It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

who won the 2nd world war

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
Mod Edit: removed above quoted post.


You haven't visited the sites, so your talking out your whatever.

As for wars? I joined the Navy in 1969. Engineman, small boats, went to Southeast Asia in 1970. Spent 2 years, 3 months, 7 days there. Medevac'd out. Various other "bush wars" you've never heard of since.

Nice try, but you simply don't have the horsepower for this.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by GAOTU789]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


So with all your military involvement are you credentials as a Bona Fide Military Historian realistic, or is that the title you have posthumously given yourself after years of reading?
Did you gain said credentials whilst studying within the Navy? If you did, I'd hate to assume- but does that indicate you are an officer?
I respect all personnel whom have served with good intent. if your are this; you have my sincere and humbled apologies!!!!



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


So with all your military involvement are you credentials as a Bona Fide Military Historian realistic, or is that the title you have posthumously given yourself after years of reading?
Did you gain said credentials whilst studying within the Navy? If you did, I'd hate to assume- but does that indicate you are an officer?
I respect all personnel whom have served with good intent. if your are this; you have my sincere and humbled apologies!!!!


I went to Purdue University after I retired from the Navy. I have stated elsewhere that I will provide my documentation to a staff person via webcam if requested. BTW, an "engineman" is an enlisted rating. I joined the Navy fourteen hours after graduating from high school.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Hats off to you then

my apologies!!!
Im sorry. but I do stand by my comments earlier. The comment of the Pearl Harbour Bombing was repeated to me on numerous occasion whilst discussing 2nd WW; with a reputable veteran of that period whilst they were alive.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
Hats off to you then

my apologies!!!
Im sorry. but I do stand by my comments earlier. The comment of the Pearl Harbour Bombing was repeated to me on numerous occasion whilst discussing 2nd WW; with a reputable veteran of that period whilst they were alive.


I have 10,000 pages of documentation related to the Pearl Harbor attack online. I've read all 25,000+ pages of the Report of the Congressional Committee to Investigate the Attack on Pearl Habor. I see very, very, very little chance of a conspiracy in the events of that day.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


Well your friends are loosing their "reputable" standings by the second.

One "Theory" is that the US may have provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl harbor so we could enter WWII, Or another "Theory" is that Roosevelt knew of the attack and did nothing again so we may enter WWII!

But they did not bomb their own ships.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


Well your friends are loosing their "reputable" standings by the second.

One "Theory" is that the US may have provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl harbor so we could enter WWII,


Weaknesses: We were desperately trying to avoid a war in the Pacific so we could concentrate on helping England stay in the war. Starting a war in the Pacific in order to get into a war in Europe just doesn't make sense. (And please, somebody, mention the Tripartite Pact, I snack on that one.)


Or another "Theory" is that Roosevelt knew of the attack and did nothing again so we may enter WWII!


So, a spectacular failure would be better than a successful block of a sneak attack? We could have had over a thousand AAA guns ready to meet the Japanese if we'd been alerted, and they'd have had to fight their way through our air defense before they got in range of those guns. For FDR to "just let it happen", he'd have to be okay with the deaths of 2,500 Americans and eight or more battleships. AND so would everyone else that was involved in discovering the attack and "just let it happen". Doesn't make sense.


But they did not bomb their own ships.


Oh, but they didn't. The British slipped in divers to attach limpet mines to the BBs because the English knew that the Japanese were lousy fliers.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
The allied forces as a whole defeated Germany and Japan. You cannot say one side truly won the whole war.

However you can say this, if the United States had not joined the allied side, Germany would of most likely developed the bomb thus would of won the war and most of europe would be speaking German now.

Don't overlook the effect of the Russian winter on German forces either, it played a great role in the outcome on the eastern front. The allied forces carpet bombing of German factories played a huge role also.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Starwatcher]

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Starwatcher]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

who won the 2nd world war



Outside of the supra-national criminal banking-syndicate?

If we were to judge 'who won' by observing which participant nations have since adopted their 'opponents' ideologies, I cast my vote that Nazi Germany is still emerging as 'the winner'.

Fascism appears to have taken root in many of WWII's 'victorious' Allied countries.

I think, after the Germans were finally defeated militarily, the Nazi Party insiders, at the request and with great assistance from the 'winners' (Paperclip), merely swapped sides to continue their agenda embedded within the 'victorious' Allied governments' bureaucracies (especially the U.S. and U.K.). Sort of a voluntary coup.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 





Well your friends are loosing their "reputable" standings by the second.

Well this particular person is dead now, so they have no recourse to this argument. So while you ridicule their reputation, weather right or wrong; for myself, I dont mind : but I doubt if you will ever receive the same amount of respect that said person did, alive . You'll be forgotten when alive and dead.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I am sorry if I am asking a question that has already been answered, but what the Hell is the Soviet Union?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn
I am sorry if I am asking a question that has already been answered, but what the Hell is the Soviet Union?


The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, currently the Russian Federation.

(No comments about the need for better study of history, thanks.)



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


So, what you are saying is that the Soviet Union changed its name to the Russian Federation? So, does that mean that the Romanov's changed their name to the USSR?

I just went to Wikipedia and it said the USSR collapsed in 1991 after about 70 years; a flash-in-the-pan if you will. The United States is still here though. Why would someone want to compare a dead thing, like the USSR, to a living thing, like the USA. It's completely obvious who won, I think.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


So, what you are saying is that the Soviet Union changed its name to the Russian Federation? So, does that mean that the Romanov's changed their name to the USSR?


This is why I come here. I learn something new every day.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I doubt the conspiracy angles of Pearl Harbour, but that the USA did their best to goad the Japanese into an attack is unquestionable.

Full scale war broke out between Japan and China in 1937. While professing their neutrality, the Americans froze Japanese assets, placed an embargo on oil, and provided military aid to China, all prior to Pearl Harbour. This violated America's own Neutrality Acts, which were passed in the 1930s.

So, Japan had no choice but to consider America an enemy and therefore attacked the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour, figuring their only chance to win was a preemptive strike.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
I doubt the conspiracy angles of Pearl Harbour, but that the USA did their best to goad the Japanese into an attack is unquestionable.

Full scale war broke out between Japan and China in 1937. While professing their neutrality, the Americans froze Japanese assets, placed an embargo on oil, and provided military aid to China, all prior to Pearl Harbour. This violated America's own Neutrality Acts, which were passed in the 1930s.

So, Japan had no choice but to consider America an enemy and therefore attacked the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour, figuring their only chance to win was a preemptive strike.

You might be interested in learning that the Republicans in Congress insisted on the embargo, not FDR.

And we provided aid to China to try and stop the Japanese aggression there.

And the Japanese did have a choice, they could have attacked Siberia instead of NEI. But they were going to attack somebody because the Little Black Dragon Society did not want to loose the "honorable gains" they'd acquired by invading their neighbors and killing anybody who objected.

Making the US the bad guy is the lazy way to view the Pacific situation in 1941.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
people, wake up wipe the sleep from your eyes.
the "one worlders won"
that being siad, they couldn't have won with out the US.

Tthats why fdr wanted in so bad

[edit on 18-4-2009 by hounddoghowlie]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777

Well this particular person is dead now, so they have no recourse to this argument. So while you ridicule their reputation, weather right or wrong; for myself, I dont mind : but I doubt if you will ever receive the same amount of respect that said person did, alive . You'll be forgotten when alive and dead.


I'm pretty sure you'll forget about me and I'M OK with that. But not my loved ones and my close friends and I'm ok with that to.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
I doubt the conspiracy angles of Pearl Harbour, but that the USA did their best to goad the Japanese into an attack is unquestionable.

Full scale war broke out between Japan and China in 1937. While professing their neutrality, the Americans froze Japanese assets, placed an embargo on oil, and provided military aid to China, all prior to Pearl Harbour. This violated America's own Neutrality Acts, which were passed in the 1930s.

So, Japan had no choice but to consider America an enemy and therefore attacked the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour, figuring their only chance to win was a preemptive strike.


Thank you.
Very good response!
I'm not sure they thought they could actually "WIN" a war against the US and the Allies, more likely probably thought they could grab a bunch of territory then negotiate a peace and still maintain the conquered territory. I don't think that in their mentality at that time they thought the "FAT and LAZY" Americans would fight a real war.


[edit on 18-4-2009 by SLAYER69]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join