|
| quote: | Originally posted by Rodrico
WW2, now we all know the German's wouldn't of fallen hadn't been for their own ill-prepared demise in weakening their borders and falling to the Russians and their harsh winter, American's didnt win that war, it was pretty much handed to them. Let's not forget the first and only A-bomb used on a country, not once by twice (though I am sure no one will let American do that again). |
Heh normally I would leave all political/history discussion to the polit forum, but I'm a 20th century European history buff so I'm compelled to comment on portions of your post. Now, while it is true that from July of 1943 onwards, after the battle of kursk, hitler had no hopes acheiving military victory agains the Soviet Union, that in itself does not imply defeat. What's important to remember is that the alliance between the US, Britain, and the Soviet Union was conceived out of desparation rather than true amicability, and the alliance was tentative at best.
Hitler himself outlined his plans in fuhrer directive 51:
"For the last two and one-half years the bitter and costly struggle against Bolshevism has made the utmost demands upon the bulk of our military resources and energies. This commitment was in keeping with the seriousness of the danger, and the over-all situation. The situation has since changed. The threat from the East remains, but an even greater danger looms in the West: the Anglo-American landing! In the East, the vastness of the space will, as a last resort, permit a loss of territory even on a major scale, without suffering a mortal blow to Germany's chance for survival.
Not so in the West! If the enemy here succeeds in penetrating our defenses on a wide front, consequences of staggering proportions will follow within a short time. All signs point to an offensive against the Western Front of Europe no later than spring, and perhaps earlier.
For that reason, I can no longer justify the further weakening of the West in favour of other theaters of war. I have therefore decided to strengthen the defenses in the West, particularly at places from which we shall launch our long-range war against England."
He then proceeded to make the western front the utmost priority in terms of arms and materiale in 1944 the implied strategy being he had 2000km of space to utilize in the East and approximately 500km of space to work with in the west before the allies reached the ruhr industrial valley. Essentially, the goal was to repel the allied invasion and avoid a two-front war. A concept quite feasible since the conditions for a land invasion encompass a very narrow time period, and furthermore the time required to amass replacements for a destroyed invasion fleet (particularly higgins boats) would have postponed any future invasion by at least a year or two. The effect of such could have conceivably destroy the alliance, and subsequentely compel Stalin to accept a negotiated peace settlement dividing eastern europe. A concept not so implaussible considering the molotov-ribbentrop pact of 1939, particularly due to the fact that the Soviet Union's population had been decimated.
As such, the allied invasion on D-day was indeed a critical turning point of the war's success and not quite the inevitable hand me down from the Russians that you seem to portray.
Now, on to the second matter of criticism for the atomic bombs, I think I've expressed my views quite thoroughly in this thread:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ht=atomic+bombs
___________________
Retro ...
|
