World War II - Page 3

February 14, 2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koloth

The Russian invasion was a big fiasco. Well, mainly because of the weather. The Russian winter killed Hitler's troops as it did Nepoleon's years before. But the Russians had heavy casualties as well. The big difference was that the Russian troops were equipped to handle the weather. While the German troops were not. So in the end, the Russians just pushed on back to Germany. A short synopis I know. The only people who could successfully conquer Russia were the Monguls. They invaded from the east.

Well, in WWI the Germans successfully invaded Russia and it gave up, but then she had to surrender all that was gained with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Russia was politically troubled, though, and you could argue that if the Russians had good, strong leadership and decent equipment they might have actually lasted until 1918.

As for Churchill, well he wasn't that important in the grand scheme of things, more a figurehead of Britain in WWII, who kept Britain in the war. But still, he's considered a wartime hero.

February 14, 2008, 12:54 PM

I don't quite remember how far the Germans got in WWI. I don't think their aim was to conquer Russia. I believe they only declared war on Russia because of the chain of alliance that was created years earlier. The Germans were more than eager to come up with a peace treaty with Russia because they were fighting a two front war, at the time. France did not crumble so easily in that war. In addition, the government of Germany was beginning to crumble as well. Only a few months later the Kaiser had to abdicate. I guess I could get some further info on this, if you want.

OK, I looked up the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Quote:

Terms of the peace treaty
Borders drawn up in Brest-Litovsk

The treaty, signed between Bolshevik Russia on the one side and the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Ottoman Empire (collectively the Central Powers) on the other, marked Russia's final withdrawal from World War I as an enemy of her co-signatories, fulfilling, on unexpectedly humiliating terms, a major goal of the Bolshevik revolution of November 7, 1917.

In all, the treaty took away a third of Russia's population, half of her industry and nine-tenths of her coal mines.[1]

However, Germany's defeat in World War I, marked by the armistice with the Allies on November 11 at Compiègne, made it possible for Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Poland to become truly independent sovereign states, and the designated monarchs had to renounce their thrones.

February 14, 2008, 8:49 PM

Yeah, some confusion as to the terms.
The way the war was ended actually contributed to the rise of the nazis. There was the idea that Germany was stabbed in the back by the SPD, and it could still fight. People actually believed it, and the nazis blamed alot of Germany's problems on the TOV and "November criminals". 6.6 Billion Marks reparations, etc, and of course Jews and Communists. Though the biggest reason they got in power, above all else was the Great Depression, IMO.

Germany could still fight, perhaps, but after the Spring Offensive failed it had no real chance of winning. And it was in chaos towards the end. Public unrest, revolt in Bavaria, mutiny in the
navy.

February 14, 2008, 8:57 PM

Another factor in the turn of both World Wars, was the US entry. Particularly in WWI. But the treaty terms in WWI has been blamed for the great depression. Since it hit a major industrial power the hardest, Germany. Well, WWI could be a blame there too. Since it did destroy several countries. The only country who came out unscathed was the US. In fact, WWI and WWII were responsible for the US rise to a major World Power.

February 15, 2008, 2:33 AM

Quote:

Another factor in the turn of both World Wars, was the US entry. Particularly in WWI

USA did sweet FA in WW1, only joined in 1917, they sent troops over in 1918, and they had to borrow equipment from the allies, when the US entered WW1 it had already been won as such, the joining of the US boosted morale, but didnt do a lot of fighting.

Quote:

Though the biggest reason they got in power, above all else was the Great Depression

depressions and other times when the country is doing terribly means that extremists are very popular, hitler was getting less votes when he was elected chancellor.

Quote:

Well, in WWI the Germans successfully invaded Russia and it gave up

you have over simplyfied that, WW1 was a catalyst for both the russian revolutons, the duma failed to end the war which led to the bolsheviks taking power, who were a lot smarter than the members of the duma, so they ended the war, russia didnt lose as such

February 15, 2008, 12:04 PM

You're right. Two revolutions in a row, Tsar deposed, radical changes, though they still essentially gave up. That's not the main point though. The USSR recovered with strong leadership(and much loss of life), and with the Battle of Stalingrad, drove the Germans all the way back to Berlin by 1945.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

Yeah, times of turmoil give rise to extremists. Perhaps it serves the previous administrations right for not doing enough about the situation.

February 15, 2008, 4:40 PM

Quote:

USA did sweet FA in WW1, only joined in 1917, they sent troops over in 1918, and they had to borrow equipment from the allies, when the US entered WW1 it had already been won as such, the joining of the US boosted morale, but didnt do a lot of fighting.

If the war had already been won, why bother to try to get the US involved? The British worked very hard to get the US in the war. Yes, the US did borrow equipment from the allies. But the US forces helped to win the war. I believe the Western Front was pretty much locked in a deadlock through pretty much of the war. France was pretty much a war zone through the whole war. Which helped to make them an easy target in WWII.

February 18, 2008, 3:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Placebo

USA did sweet FA in WW1, only joined in 1917, they sent troops over in 1918, and they had to borrow equipment from the allies, when the US entered WW1 it had already been won as such, the joining of the US boosted morale, but didnt do a lot of fighting.

Maybe, but at the same time we borrowed huge amounts of money and equipment/weapons off the US in WW1 and WW2 that helped us win the wars which is why we didn't pay it off until last year.

As for WW2 we (British) and France were also at fault for the start of it due to letting Hitler do what he did in which he gained confidence from. We were wrapped around Hitler's finger because we were scared of him, we knew how powerful he was which was why we signed both the 'Munich Agreement' and the 'independent naval agreement' because we had to delay the war in order to be prepared.

We let Hitler build his army and airforce which made him stronger and then we let him walk right in and take the Rhineland which was a demilitarized zone AND let him occupy Czechoslovakia...and we did nothing in which gave Hitler the impression he could do whatever he wanted.