'World War 2 was wrong'

[Comrade Raz]

I've been thinking alot about this with all the shit about D-Day in the news, and i was wondering what others thought. I'm unsure

On the one hand Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese guy were all evil fascist killers(Im sure every one here agrees this), but

It was still esentially a war between imperialist nations and therefore how can it be justified by socialists/communists as wqhilst the USA, USSR, Britian, France etc. were also evil, admitadley on a differant level, but stiil.

What do u think?

[James]

I don't think it justifies your comment - "wrong". But yes, i'd say the allies only really got involved for imperialist reasons.

[Invader Zim]

The war was not wrong, it wasnt right, it wasn't anything. War was always going to break out. If Britain hadn't declaired war when she did, she would have done it later when Hitler would have enevitably turned his attention to France. Or alternativly he would have invaded Russia and the war would have broken out anyway. Just without western involvment. Which was only a tiny preportion of the war anyway.

[Cognitioned Kazak]

though D-day no doubt played an instrumental role in the second world war I feel that the bloody battles on the eastern front have been suprisingly downgraded. When it comes down to it the Russians had battered the germans for 4 years before a second front was open in western europe. I have relatives who took part in the juno beach assault so Im not detached from the issue but it seems as if the Russians get very minimal support and recognition for holding back the entire onslaught of Hitler's war machine for 4 years..not just holding it back but beating it back from within shelling range of the kremlin then once again in the '42 offensive...anyways just my two cents we owe alot to our Russian counterparts..

-

[DaCuBaN]

we owe alot to our Russian counterparts

I've even hear it argued that the D-Day landing could have been avoided. Certainly many of the french who suffered as a result of the enslaught would've appreciated that.

The Soviet war machine was a phenomenal thing - indeed they did push the germans further and further back (once they actually managed to get up to speed) proir to the D-Day landings - for years before the landings.

The only real reason we landed was most likely for purely imperialist means - they couldn't stomach the idea of the Soviets 'winning' for them - both because they felt abandonded in WW1 after the revolution pulled russia out, and because they held differing ideologies.

[Hate Is Art]

Your an arse if you think WW2 was wrong!

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 02:10 AM
[QUOTE]

The only real reason we landed was most likely for purely imperialist means - they couldn't stomach the idea of the Soviets 'winning' for them - both because they felt abandonded in WW1 after the revolution pulled russia out, and because they held differing ideologies.


If the Americans could not stomach the idea why did they let the USSR take Berlin?

[James]

Stalin was very annoyed when the alliance didn't invade earlier. The invasion opened a second front which relieved the russians. alot.

I don't think the invasion was to prevent the russians winning extra land/credit. Japan and berlin on the other hand...

[Reuben]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 6 2004, 08:46 PM
I've been thinking alot about this with all the shit about D-Day in the news, and i was wondering what others thought. I'm unsure

On the one hand Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese guy were all evil fascist killers(Im sure every one here agrees this), but

It was still esentially a war between imperialist nations and therefore how can it be justified by socialists/communists as wqhilst the USA, USSR, Britian, France etc. were also evil, admitadley on a differant level, but stiil.

What do u think?
we justify out because we dont analyse such events as oversimplistically as saying 'they were all imperialists therefore it is wrong' ne must allso look at the practical effects of going or not going to war in this case one would have the absolute annhiliation of Gypsies jews gays etc.

I agree that the Allies did not go to war to save these groups but their annhilation would none the less have been a conseqence.

Moreover it is reidiculous not percieve any difference or have any preference with regard to the imperial aims of one country and those of another.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 7 2004, 04:17 PM
Your an arse if you think WW2 was wrong!
What an insightful comment, perhaps you would like to try backing up your words of wisdom.

[Comrade Raz]

Your an arse if you think WW2 was wrong!

I didnt actually say that i thought it was wrong, i said i was unsure and was wondering what others thought.


The war was not wrong, it wasnt right, it wasn't anything. War was always going to break out.

I understand that the war was inevitable, but im saying that should socilaists, communists or anarchists support it.

[Deathb4Dishonor]

This raises the question what war is right?

[MiniOswald]

the americans were stupid, at one of the conferences between the leaders when churchill wanted to push for berlin, the yanks spoke to the russians to see if they were going for berlin and so stalin said 'oh no we intend to go south, mett up with you and we'll work together to take it', the yanks fell for it and the russians took the capitol

D-day certainly wasnt necessary, in fact the western front was tiny compared to what was going on on the east, it was a tiny amount of germans over there.

As for the russian war machine, it had success ever since, moscos, then stalingrad
then they moved upto leningrad to break the encirclement, and then the war turned
the only other time the germans pushed back effectivly was Kursk, the largest armoured engagement ever, basically a slugging match between thousands of men, thousands of tanks and hundreds of planes.
german quality vs soviet numbers
the russians eventually won and broke the german lines, after that the germans never properly stopped the russians.
So d-day wasnt necessary, the russians coulda handled the few german divisions over on the west

[DaCuBaN]

If the Americans could not stomach the idea why did they let the USSR take Berlin?

Quite simply they were in no position to dictate the affairs of the USSR. I believe that the capture of berlin was made an absolute priority, so even if the Americans hadn't wanted them to capture berlin, they didn't have an awful lot of choice in the matter. Besides, from their perspective they'd already got into bed with the devil, and so might as well make the most of it.


the americans were stupid, at one of the conferences between the leaders when churchill wanted to push for berlin, the yanks spoke to the russians to see if they were going for berlin and so stalin said 'oh no we intend to go south, mett up with you and we'll work together to take it', the yanks fell for it and the russians took the capitol

The rest of the 'allies' then demanded their 'share of the spoils' and took their share of berlin and germany, even though they had had only a relatively small part in her downfall when compared to the mighty USSR.

This in itself is enough evidence for me to happily conclude that 'fear' of the soviets was a large part of the reasons for landing at all.

D-Day was a phenomenally brave event - but such a tragic waste of human life, especially given that it was mostly unnecessary. I still say the real reasons behind it were purely imperialistic. I mean, we're talking about the whisky swiller!

[The Children of the Revolution]

The only real reason we landed was most likely for purely imperialist means - they couldn't stomach the idea of the Soviets 'winning' for them - both because they felt abandonded in WW1 after the revolution pulled russia out, and because they held differing ideologies.


This is true. [There are loads of passages I want to quote, but I can't be bothered right now - if I mention something that has been said before, please accept my most humble apologies. It isn't my intention to steal other peoples ideas! :) ]

I think D-Day was solely an attempt to contain "Communism". (Soviet style Communism, I mean!) Stalin had been requesting such an invasion for years - to take some pressure off the Eastern Front. Which DID receive huge numbers of troops and resources compared to the Western Front; and where atrocities committed by both sides were horrific.

But Churchill refused to invade - rightly so, for the UK and allies (ANZACS, etc.) weren't nearly strong enough. With American support and air superiority, it became possible to launch such an invasion; still, it was delayed. And as I say, nothing more than a Western attempt to contain Communism when it became clear that the Soviets would hammer the Nazis. (After the battle at Kursk)

(... I think someone mentioned that the Soviets had started their path towards Victory with the successful defence of Moscow - I disagree! After that particular triumph, (mostly due to the infamous Russian winter) the Reds received a thrashing all the way to Stalingrad. Hitler was so confident, so assured of victory, that he split his Stalingrad force in two. I dread to think what might have happened should Stalingrad have fallen! As it was, that city became the scene of the first Soviet victory of the war. (I discount the defence of Moscow - the Nazis lost; the Soviets did not win!) And the rest, they say, is History! :lol: ...)

As to whether the war ought to have been supported by Communists... Well, that's tricky. Classic Marxists, of course, would argue that the worker has no country, no nationality, just his (or her) class. And though War hurts everyone, the "poor" (Proletariat) would undoubtedly bear most of the burden. On these grounds, War would be opposed - it pitted worker against worker.

However...

The consequences of Allied "isolationism" would have been devastating. Hitlers Nazi War machine was incredibly impressive - though we all despise the ideology behind it, we must recognise facts. France - demolished, with or without Allied involvement. And Russia? Well, although the majority of Hitlers forces were deployed in the East, a significant number remained in the West - to counter the threat of invasion. More troops were tied up in Northern Africa...

Take Britain and America out of the equation - ALL resources could be concentrated on the East. And there would be no bombing raids (Dresden, for example) to disrupt German industry... Furthermore, any "auxillary" support from the Allies (Russia received millions of dollars of military and industrial aid) would be negated. Russia could well have fallen.

This would leave fascist lunatics (Hitler and Mussolini) in near total control of a continent. Italy would undoubtedly try to expand into Africa... The situation would be dire - for the workers, as well as for the ruling elite. I think this "justified" War (not personally - for the people, at the time) and the involvement of the Proletariat in the War. What happened afterwards is another question entirely!

[Cognitioned Kazak]

of course I believe that the allied effort in ww2 was justified. Though I do feel operations in Europe were executed on Imperialist grounds. I believe western powers had originally intended to "kill two birds with one stone" so to say. The west hoped the two warring powers would reduce themselves to rubble yet I believe Operation Overlord was launched because the eastern front was beginning to ease into soviet favor. The thing I find very disturbing about ww2 is the fact that America did not declare war on germany and seemed uneffected by their anti-jewish policies. Contrary to popular belief Hitler declared war on the United states...it begs the question: "would the United states have waged a war against Japan exclusively? leaving Britain to face the onslaught of Hitler's warmachine virtually unopposed from the west? I also found it curious as to why the world was up in arms over the sudden holocaust yet the world turned a blind eye a few decades earlier during the Armenian genocide....interesting is it not?

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 08:49 PM
the americans were stupid, at one of the conferences between the leaders when churchill wanted to push for berlin, the yanks spoke to the russians to see if they were going for berlin and so stalin said 'oh no we intend to go south, mett up with you and we'll work together to take it', the yanks fell for it and the russians took the capitol

The rest of the 'allies' then demanded their 'share of the spoils' and took their share of berlin and germany, even though they had had only a relatively small part in her downfall when compared to the mighty USSR.

This in itself is enough evidence for me to happily conclude that 'fear' of the soviets was a large part of the reasons for landing at all.
In war you are supposed to trust your allies.

Then again if I remember correctly the USSR was allied with Germany in the beginning of WW2 and took over Poland.Would this not be considered imperialism as well?

The "mighty USSR" would not have succeeded in taking over Germany if the allies had not been battling in the West.

I don't understand this "fear" of the Soviets.Do you actually think the USSR could of taken on Great Britain and the USA?

[Hate Is Art]

Great Britain? Probably, the country was exhausted, I doubt it could have survived a full scale invasion.

USA, less likely, would have been a horrible mess!

In response to Enigma, we should have support WW2 for the main reason of anti-fascism. I would rather live under Capitilism then Fascism.

[DaCuBaN]

Contrary to popular belief Hitler declared war on the United states...it begs the question: "would the United states have waged a war against Japan exclusively? leaving Britain to face the onslaught of Hitler's warmachine virtually unopposed from the west?

Yes I believe they would have waged war on Japan independant of what was going on in Europe.


The "mighty USSR" would not have succeeded in taking over Germany if the allies had not been battling in the West

Cite evidence. The Soviet army was winning before operation overlord came into play, and hence it seems reasonable to assert that 'fear' was at least partially responsible for US intervension in Europe. After all, the UK wouldn't have dreamed of sending it's forces on a suicide mission into france without the yanks to take the flack ;)

Americans should never forget this fact either.


I don't understand this "fear" of the Soviets.Do you actually think the USSR could of taken on Great Britain and the USA?

It was not fear of being over run by soviets that was the driving force, but fear that the soviet regime and hence what was perceived to be communism may gain credibility by being the lynch pin in the downfall of Nazi germany and fascism.

Perhaps to state fear of what they did not understand would be more accurate.


In war you are supposed to trust your allies

Yet they didn't. The US consistently defied allied startegy, as did the UK. Why should the soviets have acted any different? Look up the war in North Africa - there are prime examples of in-fighting between the allies.

[Nickelby]

I thought when the allies took berlin, it was split into sections. France had one section, Britian another, USSR another, America another, ect. Or maybe that was ww1, I'm not sure

[LSD]

Germany was never officially divided, it was just split into what were supposed to be temporary occupation zones. Berlin was also split despite the fact that it was 100 miles into Soviet territory.

Despite all the negative press about Soviet diplomacy, the fact is that in 1945 Stalin did not have to let the Allies into Berlin, but did anyway. Quite differeny, I might add, from the Allies' behaviour in Italy and Japan, where they blatantly exluded the Soviets entirely.

In so far as the war itself, the USSR won it.

The second front helped of course, most notable in liberating western Europe, since it was unlikely that the Red Army could of stretched their lines that far, but it did not decide the war. Had the US helped back in '42, it would have decided the war, but after Kirsk, the Russians were doing fine on their own.

[Mary Poppins]

I can't help but comment on your screen-name. Am I the only one who finds the preoccupation of some members of this forum with mind-altering substances of multisyllabic chemical names a bit disturbing?

[The Children of the Revolution]

Actually, I'm more worried about your own screen-name!

Mary Poppins? :blink:

[American Kid]

Good evening.

I've even hear it argued that the D-Day landing could have been avoided. Certainly many of the french who suffered as a result of the enslaught would've appreciated that.

It actually was attempted to avoid the D DAY landings. The result was the Italian campaign- which anyone who knows anything about the war (not to mention many of the Italians who suffered as a result of the enslaught) can tell you was a major, time-wasting (not to mention life-wasting) disaster. And, I think, if you gave the French civillians an option between suffering under German/Nazi/Facist occupation- or fighting and maybe dying- going down, that is, alongside the Canadian, British, American, and, not least of which, their own brave partisan brothers, who allied themselves regardless of idealogy for the greater good of defeating the much greater evil, I think (keep in mind though, this is just me talking, who is neither French nor occupied) they'd take choice B.

Particularly if they were of the Hebrew persuasion. But again, what would I know I'm catholic.

The Soviet war machine was a phenomenal thing - indeed they did push the germans further and further back (once they actually managed to get up to speed) proir to the D-Day landings - for years before the landings.

No doubt about it. Again, anyone who knows anything about the war can tell you no one lost more, nor fought as brave or costly a battle as the Russians.

The only real reason we landed was most likely for purely imperialist means - they couldn't stomach the idea of the Soviets 'winning' for them - both because they felt abandonded in WW1 after the revolution pulled russia out, and because they held differing ideologies.

Big doubt about it. :) The Soviets couldn't have won the war on their own (Stalin was bullshit it was taking so long for the allies to hit the shores south of England). To be fair, neither could anyone else. That's why coalitions are formed. Also, as someone cited ealier, it's important to remember: the Americans/British let the Russians take Berlin (not to mention the rest of half of Europe).

Seriously.

But, anyway, in regard to our initial "query", my answer is simple:

All war is always wrong.

-ak

[American Kid]

D-day certainly wasnt necessary, in fact the western front was tiny compared to what was going on on the east, it was a tiny amount of germans over there.

You're neglecting the point.

It's not a matter of who's got "more guys". It's not a matter of "the size of the battlefield." It is a matter of creating a second front.

It's a matter of strategy. Logistically, there's a profound difference between keeping a single armored column supplied from a single part of the fatherland... and keeping a number of armored columns supplied from several parts of the fatherland.

If Hitler had listened to his generals, well then maybe then...well, actually. Yeah. Actually, I don't like to think about that...

[Daymare17]

If anyone is interested in gaining a comprehensive understanding of World War 2 here are some articles.

The Russia Book part 5: From War to 'de-Stalinization' (http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/part5.html)

The USSR in the War (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1939/1939-war.htm)

Lenin and Imperialist War (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1939/1939-lenin.htm)

[DaCuBaN]

It actually was attempted to avoid the D DAY landings. The result was the Italian campaign

What a dismal failure it was too...
A brilliant piece of tactical genious. Let's attack the enemy at the most distant point to our goal and try to push over the most rugged terrain on the continent.


if you gave the French civillians an option between suffering under German/Nazi/Facist occupation- or fighting and maybe dying- going down, that is, alongside the Canadian, British, American, and, not least of which, their own brave partisan brothers, who allied themselves regardless of idealogy for the greater good of defeating the much greater evil, I think (keep in mind though, this is just me talking, who is neither French nor occupied) they'd take choice B

The majority did... however most of those in rural areas were not so happy to see us... They had been largely unaffected by the occupation and from their perspective we were in fact the ones doing all the damage - Pounding the hell out of their land.

The landscape of France still bears the scars from the massive bombardments.


anyone who knows anything about the war can tell you no one lost more, nor fought as brave or costly a battle as the Russians

Indeed, but their effort is largely overlooked, especially in the US education system, but this is true for almost all western education systems. Bear in mind these things have to be said, as there are many who haven't done much reading on this subject.


The Soviets couldn't have won the war on their own (Stalin was bullshit it was taking so long for the allies to hit the shores south of England)

Could you rephrase please? I'm lost here... :unsure:


To be fair, neither could anyone else. That's why coalitions are formed. Also, as someone cited ealier, it's important to remember: the Americans/British let the Russians take Berlin (not to mention the rest of half of Europe).


Quite the opposite... The Russians were over 200 miles ahead of their allies - they spared no expense to get to Berlin before the rest of the allies.


But, anyway, in regard to our initial "query", my answer is simple:

All war is always wrong

Right on. But is war ever justifiable?


If Hitler had listened to his generals, well then maybe then...well, actually. Yeah. Actually, I don't like to think about that...

Indeed... and this is one of the legitimate reasons for the D-Day landings. How were we really supposed to know that this madman didn't have a further grand scheme in his hat to turn the tide?

In truth, we had no idea, and hence really had no choice but to invade. Had the situation been different though, and had it been, for example, the US army with the brunt of the push on the Easter Front, would we have done the same?

I don't think so, but again it's pure conjecture.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:52 PM



Cite evidence. The Soviet army was winning before operation overlord came into play, and hence it seems reasonable to assert that 'fear' was at least partially responsible for US intervension in Europe. After all, the UK wouldn't have dreamed of sending it's forces on a suicide mission into france without the yanks to take the flack ;)




Yet the Russians just let the Germans come within miles of Moscow just to be defeated thanks to the Russian winter yet again.

[DaCuBaN]

Yet the Russians just let the Germans come within miles of Moscow just to be defeated thanks to the Russian winter yet again.

A tried and tested tactic. Why change it?
Although not outnumbered, the Russians were certainly outgunned. I fail to see how else they could have done this, given that it is generally accepted that the attacker has the upper hand.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

In terms of the possible justifications and reasons for the war I think we are also forgetting the human element. Yes it was the governments who declared war, but it was the voluteers that gave it its driving force. I think that most people - including my generally sceptical grandfather - joined because they honestly felt that it was the right thing. He thought he was fighting for freedom and democracy - even if that was a mere veneer. Therefore even if the ultimate causes were different, there were plenty of people involved for the right reasons.

Also if we look at the leaders involved who declared war, I think a man like Chamberlain honestly did declare war for altruistic reasons. Why should he really care about Poland save that he knew his attempts at peace had fucked up in Czechoslovakia.

Overall though I think we cannot claim that any war was 'right' or 'wrong', or we end up lowering ouselves the the Republican levels of black and white. Like any war World War II was created by a variety of factors, some justifiable, and others not. Still, it was probably one of the 'better' wars of the 20th century.

[Guerrilla22]

I think that the Axis nations pretty much forced the other nations into war. Japan bombed US territory and declared war on America first. It certainly isn't wrong to defend yourself, although I do agree that certain things the allies did were wrong, such as the fire bombing of German and Japanese cities and the dropping of the atomic bombs.

[Hate Is Art]

The allies destroyed up to 84% of some of Germans biggest cities! But we have to think, do the ends justify the means?

I would say yes! WW2 was full of attrocities but imagine the attrocites commited if we had let Hitler have run of the globe.

[Comrade Raz]

I would say yes! WW2 was full of attrocities but imagine the attrocites commited if we had let Hitler have run of the globe.

After thought i would agree with this statement about the war. I also agree with what Uhuru na Umoja said.

[The Children of the Revolution]

The Itallian campaign... Yes... A most disastrous failure...

I'd always thought it was the "logical" extension of the campaigns in North Africa, though? Didn't Mussolini invade first? And wasn't the British operation there initially defensive?

Of course, after El Alamein, [sp?] the Allies decided to push into Southern Italy and Sicily - but I'd always seen this as the necessary continuation of a "second front". I know the intention was to steamroll the Itallians and enter the "soft underbelly" of Germany, but with the benefit of hindsight, it was a stupid mistake. I don't think the War could ever have been ended in this way.