World War II, The anti-US version Options

When will Oberiko and his group stop?

He's won just about every argument he's had, and still keeps going.

He's got the article under constant semi-protection.
He's deleted the American picture from the lead montage, and now there are 2 Soviet, 2 Commonwealth, and 2 Japanese.
The Intro and infobox refuse to say that the war started in 1939, and the 1937/39 debate continues.
The Intro and infobox don't list the major combatants
The major commanders aren't listed anywhere in the article. (For fun, try to find "Eisenhower" or "Zhukov" anywhere on the page using Edit --> Find on this Page.)

The entire article is written in Oberiko's weird wiki-summary style where the proper names of events are hidden within Wiki-links. See the Normandy Invasion coverage, in its entirety:

In June, 1944, the Western Allies invaded northern France

And check my favorite passage:

The Soviets decided to make their stand at Stalingrad which was in the path of the advancing German armies and by mid-November the Germans had nearly taken Stalingrad in bitter street fighting when the Soviets began their second winter counter-offensive, starting with an encirclement of German forces at Stalingrad[94] and an assault on the Rzhev salient near Moscow, though the latter failed disastrously.[95

I've been following the article for years now, and seen people come and go but basically anyone who doesn't agree with Oberiko gets frustrated and leaves. He's not afraid to swing his administrator status and have people blocked who edit war with him or Parsecboy.

I could go through line by line and point out not only anti-Western and anti-American bias, but also outright errors. Take the first line of the Background section:

In the aftermath of World War I, the defeated German Empire signed the Treaty of Versailles.[7]

How does anyone not notice this for months and months? I've been watching it as an experiment to see if Wikipedians will ever get a clue, but, well, you see. Later in the background you'll find out that Germany's goal with Austria was to make it a "satellite state". Both of these statements are referenced too?

Insult to injury: the Holocaust is described as "the systematic purging of Jews in Europe". Well I'm pretty sure English isn't Oberiko's first language, but then why doesn't anyone help him? Oh right, because it's so obvious that the article is Owned that you'd be an idiot to try to help.

I know this breaks my rule of thumb not to help Wikipedia myself, but it is the number one search result and I'm feeling a bit of remorse just letting it fester, with it being around D-Day this week and having just recently talked to guy who was a B-29 pilot based in Saipan. I can't believe a generation of kids might be seeing their first encyclopedia article about WWII on Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Emperor:

Boo hoo, America isn't mentioned enough. There are other countries, too. An encyclopedia article doesn't have to have OMG AMERICA WON THE WAR AND SAVED THE WORLD.

The points about the awkward language are true, though.

In the aftermath of World War I, the defeated German Empire signed the Treaty of Versailles.[7]

How does anyone not notice this for months and months?

Could you help me out here, as I know very little history after 1330 - what is wrong with that?

This article does have a non-American POV, but I did not read anything that would be in my opinion be an error.

It was the Soviets who defeated the Germans. Before June, 1944 that vast majority of the allied forces fighting against Germany were from the Soviet Union and before the Allies opened up another front in Normandy in June, 1944 it was already certain that the Germans were going to be defeated.

This article does have a non-American POV, but I did not read anything that would be in my opinion be an error.

Saying the war started in 1937 is an error, not a POV. Calling the Holocaust "the systematic purging of Jews in Europe" is (to put it mildly) a grotesque error.

This article does have a non-American POV, but I did not read anything that would be in my opinion be an error.

Calling the Holocaust "the systematic purging of Jews in Europe" is (to put it mildly) a grotesque error.

I would contend calling these events a "the systematic purging of Jews in Europe" is a neutral POV, while calling them a Holocaust is POV. The discussion of the correct naming belongs in the Zionist-related debates thread.

I would contend calling these events a "the systematic purging of Jews in Europe" is a neutral POV, while calling them a Holocaust is POV. The discussion of the correct naming belongs in the Zionist-related debates thread.

That's a pretty strong POV. It's the first (or more than the first) step on a nasty slippery slope. And what does it have to do with Zionism?

Could you help me out here, as I know very little history after 1330 - what is wrong with that?

Nothing that I can see, and I used to have a pretty strong amateur interest in all matters WWII.

Saying the war started in 1937 is an error, not a POV.

Were I to wish to be a dingus about this, I'd suggest that there's a POV that says that the 1937 Marco Polo Bridge incident and subsequent occupation of major Chinese cities by the Japanese was really the beginning of the war, and that it's only a western bias that waits until the European powers got involved. That said, according to the NPOV policy as currently written, the article should clearly have 1939 as the starting date.

Were I to wish to be a dingus about this, I'd suggest that there's a POV that says that the 1937 Marco Polo Bridge incident and subsequent occupation of major Chinese cities by the Japanese was really the beginning of the war, and that it's only a western bias that waits until the European powers got involved.

What about the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in 1935?

What about the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in 1935?

Silly Guy - hostilities in Africa count even less than hostilities in Asia.

Saying the war started in 1937 is an error, not a POV.

Were I to wish to be a dingus about this, I'd suggest that there's a POV that says that the 1937 Marco Polo Bridge incident and subsequent occupation of major Chinese cities by the Japanese was really the beginning of the war, and that it's only a western bias that waits until the European powers got involved. That said, according to the NPOV policy as currently written, the article should clearly have 1939 as the starting date.

There is even a POV that says the war began with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. All of these POVs should be included. Wikipedia is at its worst when it promotes an orthodoxy in any discipline.

In the aftermath of World War I, the defeated German Empire signed the Treaty of Versailles.[7]

How does anyone not notice this for months and months?

Could you help me out here, as I know very little history after 1330 - what is wrong with that?

The Kaiser abdicated and the German Empire ceased to exist in November 1918. The Treaty of Versailles was signed over six months later.

The Kaiser abdicated and the German Empire ceased to exist in November 1918. The Treaty of Versailles was signed over six months later.

Point: you.

This article does have a non-American POV, but I did not read anything that would be in my opinion be an error.

It was the Soviets who defeated the Germans. Before June, 1944 that vast majority of the allied forces fighting against Germany were from the Soviet Union and before the Allies opened up another front in Normandy in June, 1944 it was already certain that the Germans were going to be defeated.

Is it not equally obvious that had the war involved only Germany and Russia, leaving Germany access to world trade, that Russia would have been soundly defeated?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Boo hoo, America isn't mentioned enough. There are other countries, too. An encyclopedia article doesn't have to have OMG AMERICA WON THE WAR AND SAVED THE WORLD.

The points about the awkward language are true, though.

Thanks for that. Do you think that non-Americans are better off learning three times that there was fighting around Stalingrad, and that there was a "Rzhev salient" near Moscow, but never knowing that the largest amphibious invasion in history happened in Normandy?

If you really do, then please, go edit the article and make it even more unreadable so people eventually learn to stay away from it and other Wikipedia articles. Google will either drop it from #1 search results or people will stop using Google.

This article does have a non-American POV, but I did not read anything that would be in my opinion be an error.

It was the Soviets who defeated the Germans. Before June, 1944 that vast majority of the allied forces fighting against Germany were from the Soviet Union and before the Allies opened up another front in Normandy in June, 1944 it was already certain that the Germans were going to be defeated.

Is it not equally obvious that had the war involved only Germany and Russia, leaving Germany access to world trade, that Russia would have been soundly defeated?

The Russians get the credit for doing a large fraction of the fighting and most of the military dying in the European theater of WW II. But yes, if the Germans had captured Moscow and the oil fields, it would have been all over for the USSR, and with those oil fields, the Germans would have (temporarily) won the game of RISK.

Until we atom bombed them sometime after August 1945, that is. But that was a wild joker nobody really knew would or could be played, until the previous month.

As it was, the USSR came within a hair's breadth of losing it. And that's with massive Allied material aid, and a fair amount of Allied pin-down of German armies in Africa and Italy, which otherwise would have been decisive in the East. Much as in WW I, it really did take everybody to beat the Germans in "conventional" war.

Unlike WW I, however, if everybody had not been able to win conventionally, the US still would have atom bombed the Germans into glowing embers, no matter how well they'd done, sometime in 1946. The Germans just could not reach the US with anything damaging, and would not have been able to, for some years. They had no aircraft carriers, and their plans for ultralong-range bombers were going to carry what? Nothing of consequence can be carried 3000 miles, except a nuke. But with an atom bomb, you can reach a long way and touch someone. If we assume Germany had totally won in Europe (including against the UK), we could not have used the B-29 against them (no place to base it), and the bombs of 1945 couldn't be dropped from anything else. But smaller bombs dropable from carrier-launched B-25s would have been available within another year, and that would have been it, for Germany. It's well that it didn't end that way, but it could have. And certainly would have.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

If we assume Germany had totally won in Europe (including against the UK), we could not have used the B-29 against them (no place to base it), and the bombs of 1945 couldn't be dropped from anything else. But smaller bombs dropable from carrier-launched B-25s would have been available within another year, and that would have been it, for Germany. It's well that it didn't end that way, but it could have. And certainly would have.

The fire-bombing of Dresden was pretty awful, and as close to atomic weaponry as conventional bombs can be. I drove through there right after the wall fell, and it was still pretty much of a mess, as were the highways which didn't see repairs the entire 50 year period.

Is it not equally obvious that had the war involved only Germany and Russia, leaving Germany access to world trade, that Russia would have been soundly defeated?

You mean if they were the only two countries in the world? Really, you cannot conjecture thus, or you have an entire new framework to add to ex post facto history. The US entry to the war was incredibly important. This was the frame of reference for the first 50 years after the war's end.

If there are anti-American, or US-minimization elements on those articles, my guess is that they are twenty-somethings. There seems to be a sort of generational Euro-youth backlash against the pro-American gratitude of their parents. I've seen that myriad in the past 10 or so years.

This article does have a non-American POV, but I did not read anything that would be in my opinion be an error.

It was the Soviets who defeated the Germans. Before June, 1944 that vast majority of the allied forces fighting against Germany were from the Soviet Union and before the Allies opened up another front in Normandy in June, 1944 it was already certain that the Germans were going to be defeated.

Is it not equally obvious that had the war involved only Germany and Russia, leaving Germany access to world trade, that Russia would have been soundly defeated?

That is not at all obvious.

If we assume Germany had totally won in Europe (including against the UK), we could not have used the B-29 against them (no place to base it), and the bombs of 1945 couldn't be dropped from anything else. But smaller bombs dropable from carrier-launched B-25s would have been available within another year, and that would have been it, for Germany. It's well that it didn't end that way, but it could have. And certainly would have.

The fire-bombing of Dresden was pretty awful, and as close to atomic weaponry as conventional bombs can be. I drove through there right after the wall fell, and it was still pretty much of a mess, as were the highways which didn't see repairs the entire 50 year period.

For sure, but in my alternate history, I'm assuming US is out, as was the premise. Germany doesn't declare war on the US right after Pearl Harbor, so we don't enter the war in Europe (having no excuse). By the time we do, Germany has captured the USSR and subsequently invaded England (or starved it to death). Both events as it was coming within a month of happening, even with the US involved and sending supplies like crazy.

So when it comes time to deal with Germany in 1946 we have no English base from which to mount an invason or firebomb cities (which takes hundreds of airplanes only flying a few hundred miles). Festung Europa really is that, without North Africa or England to launch from. Nobody creates firestorms from across the Atlantic, without nuclear weapons. Even firebombing Tokyo (which, was as bad as Dresden with twice the death toll) took 300 really big B29 planes from (as I remember) Saipan. Couldn't have done that from a carrier, nor from across an ocean. Nah, if you have no base, B-25s from carriers, with A-bombs, is about all you get.

For sure, but in my alternate history, I'm assuming US is out, as was the premise. Germany doesn't declare war on the US right after Pearl Harbor, so we don't enter the war in Europe (having no excuse). By the time we do, Germany has captured the USSR and subsequently invaded England (or starved it to death). Both events as it was coming within a month of happening, even with the US involved and sending supplies like crazy.

There are several other plausible alternate histories. One is that England and France fail to declare war on Germany following the invasion of Poland - it wouldn't be the first time they'd backed down, and really not a bad move, as the war was a disaster for both empires, and of course France was eliminated nearly outright. Then Germany and Russia come to blows on their own schedule.

Another is that England and Germany make a deal following the fall of France, with German withdrawal from Norway, Belgium and France, excepting Alsace-Lorraine, and some kind of protectorate in Denmark and Holland, in exchange for favorable terms of trade within the British Empire - a completely sensible deal on its face which would have benefited all concerned. Then Germany and Russia come to blows on their own schedule.

There are several other plausible alternate histories. One is that England and France fail to declare war on Germany following the invasion of Poland - it wouldn't be the first time they'd backed down, and really not a bad move, as the war was a disaster for both empires, and of course France was eliminated nearly outright. Then Germany and Russia come to blows on their own schedule.

I've got to read Pat Buchannan's Churchill, Hilter, and the Unnecessary War which has that premise. But I've no doubt Barbarosa would still have happened, even with France intact, and then the USSR would have been toast without Allied help. Would the Allies have sat that one out, too? But the Nazis really were evil, so we would have had to fight them eventually. WW II was necessary so long as Hitler was in power. Just a question of when. The longer we wait, the stronger he gets...

By the way, does anyone else think that parts of the intro were cribbed from Encarta?

Encarta: "global military conflict"
Wikipedia: "global military conflict"

Encarta: "...the commitment of nations’ entire human and economic resources, the blurring of the distinction between combatant and noncombatant"
Wikipedia: "erasing the distinction between civil and military resources"

Encarta: "in terms of lives lost and material destruction, was the most devastating war in human history."
Wikipedia: "making it the most costly war in capital as well as lives." (The phrase "human history" has been edited out over time.)

This post has been edited by Emperor:

I've got to read Pat Buchannan's Churchill, Hilter, and the Unnecessary War which has that premise.

Oh Gawd. He wrote a book on that premise? (And you'd read it?)
Why not save the money and... spend it on anything else

But I've no doubt Barbarosa would still have happened, even with France intact, and then the USSR would have been toast without Allied help. Would the Allies have sat that one out, too? But the Nazis really were evil, so we would have had to fight them eventually. WW II was necessary so long as Hitler was in power. Just a question of when. The longer we wait, the stronger he gets...

The US would have been dragged into the war eventually. Both of the major axis powers were on-the-move until they mopped it all up, or until someone stopped them. Eventually, England and France would have been attacked, Poland, or no Poland. From the German perspective, that war was all about overcoming the shame/stimga of signing the economy-crushing Treaty of Versailles (Keynes actually wrote a thesis one how German repayment of the financial obligations was impossible to complete without wiping out the national budget). I forget the exact circumstances, but when France capitulated to Germany after the WW2 invasion, signatory was in the same place, or the same pen, or something meaningful, as in "payback time." Poland was simply easy to attack, and the Germans considered it lost property, i.e. Prussia, as they also did the Sudetenland (then-Czechoslovakia), both of were populated with significant levels of ethnic German. Hitler 'picked off' the countries he could attack more easily, then swung at the big fish later. Recall that Russia was an ally for a while, then got attacked. If Axis-Germany had mowed the world down, and the US (etc) didn't exist, Axis-Germany would have taken out Japan in the end, in a horrific-bizarro-world situation. Axis-Germany had no allies, just temporary partners. (reminds me of some person... oh never mind)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

The fire-bombing of Dresden was pretty awful, and as close to atomic weaponry as conventional bombs can be.

The death toll was substantially greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Any articles involving Eastern European history are an absolute minefield. The Iron Curtain is still very much alive in the minds of many editors.

For another example, have a look at the occasional shitfights that break out at the article on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Here, editors from ex-Soviet states still stick to the near 50-year USSR doctrine that the Pact never existed and was a Western fabrication.

But for the worst example of strawman racial drama that I have seen, see the "humourous" http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Poles_are_evil. The fact that it is on Meta and not on WP makes it totally independent from WP - at least, that's what some Polish editors say when the page is attacked after said editors refer to it as the ultimate defence against any objections (however slight) come their way.

The death toll was substantially greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes. That doesn't get a lot of historical attention as it is somehow overshadowed by other events (Normandy, atom bombs, etc). I saw a documentary on it for the first time when living in Europe, and I thought I'd read tons on WW2 and seen tons of biopics when back in the US. I had no idea what the firebombing did there. Apparently anyone in some certain radius got fried. There was simply no place to hide. If you were in a bomb shelter underground, that wasn't safe. The only way to survive was to not be there, period.

When I drove through there immediately post wall-came-down, the town was so undeveloped that there was only one hotel for like 400 dollars a night, and really nothing else in terms of small hotels. And the city was still a mess. I've been back and it's totally different. The post-unification German government poured millions into reconstruction in the past 10 years.

Here, editors from ex-Soviet states still stick to the near 50-year USSR doctrine that the Pact never existed and was a Western fabrication.

Thats strange. I wonder what is the editor demographic of that ilk. I've never met an Eastern European who had that position. Maybe a Russian or two, but they were hooked in to the old appararichnik system by family (usually parents), and they were somehow obligated to speak so, and so arguing with them would have been almost rude. You know, those just-nod-and-smile-why-argue conversations.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Yes. That doesn't get a lot of historical attention as it is somehow overshadowed by other events (Normandy, atom bombs, etc). I saw a documentary on it for the first time when living in Europe, and I thought I'd read tons on WW2 and seen tons of biopics when back in the US. I had no idea what the firebombing did there. Apparently anyone in some certain radius got fried. There was simply no place to hide. If you were in a bomb shelter underground, that wasn't safe. The only way to survive was to not be there, period.

A major reason why there is little attention to this in the Allied countries is because it was a deliberate attack on a civilian population, and widespread recognition of that would sully the idea that our side was always fighting the good fight.

Thats strange. I wonder what is the editor demographic of that ilk. I've never met an Eastern European who had that position. Maybe a Russian or two, but they were hooked in to the old appararichnik system by family (usually parents), and they were somehow obligated to speak so, and so arguing with them would have been almost rude. You know, those just-nod-and-smile-why-argue conversations.

Don't get me wrong. Not all Eastern European editors are like that. But you know how it is with WP: those who yell the loudest tend to outlast all the sensible editors, especially when under the protective wing of an admin or two.

A major reason why there is little attention to this in the Allied countries is because it was a deliberate attack on a civilian population, and widespread recognition of that would sully the idea that our side was always fighting the good fight.

Yes, but by that metric, Hiroshima and Nagasaki should also be unmentionables. I had the impression that at that point, strategic attacks such as the three aforementioned were not politically-incorrect, given the vast desire to end the war. Or.... if that's true, then why were N and H ok, but D not?

Don't get me wrong. Not all Eastern European editors are like that. But you know how it is with WP: those who yell the loudest tend to outlast all the sensible editors, especially when under the protective wing of an admin or two.

That and the "all the whackjobs tend to gravitate to the internet because they have no social skills (friends, family, etc)" theory mesh nicely. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

The death toll was substantially greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes. That doesn't get a lot of historical attention as it is somehow overshadowed by other events (Normandy, atom bombs, etc). I saw a documentary on it for the first time when living in Europe, and I thought I'd read tons on WW2 and seen tons of biopics when back in the US. I had no idea what the firebombing did there. Apparently anyone in some certain radius got fried. There was simply no place to hide. If you were in a bomb shelter underground, that wasn't safe. The only way to survive was to not be there, period.

The most horrifying feature was that Dresden had no military significance. The bombing was carried out as a macabre experiment in psychological warfare, by the Strategic Bombing Survey (see this article.)

A major reason why there is little attention to this in the Allied countries is because it was a deliberate attack on a civilian population, and widespread recognition of that would sully the idea that our side was always fighting the good fight.

Yes, but by that metric, Hiroshima and Nagasaki should also be unmentionables. I had the impression that at that point, strategic attacks such as the three aforementioned were not politically-incorrect, given the vast desire to end the war. Or.... if that's true, then why were N and H ok, but D not?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "OK," either. The emperor of Japan had already made a back-channel offer of surrender, under the same terms that were later agreed to on the USS Missouri. His overture was rebuffed, because a faction in the civilian leadership of the US was eager to try out atomic weapons, on civilian targets, in order to create a certain psychological effect on the rest of the world.

Oh.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

As an interesting note, the US Veterans Association a few years ago managed to stop the Smithsonian from presenting an exhibition on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, for fear that displaying the true carnage that was unleashed by the bombings would sully their good name. I haven't looked at the WP article on the bombings, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar movements were afoot there too.

Go to Hiroshima one day and have a look around. I highly recommend it.

This post has been edited by House of Cards:

As an interesting note, the US Veterans Association a few years ago managed to stop the Smithsonian from presenting an exhibition on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, for fear that displaying the true carnage that was unleashed by the bombings would sully their good name. I haven't looked at the WP article on the bombings, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar movements were afoot there too.

Go to Hiroshima one day and have a look around. I highly recommend it.

Carnage was the point.

Ah, sorry. Not just the carnage, but everything else that involved the bombing: the desire to test the weapons on a civilian population, the total lack of necessity of the bombing in terms of finishing the war, the long-lasting effects of the bombing, etc.

This post has been edited by House of Cards:

The death toll was substantially greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes. That doesn't get a lot of historical attention as it is somehow overshadowed by other events (Normandy, atom bombs, etc). I saw a documentary on it for the first time when living in Europe, and I thought I'd read tons on WW2 and seen tons of biopics when back in the US. I had no idea what the firebombing did there. Apparently anyone in some certain radius got fried. There was simply no place to hide. If you were in a bomb shelter underground, that wasn't safe. The only way to survive was to not be there, period.

The most horrifying feature was that Dresden had no military significance. The bombing was carried out as a macabre experiment in psychological warfare, by the Strategic Bombing Survey (see this article.)

A major reason why there is little attention to this in the Allied countries is because it was a deliberate attack on a civilian population, and widespread recognition of that would sully the idea that our side was always fighting the good fight.

Yes, but by that metric, Hiroshima and Nagasaki should also be unmentionables. I had the impression that at that point, strategic attacks such as the three aforementioned were not politically-incorrect, given the vast desire to end the war. Or.... if that's true, then why were N and H ok, but D not?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "OK," either. The emperor of Japan had already made a back-channel offer of surrender, under the same terms that were later agreed to on the USS Missouri. His overture was rebuffed, because a faction in the civilian leadership of the US was eager to try out atomic weapons, on civilian targets, in order to create a certain psychological effect on the rest of the world.

I'm sure I have heard it suggested (is that vague enough sourcing?!) that one of Hitler's biggest errors was the switch to the wide-scale bombing of Britain, which freed Churchill from any ethical concerns he had.

My father was in Burma*, and after a long wait in India and a bout of malaria as well, eventually went into action against the Japanese. The next stop was Malaya and they were due to land on the beaches a few days after The Bomb was dropped. He is certain, having seen the sandy beaches with trees lining the shore, that it would have been an unsurvivable experience for most. He therefore believes that the dropping of the bomb, even if it only shortened the war by a few days, saved his life and those of his comrades. He landed those few days later as a member of an occupying force.


*As it was known then (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

The most horrifying feature was that Dresden had no military significance. The bombing was carried out as a macabre experiment in psychological warfare, by the Strategic Bombing Survey (see this article.)

Sorry, I stopped reading that article when I saw this: "hit the nation's that might sponsor them". What motivates writers to put in a possessive apostrophe when they simply mean to construct a plural noun?

Not so fast on Dresden. It all depends on what you consider "military significance". That is disputed. I'm not trying to gloss over the human disgraces that took place at Allied hands during World War II -- quite the contrary. But it is also worth considering that some portion of the Dresden story is based on a heap of post-war mythology.

That being said, my undergraduate honors thesis on the broader subject is available for reading if you're ever in the stacks at Woodruff Library at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. (U4.5 .K65) Maybe you can get it through inter-library loan. It's only "magna" cum laude quality, though. Don't knock yourself out.

Not so fast on Dresden. It all depends on what you consider "military significance". That is disputed. I'm not trying to gloss over the human disgraces that took place at Allied hands during World War II -- quite the contrary. But it is also worth considering that some portion of the Dresden story is based on a heap of post-war mythology.

All cities almost everywhere during the war had some military significance. It's a question of proportion.

From that link: He also notes that Dresden was a hotbed of Nazi sympathy and anti-Semitism. Is that really a good enough excuse to firebomb it? Going only from that article, the whole thing sounds too apologetic to me.

There is some post-war mythology involved, for sure. But don't forget that some of it comes from the Allied side, who excuse Dresden with "well, they deserved it"

As I recall, wasn't Dresden firebombed a] in return for Coventry, which was both revenge and as a moral boost for the British people, and b] as a demonstration of power?

This post has been edited by Neil:

As I recall, wasn't Dresden firebombed a] in return for Coventry, which was both revenge and as a moral boost for the British people, and b] as a demonstration of power?

There was a lot of revenge and moral justification happening during WW2.

I should also add that, based on the military and civilian death tolls on Okinawa (the Japanese lost 90,000 troops on an island only 460 square miles in area), the U.S. estimates for Japanese home island casualties (were the war brought to a conclusion through traditional amphibious invasion (Operation DOWNFALL)) numbered at least in the several millions. Certainly far fewer died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

All of it was sad and certainly needless, as over 60 years of peace and alliance between the US and Japan since have proven.

I am always troubled by the equating of Hitler and Stalin. It is often stated that Stalin's forced collectivization and purges resulted in as many deaths to Soviet citizens as Hilter's invasion. I'm not certain of the numbers but that does seem possible. What it ignores is that Hilter failed in carrying out his intentions and Stalin succeeded. If Hitler had prevailed the Slavic people would have faced outright genocide, with the entire area east of the Urals depopulated and resettled with Germans. This would have meant losses an entire order of magnitude greater than those suffered. The Soviet narrative of the Great Patriotic War has much truth in it. The Slavic peoples owe a great debt to the Red Army, irrespective of the role of Stalin's regime in any other matters.

Google and Yahoo think that Wikipedia has the best page regarding World War II available.

The most horrifying feature was that Dresden had no military significance. The bombing was carried out as a macabre experiment in psychological warfare, by the Strategic Bombing Survey (see this article.)

Sorry, I stopped reading that article when I saw this: "hit the nation's that might sponsor them". What motivates writers to put in a possessive apostrophe when they simply mean to construct a plural noun?

I agree, that sucks. The original article is not available on the web -- the site to which I linked is someone's hasty transcription. I found a more grammatically acceptable transcription of the article on other sites that were unfortunately too wacky and conspirophilic for my liking.

I should also add that, based on the military and civilian death tolls on Okinawa (the Japanese lost 90,000 troops on an island only 460 square miles in area), the U.S. estimates for Japanese home island casualties (were the war brought to a conclusion through traditional amphibious invasion (Operation DOWNFALL)) numbered at least in the several millions. Certainly far fewer died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is the common rationalization, and it is utter fraudulent, because no amphibious invasion was necessary. Japan was blockaded tighter than a drum -- all the allies had to do was wait as Japan ran out of supplies. However, waiting was also unnecessary, because the offer of surrender had already been made. Here is another article that is germane to the topic, this time with good grammar.

As an interesting note, the US Veterans Association a few years ago managed to stop the Smithsonian from presenting an exhibition on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, for fear that displaying the true carnage that was unleashed by the bombings would sully their good name. I haven't looked at the WP article on the bombings, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar movements were afoot there too.

Do you have an article on this? I'd be horrified if a group tried to do such a thing--I'd never heard of this (the Smithsonian incident, nothing on WP)

As an interesting note, the US Veterans Association a few years ago managed to stop the Smithsonian from presenting an exhibition on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, for fear that displaying the true carnage that was unleashed by the bombings would sully their good name. I haven't looked at the WP article on the bombings, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar movements were afoot there too.

Do you have an article on this? I'd be horrified if a group tried to do such a thing--I'd never heard of this (the Smithsonian incident, nothing on WP)

Here's a few links (the exhibition wasn't completely stopped, but massively whitewashed)

• A rather long article
• NY times
• A book abour the ordeal
• A brief mention on WP

This is not the only time that the Smithsonian has crumbled under pressure. The same happened when they were preparing an exhibition discussing climate change, for example.

I should also add that, based on the military and civilian death tolls on Okinawa (the Japanese lost 90,000 troops on an island only 460 square miles in area), the U.S. estimates for Japanese home island casualties (were the war brought to a conclusion through traditional amphibious invasion (Operation DOWNFALL)) numbered at least in the several millions. Certainly far fewer died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is the common rationalization, and it is utter fraudulent, because no amphibious invasion was necessary. Japan was blockaded tighter than a drum -- all the allies had to do was wait as Japan ran out of supplies. However, waiting was also unnecessary, because the offer of surrender had already been made. Here is another article that is germane to the topic, this time with good grammar.

There is a pretty good Wikipedia article on all this, BTW, called Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The short answer is that starving Japan to death was not very tennable while they held thousands of US prisoners (if you think they'd have starved, while feeding prisoners-- you have the wrong guys in mind). Japan also was in control of hundreds of thousands of what were essentially slave laborers in various terrritories they still controlled: were we to go around all these, one-by-one, and take them against suicidical defenses, while each of the others starved?

Perhaps atomic bombing per se was not necessary-- we could have simply continued to firebomb Japan to nothing, just as effectively. But the difference is being burned to death slowly or more quickly, or else just as fast. There are a few effects of radiation that are unique, but none of them are particularly more horrible than other effects of war. Being one of the the thousands of Chinese woman in Nanking who had a Japanese soldier thrust a bamboo stake into your vagina (a standard procedure) must have been unique also, if you survived it. But how do you compare one type of unique post-war injury with another?

One more thing needs to be noted. I happen to believe that since empathy is distance-dependent, that there's a difference between somebody who kills an infant child with a bomb, far away, at the press of a button, and a man who bayonets an infant like a pillow, up close and personal. The reason is that more human inhibitions need be overcome, in the second case (even hungry housecats and wolves will stand by while their young eat-- and not only their own personal young; calling the Japanese soldiers "animals" in such circumstances is an insult to many animals). The Japanese attrocities of WW II have far more of the second-case character, if you know anything of their treatment of the Chinese, and their live-human bio-warfare and munitions experiments, using prisoners (which outclassed in scale, and equaled in inhumanity, anything Mengele ever did). So what does one do in the face of that?

By all means, let us have an exhibition of atomic bombings and aftermath. But some % of the exhibit needs to be devoted to putting them into context, without which they are meaningless. For example, along with your photos of radiation burned civilians, keep in mind this image of a Japanese soldier about to decapitate a captured Austalian prisoner of war, just for the hell of it.

(IMG:http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/allies-bomb-northern-nazi-germany-48.jpg)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

Any articles involving Eastern European history are an absolute minefield. The Iron Curtain is still very much alive in the minds of many editors.

For another example, have a look at the occasional shitfights that break out at the article on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Here, editors from ex-Soviet states still stick to the near 50-year USSR doctrine that the Pact never existed and was a Western fabrication.

This is preposterous. Nobody claims that there was no pact. The dispute is whether it was a non-aggression pact (an agreement between enemies that they would not attack each other) or actually some kind of alliance. The latter position is advanced by many who try to use the pact as a means of vilifying Stalin and/or the Soviet Union.

This is preposterous. Nobody claims that there was no pact. The dispute is whether it was a non-aggression pact (an agreement between enemies that they would not attack each other) or actually some kind of alliance. The latter position is advanced by many who try to use the pact as a means of vilifying Stalin and/or the Soviet Union.

That said, Poland was dismembered in a remarkably coordinated way for a couple of nations who merely had a non-agression pact with each other, and which was in no way an alliance.

And why would anybody need the pact to villify Stalin, when they merely need to point to byproducts of it, like the Katyn massacre?

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

I should also add that, based on the military and civilian death tolls on Okinawa (the Japanese lost 90,000 troops on an island only 460 square miles in area), the U.S. estimates for Japanese home island casualties (were the war brought to a conclusion through traditional amphibious invasion (Operation DOWNFALL)) numbered at least in the several millions. Certainly far fewer died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is the common rationalization, and it is utter fraudulent, because no amphibious invasion was necessary. Japan was blockaded tighter than a drum -- all the allies had to do was wait as Japan ran out of supplies. However, waiting was also unnecessary, because the offer of surrender had already been made. Here is another article that is germane to the topic, this time with good grammar.

The short answer is that starving Japan to death was not very tennable while they held thousands of US prisoners

Well, as I mentioned, this point is moot, because the offer of surrender had already been made.

Perhaps atomic bombing per se was not necessary-- we could have simply continued to firebomb Japan to nothing, just as effectively.

Military leaders proposed dropping a nuke on an uninhabited island, and inviting Japanese leaders to observe, as a "warning shot." But civilian leaders, who wanted to deliver a traumatic psychological shock to the entire planet, insisted that the bombs be dropped on civilians.

Well, as I mentioned, this point is moot, because the offer of surrender had already been made.

Well, as I didn't mention, that offer had too many conditionals in it for the US to accept. The US had publically committed on Dec. 8, 1941 to an unconditional surrender. Keeping one's word publically in ONE war helps to prevent the NEXT war. Those people who claim that the US ended up accepting basically the same offer, are just wrong. The US accepted an offer whereby surrender was unconditional, but it was understood (under the table) that the Emperor would be allowed to retain title and role at total U.S. sufference. What the Japanese had offered was that this would be a matter of negociated treaty. Just a matter of face-saving, you say? Yes, but an important matter for those who were willing to start and end wars themselves over such quibbles. It was felt as necessary to break Japan psychologically as physically. Else, where is the guarantee they won't decide they the right to do it again?

Perhaps atomic bombing per se was not necessary-- we could have simply continued to firebomb Japan to nothing, just as effectively.

Military leaders proposed dropping a nuke on an uninhabited island, and inviting Japanese leaders to observe, as a "warning shot." But civilian leaders, who wanted to deliver a traumatic psychological shock to the entire planet, insisted that the bombs be dropped on civilians.

Hmmm, due to practical considerations, there was never much of a real push for a demo-bomb by anybody, much less generalized "military leaders." Gen. LeMay, who was in charge of the bombing, was gungho for the atom bomb. But of course it wasn't up to him. The Targetting Committee considered various options but the real problem is how do you demo an atom bomb? You can blow up all the islands you like, but until you blow up a city, there's no demoing what it will do to a city. A flash and a bang are all you get, otherwise.

The other big problem with a demo bomb is what happens if you set it up to demo it, and it doesn't work? They'd only tested one plutonium bomb, and only had enough plutonium for one more (the demo) and more would not show up for a few more weeks. So this would mean 3 weeks' delay. They'd never tested the uranium bomb and would never have enough uranium for another one, so that was out as a demo. So that causes a problem. The people at the time thought under the circumstances, and with not a lot of confidence, it was best to drop things without warning, and if they don't work, say nothing about that little smoke-poof in the sky, and that tiny bit of radiation that shows up later.

As for civilian vs. military targets, there weren't any isolated military targets worthy of a bomb left in the Japanese empire, in late 1945. The Nagasaki bomb did take out the torpedo works which had produced the bombs which struck the ships at Pearl Harbor. And there was a troop garrison destroyed in Hiroshima, right at the hypocenter. But the Japanese had mixed military and civilian production together most carefully. Had they deliberately separated it, those who didn't follow the line would have been more culpable. They chose not to. Their problem. You don't use your own civilians as live-hostages, then complain that they're collateral damage.

One option that NOBODY thought of at the time (it's mine, he said modestly (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif) ), but which would have given everybody what they wanted, is that the bomb could have been fully demoed by dropping it at the waterline of a harbor, thereby taking out a half-circle. This would have provided full demo (since the Japanese were fully capable of multiplying by two) at the same time as halving the casualties. But as I say, I can't say that this was rejected, because it just was never brought up. Even Oppenheimer, who was on the targetting committee (and who did recommend the bomb be used on on a city), didn't think of doing it this way. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

That said, Hiroshima served as a demo, did it not? The Japanese still said "no," even then. So as it turns out, any lesser demo would have been totally wasted.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

As I recall, wasn't Dresden firebombed a] in return for Coventry, which was both revenge and as a moral boost for the British people, and b] as a demonstration of power?

There was a lot of revenge and moral justification happening during WW2.

I should also add that, based on the military and civilian death tolls on Okinawa (the Japanese lost 90,000 troops on an island only 460 square miles in area), the U.S. estimates for Japanese home island casualties (were the war brought to a conclusion through traditional amphibious invasion (Operation DOWNFALL)) numbered at least in the several millions. Certainly far fewer died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

All of it was sad and certainly needless, as over 60 years of peace and alliance between the US and Japan since have proven.

Greg, don't be an idiot. That's what humans do; they form groups and kill each other to take their stuff. It's the history of the human race. And if anyone thinks humans are different and past all that now, then they are double idiots.

As I recall, wasn't Dresden firebombed a] in return for Coventry, which was both revenge and as a moral boost for the British people, and b] as a demonstration of power?

There was a lot of revenge and moral justification happening during WW2.

I should also add that, based on the military and civilian death tolls on Okinawa (the Japanese lost 90,000 troops on an island only 460 square miles in area), the U.S. estimates for Japanese home island casualties (were the war brought to a conclusion through traditional amphibious invasion (Operation DOWNFALL)) numbered at least in the several millions. Certainly far fewer died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

All of it was sad and certainly needless, as over 60 years of peace and alliance between the US and Japan since have proven.

Greg, don't be an idiot. That's what humans do; they form groups and kill each other to take their stuff. It's the history of the human race. And if anyone thinks humans are different and past all that now, then they are double idiots.

That's what humans do under certain conditions. Changed conditions mean changed behavior. Despite being particularly vulnerable due to being a double idiot, I've never had anyone try to kill me to take my stuff. As a tendency, it appears to be diminishing.

Since everyone is sharing, had I been Truman I would have ordered both bombings at exactly the same times in exactly the same way. His reasons have been more than adequately explained. Some people just don't want to listen to them.

Now why is it that Wikipedia can't keep the revisionists from continually pooping all over its articles?

Since everyone is sharing, had I been Truman I would have ordered both bombings at exactly the same times in exactly the same way. His reasons have been more than adequately explained. Some people just don't want to listen to them.

Now why is it that Wikipedia can't keep the revisionists from continually pooping all over its articles?

The "revisionists" or fringe theorists have no other platform except Wikipedia. It's the only place where their views will be heard and be taken seriously... and that is no compliment to Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Point of order: All historians are "revisionist" to some degree. If they kept repeating things already said over and over again, there would be no new PhDs or theses being earned. But all academics have to answer for their theses or ideas by the public and other academics, while Wikipedians do not have to answer to anybody. If they have enough social support and social currency via the WP Community, they'll survive any argument against their fringe ideas and live to carry on their agenda on WP another day.

In fact, I remember when Lir was here, he told us a story about his professor rejecting his thesis because Wikipedia had a different take on Operation Torch (the American landings in Africa during WWII). Poor Lir, poor academia. Despite the disclaimers, people just take WP's information as true and never bother considering that it could be wrong.

That's what humans do under certain conditions. Changed conditions mean changed behavior. Despite being particularly vulnerable due to being a double idiot, I've never had anyone try to kill me to take my stuff. As a tendency, it appears to be diminishing.

Maybe it's been the other way around for you; maybe your standard of living is based, in part, on cheap raw materials flowing our way that was secured through warfare, or the threat of force. The Pax Americana hasn't been without bloodshed, it's just a calm in the storm. A few generations of peace is all any large civilization seems to be able to handle.

That's what humans do under certain conditions. Changed conditions mean changed behavior. Despite being particularly vulnerable due to being a double idiot, I've never had anyone try to kill me to take my stuff. As a tendency, it appears to be diminishing.

Maybe it's been the other way around for you; maybe your standard of living is based, in part, on cheap raw materials flowing our way that was secured through warfare, or the threat of force. The Pax Americana hasn't been without bloodshed, it's just a calm in the storm. A few generations of peace is all any large civilization seems to be able to handle.

Actually, I think capitalism and imperialism are all that are keeping us from having world peace right now. Progress and cooperation are far more fundamental to the human condition than warfare. Every human being should be insulted at the notion that killing and pillage is just "what humans do".

Actually, I think capitalism and imperialism are all that are keeping us from having world peace right now. Progress and cooperation are far more fundamental to the human condition than warfare. Every human being should be insulted at the notion that killing and pillage is just "what humans do".

A false dichotomy: cooperation with and generosity towards one's own kin - in primitivity this is equivalent to an ethnic group, plus whichever other groups, if any, with whom one trades wives - and hostility towards everyone else is the norm.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Actually, I think capitalism and imperialism are all that are keeping us from having world peace right now. Progress and cooperation are far more fundamental to the human condition than warfare. Every human being should be insulted at the notion that killing and pillage is just "what humans do".

A false dichotomy: cooperation with and generosity towards one's own kin - in primitivity this is equivalent to an ethnic group, plus whichever other groups, if any, with whom one trades wives - and hostility towards everyone else is the norm.

I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that is the "natural" state of mankind? We used to rub sticks together to make fire, too, but as time passes we figure out better ways of doing things.

A false dichotomy: cooperation with and generosity towards one's own kin - in primitivity this is equivalent to an ethnic group, plus whichever other groups, if any, with whom one trades wives - and hostility towards everyone else is the norm.

I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that is the "natural" state of mankind? We used to rub sticks together to make fire, too, but as time passes we figure out better ways of doing things.

Yes, and we've figured out better ways of killing each other (tell me that's not true!), and we've figured out better ways of stealing (enron, for example)...

Actually, I think capitalism and imperialism are all that are keeping us from having world peace right now. Progress and cooperation are far more fundamental to the human condition than warfare. Every human being should be insulted at the notion that killing and pillage is just "what humans do".

A false dichotomy: cooperation with and generosity towards one's own kin - in primitivity this is equivalent to an ethnic group, plus whichever other groups, if any, with whom one trades wives - and hostility towards everyone else is the norm.

I have to agree with this. And I believe that any groups of people that live among each other but forbid intermarriage eventually end up trying to kill each other - Palestine/Israeli, Irish Catholics/Protestants, Hutu/Tutsi, American Blacks/Whites (until recently). It's just the way we're wired.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that is the "natural" state of mankind? We used to rub sticks together to make fire, too, but as time passes we figure out better ways of doing things.

And how does this work? Through the development of ideology and a specialist class of propagandists to promulgate it, the development of law and a specialist class of its enforcers who, let's not forget, use violence to ensure that others don't - without their permission, that is. This is not people becoming more peaceful, but the imposition of hegemony. One indispensable element of these systems is the appropriation of surplus wealth through the threat of force - taxation. Basically a protection racket.

Today, the propagation of ideology consumes a greater portion of production than ever. This is because the things people are supposed to do are further and further from what we will naturally do. The length of childhood has been doubled, for example. The state pours vast resources in order to ensure that children are socialized to do various things - sit in chairs for long periods of time, staring at and interpreting symbols, for example. And not hitting one another. Even so, people still resort to violence, because neither the inculcation of propaganda nor the power of the state is total. Take the police away for a year - how would society change? Actually, we know the answer - small local groups form in the manner of street gangs, protecting one another and behaving hostilely towards outsiders…

…and we're back to normal.

Every human being should be insulted at the notion that killing and pillage is just "what humans do".

Homo Politicus has been killing off his fellow adversaries and enemies at the rate of about 2 million violent deaths per year since the beginning of the 20th Century. Note, by comparison, that the Holocaust claimed 6 million lives in 3 years. In other words an unabated distributed Holocaust has been underway on Planet Earth for the past hundred years.

It's just the way we're wired.

It's the way Homo Politicus is wired. Homo Scientificus and Homo Ludens are wired differently.

The "revisionists" or fringe theorists have no other platform except Wikipedia. It's the only place where their views will be heard and be taken seriously... and that is no compliment to Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Point of order: All historians are "revisionist" to some degree. If they kept repeating things already said over and over again, there would be no new PhDs or theses being earned. But all academics have to answer for their theses or ideas by the public and other academics, while Wikipedians do not have to answer to anybody. If they have enough social support and social currency via the WP Community, they'll survive any argument against their fringe ideas and live to carry on their agenda on WP another day.

Yes they have to keep themselves in business, I suppose. Still, I'd have more respect for the great thinkers on Wikipedia if they caught doozies like this one:

Berlin was almost 900 miles (1,400 km) from the Western Front; no Allied soldier had ever set foot on German soil in anger, and the Kaiser's armies retreated from the battlefield in good order. Thus many Germans, including Adolf Hitler, were convinced their armies had not really been defeated.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=218411348 (bold emphasis is mine)

For those unfamiliar with WWI, angry Allied soldiers actually did invade parts of Germany during the war.

Of course it's easier to obsess about Allied bombings and to social network and so forth, rather than correct factual errors.

Of course it's easier to obsess about Allied bombings and to social network and so forth, rather than correct factual errors.

That's why it falls to you, O Emperor, to correct them for us.

Say, I only realized now that you and Hirohito share a first name.

As an interesting note, the US Veterans Association a few years ago managed to stop the Smithsonian from presenting an exhibition on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, for fear that displaying the true carnage that was unleashed by the bombings would sully their good name. I haven't looked at the WP article on the bombings, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar movements were afoot there too.

Go to Hiroshima one day and have a look around. I highly recommend it.

I plan to.

There is a small museum in the town of Los Alamos New Mexico that few people know about or visit. It includes a history section that features photographs of the devastation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Berlin was almost 900 miles (1,400 km) from the Western Front; no Allied soldier had ever set foot on German soil in anger, and the Kaiser's armies retreated from the battlefield in good order. Thus many Germans, including Adolf Hitler, were convinced their armies had not really been defeated.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=218411348 (bold emphasis is mine)

For those unfamiliar with WWI, angry Allied soldiers actually did invade parts of Germany during the war.

Of course it's easier to obsess about Allied bombings and to social network and so forth, rather than correct factual errors.

Got the point about the misstatement of fact, but....

What's with the "anger" comment? Since when and where and how is soldier-mood-reading a part of war history?


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

What's with the "anger" comment? Since when and where and how is soldier-mood-reading a part of war history?

Their words, not mine.

By they way, Wikipedians are really rough on Groener. See also: Ebert-Groener Pact.

Groener, who was second-in-command of the German Army and who had known Ebert from the soldier's days in charge of war production, contacted the socialist leader that evening. The two men concluded the so-called Ebert-Groener pact, which was to remain secret for a number of years. For his part of the pact, Ebert agreed to suppress the Bolshevik-led revolution and maintain the defeated Army's role as one of the pillars of the German state; Groener in turn agreed to throw the weight of the still-considerable Army behind the new government. For this act, Groener earned the enmity of much of the military leadership, much of whom sought the retention of the monarchy.

If my memory serves, Kaiser Wilhelm actually travelled to meet with a group of "military leadership" to see if he had any support. They had their chance to seek the retention of the monarchy, but no one spoke up. Groener must be a Nazi scapegoat or something.

Now look at the intro:

World War II or the Second World War[1] was a global military conflict, the joining of what had initially been two separate conflicts. It first began in Asia in 1937 as the Second Sino-Japanese War; the other began in Europe in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland.

Putting aside all content disputes for a second, how about the writing quality?

The best part: the owners have frozen the intro while mediation about the start date is underway. Could be changed tomorrow, could be never.

In March 1939 Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia...

source

In March 1939 Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia...

source

That's the way I remember it. "Rump" meaning what was leftover, after the Sudetenland was annexed in Oct. 1938 under the Sept. 1938 Munich Agreement "Peace in our time" thing. When Germany took the rest the next Spring, a little-mentioned event in history, the cards for WW II were on the table. England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready. It took 6 months for reality to sink in, so that with the invasion of Poland, reaction was immediate.

That's the way I remember it. "Rump" meaning what was leftover, after the Sudetenland was annexed in Oct. 1938 under the Sept. 1938 Munich Agreement "Peace in our time" thing. When Germany took the rest the next Spring, a little-mentioned event in history, the cards for WW II were on the table. England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready. It took 6 months for reality to sink in, so that with the invasion of Poland, reaction was immediate.

"invaded the rump"? Come on!

I remember the very first time I looked at WP I read a heated discussion on Hitler's homosexuality on a talk page which went on for ages and ages. Laughed myself silly....must find that again one day....

This post has been edited by Casliber:

England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready.

Ahem. That's "Britain". Or the "UK". Or even the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" for those who love to type. {Sniff}.

"invaded the rump"? Come on!

No no no. You're being selective in your quoting. That's "Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia". See WWII rump states. Yes, "rump" is an immensely funny word, but dirty people see dirty things, I'm told.

No no no. You're being selective in your quoting. That's "Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia". See WWII rump states. Yes, "rump" is an immensely funny word, but dirty people see dirty things, I'm told.

No, you're being selective. Read this thread back to yesterday.

That's the way I remember it. "Rump" meaning what was leftover, after the Sudetenland was annexed in Oct. 1938 under the Sept. 1938 Munich Agreement "Peace in our time" thing. When Germany took the rest the next Spring, a little-mentioned event in history, the cards for WW II were on the table. England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready. It took 6 months for reality to sink in, so that with the invasion of Poland, reaction was immediate.

"invaded the rump"? Come on!

I advise you never to go looking for history on England's Rump Parliament. Your vulgar head will explode also.

And since this was 17th century and pre-Queen Anne, it really was just the parliament of "England" then. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

"This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."

In March 1939 Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia...

source

That's the way I remember it. "Rump" meaning what was leftover, after the Sudetenland was annexed in Oct. 1938 under the Sept. 1938 Munich Agreement "Peace in our time" thing. When Germany took the rest the next Spring, a little-mentioned event in history, the cards for WW II were on the table. England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready. It took 6 months for reality to sink in, so that with the invasion of Poland, reaction was immediate. (LHvU underlining.)

Great Britain (as it was then) went onto a war footing upon the Czech invasion, see the production figures for the Hawker Hurrican - started in October 1937, 500 planes built by start of September 1939 (remembering they were building Spitfires, Defiants, Wellingtons, Battles, Blenheims, and a few other types at the same time), the navy was being refitted and keels laid down, and the army was being re-equipped. France attempted to do the same, but their more fractured infrastructure meant they were not as effective in getting new equipment into production (the Dewoitine D.520 was a contemporary of the Spitfire and 109E in performance more than the Hurri was). War within Europe was inevitable because the French were not going to tolerate an emergent Germany on the mainland, and Britain didn't need another naval power (along with France and the US) in the North Atlantic.

The Poland ultimatium might be considered a gambit by the British/French to hold off the declaration of war by which time their respective industries would have been producing in quantity the quality materials needed to negate German weaponary (Germany didn't go into war production mode until 1940, when it was realised that Britain was going to stay in, and might have had difficulty compensating for losses against a resilient French military backed by Great Britain with its factories not threatened by an enemy off its southern coast.) Hitler likely gambled that the ultimatium could be called in the short term because he was aware that his borders to the west would remain secure, but waiting would have placed the allies in a position to build up resources sufficiently to turn defensive strategy into offensive.

It has to be remembered that France had fallen, the Italians had entered on the side of Germany, North Africa was a theatre of war, the Norwegian campaigns had ended, the Battle of Britain won, and invasion of Russia by the Axis being put into action before the Japanese started their attacks - a delay by Hitler in invading Poland would have placed Britain and France in a far stronger position within Europe.

Um, that is my on the fly take on the situation anyway.

Oh dear. Be careful talking about "Great Britain". Swarms of Wikipedian schoolchildren are out there right now trying to eliminate it. They're burning every copy of Winston Churchill's book so that the term never appears again.

In March 1939 Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia...

source

That's the way I remember it. "Rump" meaning what was leftover, after the Sudetenland was annexed in Oct. 1938 under the Sept. 1938 Munich Agreement "Peace in our time" thing. When Germany took the rest the next Spring, a little-mentioned event in history, the cards for WW II were on the table. England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready. It took 6 months for reality to sink in, so that with the invasion of Poland, reaction was immediate. (LHvU underlining.)

Great Britain (as it was then) went onto a war footing upon the Czech invasion, see the production figures for the Hawker Hurrican - started in October 1937, 500 planes built by start of September 1939 (remembering they were building Spitfires, Defiants, Wellingtons, Battles, Blenheims, and a few other types at the same time), the navy was being refitted and keels laid down, and the army was being re-equipped. France attempted to do the same, but their more fractured infrastructure meant they were not as effective in getting new equipment into production (the Dewoitine D.520 was a contemporary of the Spitfire and 109E in performance more than the Hurri was). War within Europe was inevitable because the French were not going to tolerate an emergent Germany on the mainland, and Britain didn't need another naval power (along with France and the US) in the North Atlantic.

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that Great Britain sat around paralyzed. They certainly went on more of a war footing after the rest of Czechoslovakia went down. But the curious thing to me is that the Chamberlain government didn't fall in March 1939, or even in September 1939. Despite that fact that Chamberlain and the Munich pact had made it perfectly clear that it was predicated on the Nazis leaving the rest of the country alone, and Churchill's prediction that they wouldn't (which nobody listened to). Even more incredibly, when Great Britain gave Germany the final ultimatum about Poland, the Chamberlain government didn't fall even after Hitler broke THAT, and war had to be declared. That's rather what I mean about reality not sinking in. You don't go to war with the same people whose bad judgement led you into it unprepared. It took Great Britain until the (essential) loss of France, and the scramble and miracle/disaster at Dunkirk, to finally figure that out. That was a year late.

In March 1939 Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia...

source

That's the way I remember it. "Rump" meaning what was leftover, after the Sudetenland was annexed in Oct. 1938 under the Sept. 1938 Munich Agreement "Peace in our time" thing. When Germany took the rest the next Spring, a little-mentioned event in history, the cards for WW II were on the table. England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready. It took 6 months for reality to sink in, so that with the invasion of Poland, reaction was immediate. (LHvU underlining.)

Great Britain (as it was then) went onto a war footing upon the Czech invasion, see the production figures for the Hawker Hurrican - started in October 1937, 500 planes built by start of September 1939 (remembering they were building Spitfires, Defiants, Wellingtons, Battles, Blenheims, and a few other types at the same time), the navy was being refitted and keels laid down, and the army was being re-equipped. France attempted to do the same, but their more fractured infrastructure meant they were not as effective in getting new equipment into production (the Dewoitine D.520 was a contemporary of the Spitfire and 109E in performance more than the Hurri was). War within Europe was inevitable because the French were not going to tolerate an emergent Germany on the mainland, and Britain didn't need another naval power (along with France and the US) in the North Atlantic.

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that Great Britain sat around paralyzed. They certainly went on more of a war footing after the rest of Czechoslovakia went down. But the curious thing to me is that the Chamberlain government didn't fall in March 1939, or even in September 1939. Despite that fact that Chamberlain and the Munich pact had made it perfectly clear that it was predicated on the Nazis leaving the rest of the country alone, and Churchill's prediction that they wouldn't (which nobody listened to). Even more incredibly, when Great Britain gave Germany the final ultimatum about Poland, the Chamberlain government didn't fall even after Hitler broke THAT, and war had to be declared. That's rather what I mean about reality not sinking in. You don't go to war with the same people whose bad judgement led you into it unprepared. It took Great Britain until the (essential) loss of France, and the scramble and miracle/disaster at Dunkirk, to finally figure that out. That was a year late.

Winston was not liked in his own party let alone parliament, and I believe the French were not keen on the imperialist gentleman either. It was only when there was no "civilised" alternative did he get the nod - and a fantastic job he did, too. However, he lost the immediate election after the war as well. Chamberlain was liked within his party, Parliament and the population - it was realised that Hitler had abused the trust he was given. Chamberlain was ever the realist and stepped down for the better war leader (of a nationalist coalition - not Conservative - government).

To Emperor - that is how the nation styled itself in those days, when not referring to itself as an Empire.

To Emperor - that is how the nation styled itself in those days, when not referring to itself as an Empire.

I agree with your statement. Now could you please point me to where in the Great Britain article I can find this piece of the sum of human knowledge? If not, why don't you add it?

Winston was not liked in his own party let alone parliament, and I believe the French were not keen on the imperialist gentleman either. It was only when there was no "civilised" alternative did he get the nod - and a fantastic job he did, too. However, he lost the immediate election after the war as well. Chamberlain was liked within his party, Parliament and the population - it was realised that Hitler had abused the trust he was given. Chamberlain was ever the realist and stepped down for the better war leader (of a nationalist coalition - not Conservative - government).

To Emperor - that is how the nation styled itself in those days, when not referring to itself as an Empire.

For an eye opener, go to his bunker in London from which he ran the war seemingly from his bed. He had breakfast in bed, afternoon naps, but it seems he did know a thing or two about fighting a world war. Hopelessly out of touch for peacetime as far as my skimpy knowledge of modern British history allows me to believe.

Winston was not liked in his own party let alone parliament, and I believe the French were not keen on the imperialist gentleman either. It was only when there was no "civilised" alternative did he get the nod - and a fantastic job he did, too. However, he lost the immediate election after the war as well. Chamberlain was liked within his party, Parliament and the population - it was realised that Hitler had abused the trust he was given. Chamberlain was ever the realist and stepped down for the better war leader (of a nationalist coalition - not Conservative - government).

More than that. The guy was only 6 months away from dying of colon cancer, so he can't have been feeling too well, whether he knew anything was formally wrong with him at the time, or not.

Life is not fair. Winston's son Randolf, an alcoholic that nobody liked, also had a colon tumor, but when it was removed it was found not to be cancer. Somebody said: "What a shame they have cut out the only part of Randolf which is NOT malignant." In Chamberlain's case, as you say, everybody liked the man. His problem was that he was so sweet he apparently could not recognize evil when it stared him in the face.

Winston Churchill had no difficulty recognizing evil immediately in Hitler. Or Stalin. I don't think this was particularly due to any evil in Winston's character-- rather his deep knowledge of history.

For an eye opener, go to his bunker in London from which he ran the war seemingly from his bed. He had breakfast in bed, afternoon naps, but it seems he did know a thing or two about fighting a world war. Hopelessly out of touch for peacetime as far as my skimpy knowledge of modern British history allows me to believe.

Winston was an awful Chancellor of the Exchequer, and during his second term as PM late in life, he was getting pretty old and worn out. But otherwise, everybody needs somebody to run its defense dept even in peacetime, and Great Britain kept Churchill out for many years, even though they needed him pretty much all the time he was an MP. That was dumb. He got blamed for Galipoli in WW I, which wasn't really his fault (had the plan been executed by people as physically fearless as Churchill, it would have worked brilliantly. But they hesitated due to fear of mines long enough to let the Turks get in place, and then got slaughtered).

Yes, Winston often ran things from his bed, often with a liberal amount of alcohol to keep him out of withdrawal (as I read it!). But wars at the top are won by tactical thinking and it hardly matters where a person does that. Nor did historical wisdom in those times need be on display anywhere but in what a man wrote. And occasionally said on the radio (but Winston even had a reader for THAT, when he got too busy).