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.

 

AMERICA WON WORLD WAR 2!!

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

intrepid
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


USSR and Germany weren't allies. That was a non-aggression pact so that the USSR would stay out of the European war. Which Hitler broke. No one put more into WW2 than the Soviets. Hell they fought bullets with bodies. Flew their war industry far in country to keep them out of German aircraft range.


edit on 2-12-2013 by intrepid because: (no reason given)


NO, it was not a simple non-aggression pact. It was a deliberate and planned dividing up of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union invaded and brutalized their half of Poland and the Baltic States. This was agreed to and planned at the conference.




posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

NavyDoc
The initial alliance with the Nazis was not simple survival--it was an agreement to carve up Poland and the Baltic states. The Soviets complaining about the Nazis is like one thief complaining that his buddy decided to steal his half of the goods after they robbed a house together.


Is it only like that if it's an enemy? Check it:


In 1940 the Soviet Union invaded and annexed the neutral Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. In June 1941, the Soviet governments of the Baltic states carried out mass deportations of "enemies of the people"; as a result, many treated the invading Nazis as liberators when they invaded only a week later.

The Atlantic Charter promised self-determination to peoples deprived of it during the war. The British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, argued for a weaker interpretation of the Charter to permit the Soviet Union to continue to control the Baltic states.[33] In March 1944 the U.S. accepted Churchill's view that the Atlantic Charter did not apply to the Baltic states.


en.wikipedia.org...

Hmm. Looks this the US and UK did the same thing.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

intrepid

NavyDoc
The initial alliance with the Nazis was not simple survival--it was an agreement to carve up Poland and the Baltic states. The Soviets complaining about the Nazis is like one thief complaining that his buddy decided to steal his half of the goods after they robbed a house together.


Is it only like that if it's an enemy? Check it:


In 1940 the Soviet Union invaded and annexed the neutral Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. In June 1941, the Soviet governments of the Baltic states carried out mass deportations of "enemies of the people"; as a result, many treated the invading Nazis as liberators when they invaded only a week later.

The Atlantic Charter promised self-determination to peoples deprived of it during the war. The British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, argued for a weaker interpretation of the Charter to permit the Soviet Union to continue to control the Baltic states.[33] In March 1944 the U.S. accepted Churchill's view that the Atlantic Charter did not apply to the Baltic states.


en.wikipedia.org...

Hmm. Looks this the US and UK did the same thing.


Yeah, it is pretty sad that "fellow travelers" in the US and UK liberated people only if they were invaded and taken over by the Nazis but let them be brutalized by Stalin.

I don't see how your post contradicts my position at all...except that the US and UK do some very #ty things to placate Stalin.

OTOH, unless the US and UK pulled off a Katyn forest massacre or invaded countries to take them over and started the war, you can't say "they did the same thing." Who did we invade in 1939? Poland and the Baltic States were independent countries at peace before Stalin and Hitler made a deal to split them up and take them over. Although I agree that the US and the UK did a #ty thing by leaving those people to Stalin's brutal regime, we didn't invade those countries nor did we take them over, so no, you can't say that this was the same thing.
edit on 2-12-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

NavyDoc
Who did we invade in 1939?


Are you sure you want to go there? US involvement(militarily
) didn't start until 1941. The rest of us were fighting 2 years before that. What about WW1? We were fighting since 1914....not 1917. AND do you want to go into the countries that the US has invaded, we'll go with invaded, manipulated would take to long to catalog, since then? I'm willing to go there if you want. Beware though, I've read sources outside of the US. Might come as a shock.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

intrepid

NavyDoc
Who did we invade in 1939?


Are you sure you want to go there? US involvement(militarily
) didn't start until 1941. The rest of us were fighting 2 years before that. What about WW1? We were fighting since 1914....not 1917. AND do you want to go into the countries that the US has invaded, we'll go with invaded, manipulated would take to long to catalog, since then? I'm willing to go there if you want. Beware though, I've read sources outside of the US. Might come as a shock.


What are you going on about? How does lack of sympathy for the brutal Stalinesque regime translate into any of those other things? The UK did not invade anyone to start off WWII. Neither did Canada nor the US nor Australia nor France. The aggressors who started that war were the Nazis and The Soviets. This is a historical fact. The brutal regimes who starved and tortured and executed millions of people were the Nazis and the Soviets. This also is a historical fact.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

NavyDoc
How does lack of sympathy for the brutal Stalinesque regime translate into any of those other things?


BUT the US and UK established the process of this after the war. Remember. When you point a finger at other, there are 3 pointing back at YOU. If you're going to go "Rah, rah" accept the bad policies too.


The aggressors who started that war were the Nazis and The Soviets. This is a historical fact. The brutal regimes who starved and tortured and executed millions of people were the Nazis and the Soviets. This also is a historical fact.


Is that what they teach in the States? No, really.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

intrepid

NavyDoc
How does lack of sympathy for the brutal Stalinesque regime translate into any of those other things?


BUT the US and UK established the process of this after the war. Remember. When you point a finger at other, there are 3 pointing back at YOU. If you're going to go "Rah, rah" accept the bad policies too.


The aggressors who started that war were the Nazis and The Soviets. This is a historical fact. The brutal regimes who starved and tortured and executed millions of people were the Nazis and the Soviets. This also is a historical fact.


Is that what they teach in the States? No, really.


That's what they teach in most of the Western world. I attended a very detailed lecture on the subject at Sandhurst back when I was a midshipman and yes, officers in the UK are taught the same thing at their military Universities as those in the US--and Australia and Germany . You are one of those people who believe the myth that Americans don't get out much aren't you?

You don't believe that the Nazis and Soviets tortured and murdered millions of people? Are you one of those holocaust deniers?



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Okay, fair enough and you're right on your point here. You and Boymonkey both make good points that I can't argue in good faith about the 'Ugly American' syndrome of people using things like World War II as a debate tool to thump other people over the head with. That is foolish, and geography is literally the ONLY thing that made it true then, to the extent it was. Had America been within bomber range for German or Japanese aircraft without direct threat to their airfields ..for even a few months? Things could have gone very differently for everyone.

You also make a fair point about some of the media and even those who absolutely should know better, making Britain and other Allied nations look like 'second place entries' for effort to win the war.

I will not, generally speaking, credit the Soviets. They weren't fighting for the world, freedom, Mom or Apple Pie. They were fighting for their literal survival and took on tactics damn near as bad as the Germans. Not in area bombardment. EVERY Nation of the war did that. I mean in the direct, Solider-Soldier and Soldier-Civilian Slash and Burn policy the Soviets pursued after Germany pushed within ear shot of Moscow itself. The long fight back to Berlin was a very very ugly one.

Russia wasn't an ally as much as they were an associate with converging interests which made for a mutually beneficial period of cooperation. When the war ended...so did that cooperation, and in some ways, it ended weeks earlier in the final push from both the Soviet and American/British sides moving toward each other.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


AMERICA WON WORLD WAR 2
keep it in mind.....was also the last war theve won....




posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
An interesting thread and to be fair it's been more respectful and appreciative of opposing opinions than most I can recall on this topic.

I appreciate the sacrifice, the effort and the price that all those involved in WWII made regardless of nationality.

It's beyond doubt that the US's entry into the conflict hastened it's end and the bravery of the US servicemen was equal to that of any other nation.
I respect both those men as individuals and the role of the US as a nation.

But they did not win the war alone, many other nations played a vital role.

I've often heard Americans claim that Germany would never have been defeated without the US's entry. That is very debateable.
The tide had turned; Germany had lost The Battle Of Britain and Hitler decided to open up a second front by attacking the USSR.
Eventually The Axis would have been defeated, but it would have taken a damn sight longer to achieve and it would have been at a massive cost to the UK and it's Allies both in regards of numbers and economically.

For two years the UK along with the Anzacs and Canadians stood alone against The Axis powers both holding them at bay and forcing them back in several theatres of war - and getting more than one or two bloody noses along the way.
US entry in 1941 was a great relief the impact of which can not be overestimated.

A previous poster mentioned the atomic bomb and it's use on Japan.
That brought about an early end to The Pacific War.
Hitler was trying to develop the bomb as well - who knows how that would have developed without US involvement.
But it's also worth mentioning that The Manhatten Project was an American led project heavily supported by both the UK and Canada and without the latter two's considerable involvement it would have taken the USA quite a bit longer to develop nuclear capability.

People often talk about the USA joining the war.
Without wanting to sound unappreciative or disrespectful it's worth pointing out that the USA didn't choose to enter the war - they were forced to.
Japan attacked the USA.
Germany had an agreement with Japan that it would declare war on any nation that attacked Japan. For some reason after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour Hitler chose to declare war on the USA.
Prior to this public opinion was quite heavily against any US involvement in the war and were actively supplying both sides.

The USA did not make a moral decision to take a stance against the 'forces of evil' or the 'oppressors of freedom' etc - it was forced to join in.
That might not stand quite right with some people and I understand and appreciate why some may be uncomfortable with that but I'm afraid it is an undeniable historical fact.

It's awful that so many people had to die - and that includes Germans, Japanese, Italians etc - and I think the US has assumed a thankless task in trying to ensure that devestation on such a scale doesn't happen again and for that I think it deserves some recognition and even thanks.
edit on 2/12/13 by Freeborn because: typo



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Any intelligent American knows what Hell the Brits went through.

They also know how hard you guys fought.

I very much like you. I just do not see the disrespect you seem to feel.

Whoever is causing you to think Americans are not loyal admiring friends.

Do not represent any educated people I know.

As for the ugly American.....Entirely different discussion.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I'm not bashing Americans in this post.

Although I think it's dubious who won WWII, America certainly did win the war of justice. According to my late fathers eyewitness account, the US Military had their own version of justice which left an entire station of NSW cops frightened and speechless, post WWII.


* * * * *



I'm 43 years old and my Foster Dad died 12 years ago of a decent age. My foster father was a policeman and began not long after WWII in the Sydney area.

One night when my dad was only a probationary constable, a young Australian woman walked into his station claiming she had been raped by an American Sailor. She gave the police a description of the sailor and area of where it happened and they went down to the area, found the guy and brought him back to the station, arrested him and then notified his commanding officer.

His commanding officer came down to the station with 2 Military Policemen. When the arresting officer told the offending sailors Commanding Officer that the Australian Authorities intend to detain the sailor until the court date, the US Navy Commanding Officer demanded to see both the victim and his sailor.

Back in those days, victims had to face their attacker and point to their attacker and say out loud what the crime was. (Aussie justice huh!)

When the NSW Police brought the Australian woman who had claimed that an American sailor had raped her, together with the offending American sailor, the US Navy CO asked the woman, "Do you claim that this man raped you?" to which she said "Yes".

He then turned toward the sailor and said "Did you rape this woman" to which the sailor said "Yes sir".

The US Commanding officer then went to obtain custody of the sailor.

The Australian police stopped them from taking their sailor back, and asked them what they were doing. The US CO said we are taking him back to face American justice.

This must have terrified the American sailor so much, that he escaped his jailers and ran for the door at full speed.

Before anybody knew what was going on, one of the American MP's (a large Afro-American) drew his pistol and shot his own American sailor dead, right in front of a station full of stunned NSW cops and the victim. He then holstered his firearm and turned to the NSW Police and said, "American justice".

The US Commander said to the NSW police "we'll send somebody over to retrieve the body" and left.

When my dad used to tell this story, he would always say how there was a lack of emotion in their reaction. This was the one thing that bugged my dad till the day he died. It was as if they had just bought a packet of cigarettes and they were in a rush to leave, or they'd miss the train.


* * * * *



I am not trying to beat up on the US Navy or the NSW Police, this is simply me telling you what my father witnessed as a probationary constable in his early years as a NSW Police Officer in Sydney.




edit on 2-12-2013 by Trubeeleever because: grammatical correction



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Trubeeleever
 


I can see why and really can’t blame the USA on this.

You had US troops stationed in a strategically vital allied country and good relations were vital.

Also most importantly the Japanese had been fed a diet of propaganda telling them the Americans would rape and kill everyone in their occupation (hence the mass suicides on Saipan and Okinawa) so if it came out that Americans were raping allied women in Australia it could have the potential to cause a world of pain in the occupied Japanese territory’s that America was trying to sort out.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join