's goldmines gave the average inmate
a life expectansy of 30 days. Stalin starved to death many hundreds of
thousands of people in his collectivization program.Stalins purges killed
millions more. His program of random arrest and vanishings of millions of
people was at least as effective as Hitler's nacht und nebel programs .

Without minimizing Nazi atrocities the Soviets did far worse. Of course the
Soviet system of elimination of "enemies of the state" was simply carrying on
the tradition of the Tsars. Had the Nazis lasted as long as Stalin I would
guess they would have had numbers exceding the Soviet's.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
  #35  
Old October 22nd 03, 08:40 AM
John Mullen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Christophe Chazot" wrote in message
...

"John Mullen" a écrit dans le message news:
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

(snip)


The French were involved rather heavily in WW1 you'll find


For sure, but not (with all respect) in the second. They were invaded,
defeated, surrendered, collaborated or resisted according to taste, and

then
liberated themselves with the help of a third of a million US and UK

troops.
For most of the war, most of the time, most of them weren't involved.


Figures dont't really agree, you know. France sent 8,410,000 soldiers to

the
front. Out of them, 1,357,800 were killed and 3,595,000 wounded. The only
country that suffered higher losses in this war was Russia.


For WW2? Seems awfully high and the figures I have certainly don't agree. On
Googling, I keep getting

France military 250,000 civilian 350,000 total 600,000

which sounds more reasonable, although still obviously a lot. After summer
1940 very few French were 'at the front', although I know about the Free
French movement and the heroism of the Resistance etc.

France only learned from WW1 that war was to be avoided (perfectly sensible)
and that a defensive strategy would deter Germany (turned out not to be true
as we know). Many in Britain made the same mistakes, but you were unlucky
enough to be before us in the firing line.

John


  #36  
Old October 22nd 03, 10:44 AM
Stuart Wilkes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Mullen" wrote in message ...

snip

We did not badly to win the air and sea battles with Nazi Germany. Neither
was easy and both had costs attached. Of course we couldn't have won overall
without the support of the USA and the USSR, both of which in their own ways
hedged their bets until the decision to enter the war was forced upon them.


Not by their choice. The Soviets had alliances with Czechoslovakia
and France since 1935, and offered Great Britain and France a full-up
Triple Alliance with all the trimmings on 17 April 1939. Too bad
Chamberlain refused to take it seriously, preferring to pursue
Anglo-German agreement.

Of the two, that of the USSR was IMO the less honourable.


They had been excluded from the prewar European diplomacy, and their
alliance offers to the Western Allies refused. Once that was clear,
they looked after themselves. Nothing dishonorable about that.

Stuart Wilkes
  #37  
Old October 22nd 03, 10:48 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


The book title, by the way, is Flyboys: A True Story of Courage, by
James Bradley. After initially being put off by the moral equivalence
(oh sure, the Japanese murdered, cooked, and ate bits of seven
American fliers off Chichi Jima, but hey! Americans behaved badly at
the Battle of Wounded Knee!), I've decided it's worth the read.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...f=nosim/annals

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #38  
Old October 22nd 03, 11:08 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


A limited operation does not have to be minor, it just has to have well
defined limits.


Shucks, by that definition, the U.S. fought World War II as a limited
operation.

a) defeat Germany

b) defeat Japan

What limits could be better defined than those?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #39  
Old October 22nd 03, 11:08 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


The Japanese leader who took over in Oct 1941 was of course
General Hideki Tojo who was a hard liner and it was under
his leadership and that of the army that the decison for war
was taken


It was taken at the Imperial Conference in September. Everything after
that was merely a decision not to turn back.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #40  
Old October 22nd 03, 11:09 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message
om...
"John Mullen" wrote in message

...

snip

We did not badly to win the air and sea battles with Nazi Germany.

Neither
was easy and both had costs attached. Of course we couldn't have won

overall
without the support of the USA and the USSR, both of which in their own

ways
hedged their bets until the decision to enter the war was forced upon

them.

Not by their choice. The Soviets had alliances with Czechoslovakia
and France since 1935, and offered Great Britain and France a full-up
Triple Alliance with all the trimmings on 17 April 1939. Too bad
Chamberlain refused to take it seriously, preferring to pursue
Anglo-German agreement.


Given that Stalin had

1) Reneged on his agreements with Czechoslovakia when that nation
asked the Soviets to intervene in 1938

2) Just finished decimating the Red Army by killing three out of five Soviet
marshals, fifteen out of sixteen army commanders, sixty out of 67
corps commanders, and 136 out of 199 divisional commanders
and 36,761 officers.

3) Had just presided over the man made famine in the Ukraine

Its scarcely suprising that Soviet promises were viewed with
a degree of scepticism.


Of the two, that of the USSR was IMO the less honourable.


They had been excluded from the prewar European diplomacy, and their
alliance offers to the Western Allies refused. Once that was clear,
they looked after themselves. Nothing dishonorable about that.


The secret codicils to the Soviet-German non-aggression pact
were scarcely honorable , neither was the Soviet invasion
of the Baltic states and Finland, unless you consider that
the Finnish hordes poised to sweep across the borders
of the USSR were a major threat to the Rodina.

Fact is Stalin was already secretly negotiating with Germany in
1938 and thought he could cut a cosy deal with his buddy
Adolf and carve up Central Europe between them.

Oops

Keith


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.