World Wars

[Bakura136]

There appears to be alterations in the history recorded based on the World Wars.

I wanna know exactly who what when where and why they were fighting because it seems to me that it is all rather unclear due to the alterations.

[Underling]

Just watch Strike Witches.

[Fat1Fared]

-Well rather than go through the whole world, here is few sources,

First, I know this Wiki, but Wiki is actually good because refences other sources and is actually modded, just don't take its words as god or expect to get a true historicans account with all the more indepth and less known parts :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

-Now this isn't one I have read fully myself, but it seems to answer what you want, because its breakdown of the different timelines involved on the different fronts and so should show you who frought were and when http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/worldwar1/a/ww1stimeline1.htm

-Now cannot get this one to link, so here is small summy from some lads history eassy, but covers what want in breif

A large number of Nations were involved in that war, many only for part of the war. Below are lists of the countries involved and when they were involved, organized by which side they were on and just how involved they were.

CENTRAL POWERS

On one side were the so-called Central powers. Italy is sometimes nominally included as a Central Power because of her membership in the pre-war Tripple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary. However, when fighting broke out Italy decided to sit out the fighting. In May 1915, Italy joined the enemies of the central powers, instead.

German Empire, August 1914 - November 1918
Austro-Hungarian Empire, Augsut 1914 - November 1918
Ottoman Empire (Turkey) October 1914 - October 1918
Bulgaria, October 1915 - September 1918

ALLIED POWERS

On the other side were the allied powers. Some of these nations were only nominal allied powers and not involved militarily. (i.e. These countries did not actually FIGHT in the war.) In addition at the time some non-nations were among the allies. (i.e. These were not yet countries, yet fought in the war and were among the victors in the peace talks.)

FULLY INVOLVED ALLIED POWERS
Serbia, 28 July 1914 - October 1915 (in exile - November 1918)
Russian Empire, 1 August 1914 - November 1917
France, 3 August 1914 - November 1918
Belgium, 4 August 1914 - November 1918
British Empire, 4 August 1914 - November 1918
Includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India
Montenegro, 8 August 1914 - January 1916 (in exile - November 1918)
Japan, 23 August 1914 - November 1917
Italy, 23 May 1915 - November 1917
Portugal, 9 March 1916 - November 1917
Romania, 27 August 1916 - December 1917, November 1918)
United States: 6 April 1917 - November 1917
Brazil: 27 October 1917 - November 1917
Greece (National Defence faction only), November 1916 - July 1917
Greece (Unified), 2 July 1917 - November 1917

NOMINAL ALLIED POWERS
Cuba, 8 April 1917 - November 1917
Panama, 9 April 1917 - November 1917
Siam, 22 July 1917 - November 1917
Liberia, 4 August 1917 - November 1917
China, 14 August 1914 - November 1917
Guatemala: 25 April 1918 - November 1917
Nicaragua: 7 May 1918 - November 1917
Costa Rica: 25 May 1918 - November 1917
Honduras: 19 July 1918 - November 1917
Haiti: 25 July 1918 - November 1917
China: 1914-18

ALLIED ETHNIC GROUPS NOT YET A COUNTRY
Poland: Seceded from Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia
Czechoslovakia: seceded from Austria-Hungary (armed by France)
Arabia (Hejaz): seceded from Ottoman Empire (armed by Britain)
Armenia: seceded from Russia and fought against Ottoman Empire

POWERS INVOLVED WITHOUT DECLARING WAR

Five nations broke off relations with the central powers, but did not declare war. Of these Uraguay went the furthest by seizing German naval vessels.

Bolivia, April 1917
Peru, October 1917
Ecuador, December 1917
Santo Domingo, April 1916
Uruguay, October 1917

LUXEMB0URG

Luxembourg was over-run early in the war and readily accepted German control. It is often listed on one side or the other. They never declared war either way.

-Now if you want know who the war was frought on each frought and why it was frought and some of the lesser known, but massively important historical events, there are other pages I can direct you too

=But really, to know and understand this, nothing beats a proper history book, and when have time tonight I will one of my copies and give you its title so you can get self one, as really detail it{Finally, don't try to use Offical reports yourself, it will make head spin and leave you thinking their wasn't even war at all lol}

[maisetofan]

I agree with fat, history books are your best source of information
i cannot believe this thread has so few posts :/

Interesting to note that During WW1 The japanese were on our side, and in world war one Turkey and Germany were the "enemy" but in world war two Turkey were our Allies and the japanese well we all know what happened in world war two with the japanese

Had Hitler not double crossed Stalin and Russia had remained allies with the Germans i doubt The americans and the british etc would have won the war and WW2 would have been conquered by two of the most fascist super powers of the century, although i think hitlers hatred for communism played a massive part in breaking his alliance with Stalin, hitler also referred to the Slavic (eastern europeans) as dogs and the lowest of the low, whereas jews were not even considered humans

[HarleyThomas1002]

World War I is actually kind of funny when you think about.

Serbian nationalists assassinate an Austrian archduke, war breaks out and in the end Germany is blamed despite only joining because they were allied with Austria-Hungary.

Although they did have a never give up attitude unlike the Russians who gave up when a revolution broke out and the royal family was killed.

[maisetofan]

Well yeah, Germany did stand up and join forces after Franz Ferdinand was killed on the 28 June 1914. So i guess when WW2 Broke out and Hitlers war machine Annexed austria there was no struggle, they were welcomed with open arms, literally, people were cheering and then Austria became part of Germany for the duration of the war as did czechoslovakia....

[HarleyThomas1002]

Hitler being from Austria and a war hero (two medals of courage or bravery or something along those lines) probably also played a part in that.

[maisetofan]

Yeah he was a corporal who was awarded the iron cross for being one of the only men to survive a deadly explosion in belgium from the french, then he was blinded temporarily by gas used by the french to destroy the enemy but he got his sight back sadly :V

it was really his anger at the treaty of Versailles that got him mad, he blamed the jews, the gypsies, the homosexuals, the communists and any other minority on the downfall of germany, not the fact they lost the war and had to pay war reparations
he also officially became a german citizen in the late 1920's after establishing the Nazi party so he could run for chancellor of germany, his plan all along but it still took a good twenty years for the nazis to declare war and seize power of most of europe

[dylan]

:smiley6: (http://www.golfclubsseller.com)Do you means world war 2? or world war 1?

[Fat1Fared]

Harley
Although they did have a never give up attitude unlike the Russians who gave up when a revolution broke out and the royal family was killed.


=If you call losing over 3 million men giving up, then you are foolish, no offense, but these were real poeple who were dieing and the war was lost ether way for Russians. They weren't just like, oh well we had bit of fun, but now its got little hot lets go home,
-Before the war even began Russia had been completely beaten up by the Japanese in war over Port Arther, and so by time WW1 came around, their main army was demoralised already and their naval force was at half strength.
=However despite this, when they started fighting at first, were fighting Austria Hungry and they were winning under General Alekandra (spelt wrong,) sadly he was an unpopular soldier, so got removed and at about same time germany came into southern eastern front to reinforce the Austrian-Hungry army and so these better troops mixed with their better weapons and leaders, then started not just defeating the Russians, but slaughtering them and so by time Lenin started his revolution proper, the county was on verge of collapse and one of his major promises to the poeple was an end to the war, so he came into a county where already binded himself to ending with an army which was in full retreat, where only 1 in 3 men even had boots (let alone guns...etc,) and anyone who proper equipment would have ether to go without (which death in russia) or risk no mans land to steal a dead persons equipment o_0, poeple were starving to death, winter was coming (which also ground most of their armoury trains), they had no money, facing rebellion from within still, their empiric Baltic and Asian states were ready to rebel and germany clearly knew this, so were basically offering them surrender or death, ether way, they had lost.

(when english gave Japanese lot of chinese land, russia thought they would be easy targets for own little land grap, Japanese proved to be far more deadly than that)

=I am not being mean with top comment, but think what need to understand about WW1 is nothing is anywhere nearly as simple as it ever seemed
-IE anyone who wanted WW1 most, the true is, Britain wanted it the most and far more than Germany ever did, we were leading the arms race and we were ones who upheld a kaput contract with Belgium to create western front.
we were superpower, but both Germany and USA were starting to beat our economy, so we needed something to cripple their's and kick-start our own (we decided war was good for this,) also we wanted to prove once and for all we were the worlds leader and finally a war gave us justifications for several actions we took within rebellious states under our rule.

=The truth is though, like Blackadder said, "WW1 started because no one bothered to stop it"

-Britain was too busy flexing its own muscles
-Germany was too busy land grabbing
-France just wanted any excuse to kick germany and take back lost land from last Franco-Prussian fight
-Turkey's leader was insane
-Austria-Hungry was in state of dissent and needed something to unit itself
-Russia, same as above (oh and the roumour that Rasputin was having an affair with the Queen who was german, didn't help)
-Small states were too busy worrying about own small problems, to worry about how could effect big ones
-Japan wanted excuse to take over china
-And finally Portugal simply didn't care

=Yes, they was the Assassination was of Arch Duke, but that was more like the final lighting point than actual cause, the causes were many and far, ranging from social to economic, to political in source and all completely removed from each other in action, but linked in result AKA WW1

[AdjacentOrigin]

Here is an interesting article from Cracked concerning so called facts. Some may surprise you: http://www.cracked.com/article_18389_the-5-most-widely-believed-wwii-facts-that-are-bullshit.html

Cracked articles can be quite dubious. Their main goal is humour. However, these are quite accurate. I'm a World War 1 and 2 history buff so ask away! It seems that the Seven Years War is often neglected. Even though it was global in scale it is usually not considered to be a World War in terms of the 20th century. http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_sevenyears.html

I agree with fat, history books are your best source of information
i cannot believe this thread has so few posts :/

Interesting to note that During WW1 The japanese were on our side, and in world war one Turkey and Germany were the "enemy" but in world war two Turkey were our Allies and the japanese well we all know what happened in world war two with the japanese

Had Hitler not double crossed Stalin and Russia had remained allies with the Germans i doubt The americans and the british etc would have won the war and WW2 would have been conquered by two of the most fascist super powers of the century, although i think hitlers hatred for communism played a massive part in breaking his alliance with Stalin, hitler also referred to the Slavic (eastern europeans) as dogs and the lowest of the low, whereas jews were not even considered humans
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that Italy was a fascist superpower. I'm quite certain that Italy was a liability to Hitler and he had to bail out the country several times. It could hardly be considered a superpower. Unless you were referring to Japan, which is a large imperial power with fascist leanings but technically not fascist in European terms. If Hitler has succeeded in Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of Russia) it is likely that the America and Britain would sue for peace with Germany and Italy, but would still defeat Japan. The Tripartite Pact the Axis powers signed were not binding. Hitler never consulted the Japanese when he invaded Russia and despite declaring war against the USA after Pearl Harbour did not demand Japan to declare war against Russia in return.

[maisetofan]

Italy was dictated under fascist rule but they failed miserably
Hitler copied Mussolini's raised hand gesture, he copied an old ancient egyptian symbol and he also took on Mussolini's plot to create a new roman empire, the thing with hitler is that he had a good fifteen years of preparation. not many ideas were his own

Racism, well that has been around for centuries
War, well there is a new concept (sarcasm)
Dictatorship, hmmm Lennin, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin
Genocide Still being done today
Concentration camps Originally set up as "labor camps" for Communists and anti nazi revolutionists in the mid 1930's, the first being Dachau on german soil. Again the camps were not Hitlers idea, but Himmlers.

it was however the first world racial war, as hitler described it against the jews, gypsies, homosexuals, christians, catholics and Jehovah's witnesses. then there were the disabled, the mentally ill, the communists whom were as hated as the jewish people and the middle eastern and black people.
I know all about operation Barbarossa
The russians were equipped to handle the ice cold conditions, they had over 1000 air force pilots and planes ready to go and newer and better tanks the German Panza's
bottom line, THEY LOST and pulled out of russia, and never made it into Moscow due ot hitlers ridiculous idea to head south down to Stalingrad as it was known and get the oil first, so come october, it was so bloody freezing, most german soldiers died of frostbite and were not equipped for the winter. Over 300,000 Germans were caught/killed or sent to camps, and only 5000 came back alive
We have been watching WW2 in color and they just covered the Operation Barbarossa.
They did manage to annihilate most of lenningrad and the village in the south of Russia
But they were pushed back from the city of Moscow.
However, they both put up a good fight, and in the beginning it seemed russia was losing that is until December 1941 when Hitler foolishly declared war on the United states and they got into action by aiding The soviet union with military weapons
As they had been doing with the british since 1940.

[AdjacentOrigin]

Hitler was never a military genius, although he prided himself as such. He became overconfident of German victories in the French and Norwegian campaigns and thought he could take the Russians while Britain and it's colonies were still fighting. His motive for Barbarossa was primarily to take the oil fields of the Caucasus and defeating the Communist ideology that he hated so much. Defeating the Russians would have forced Britain into a treaty after the British realized they could no longer depend on any help from the continent. He could have defeated the Russians if he listened to his generals and moved to capture Moscow immediately instead of diverting forces to the Battle of Kiev in the Ukraine. With the constant delay, Mother Winter came by, whooped Nazi ass, and Russian resilience intensified. I guess ye olde funny moustache dictator never looked up Napoleon's failed invasion of Russia. Lesson for European conquerers-Don't invade Russia!

[TitanAura]

Lesson for European conquerers-Don't invade Russia!
This doesn't apply anymore. New lesson: Don't blow up Russia unless you're ready to be blown up.

[HarleyThomas1002]

Invading a country that is better than you is never a good idea. Even if it's just their military that's better.

Take Vietnam or Finland for example.

[maisetofan]

Invading a country that is better than you is never a good idea. Even if it's just their military that's better.

Take Vietnam or Finland for example.

Exactly
Invading Vietnam was brutally pointless :/
so many deaths and what for? A fake threat of communism spreading to America?????

[Jotenks]

Well, you know what they say, better dead than red.

[HarleyThomas1002]

Despite there being NO threat of communism spreading to the US.

Not like there was a threat to begin with.

[Fat1Fared]

Well, you know what they say, better dead than red.

=Sure Willy Loman would love the irony of that comment

-Anyway, Mai I am sorry to say, I am not sure what you are actually getting at here, are you trying to score points against Hilters record as I honestly don't believe he needs your help, in fact Hitler has placed as probably most evil man to ever live (whether that is factually correct or not is besides the point, however to question his position as military man is pointless, he was genius (insane, flawed and evil, but nevertheless) because he was one of those rare men who could attract all other men to his cause and make them his own. Make them even willing to die for him, these men made have been intelligently brighter and some may have planned to use him, but in the end he was the uniting force and one who could take anyone he wanted as his own. In a way the comparison is strikingly similar to Churchill, men like Atlee and General Monty were the real brains behind it all on english side, but he had the ability to not just get these men to his cause, but to unit them in for-filling that cause.

=back to Hitler, Many of the highest ranking Germans of the time hated each other, but Hitler linked them and even played them off against each other and he would have won, bar few things:-

1=The fact that he was fighting the world single handily, which is scarily really as if think how close came, fighting world, what would have happened if only few points had changed, IE that England and US didn't join o_0
=Because england and US started war with him, not other way round, he never wanted war with US and even less so with Britain, but we were always planning to fight him in the end, Poor Chamberlain will go down in history as coward and a fool, when he may have been one of the biggest courses of our victory, he sacrificed more than his own name in doing so, but he did the right thing)

2=The Russian Front, yes going to get oil fields was tactical error which lost him the war, but it was not some clear cut thing of him against his generals, more than few supported his idea, others felt should risk trying to defeat Russia first.
=Problem was that we were cutting off his other oil routes and starting to push the germans hard in the middle east, so Hitler needed that oil and that is why gambled everything on being able to take it and Russia together before the winter came, sadly due to a lack of supplies getting to the front (because of russians winter,) the Russians getting their act together and the winter being horrific even for Russian this gamble failed and lost him everything

3=Finally a lack of supplies, which mostly due to the 2 above, but cannot be underemphasied in its effect

=My point here is not that we should admirer or respect this man, but we should damn well fear him, as he came closer to victory than I like to think and to say he did that without being skilled or clever is, well wrong, hate him if you wish, fear him always
-However if he made one mistake, I believe it was attacking when he did, if he had held back, chances were he would have held the first atomic bomb and then no one could have stopped him

=As for Japan, well the US were asking to be attacked there (some believe quite literally, however not sure on that theory,) they were blocking the wholr county off (once again oil being biggest factor) and the Japanese were desperate, everything they had done to become a superpower able to revival most countries of the west was being undone and so like cornered animal they struck out and when the Japanese strike they don't do it by half
-However an interesting and somewhat scary point about war with Japan is that because of US laws, all black documents must be released to the public 50 years after they are filed away as completed and so about 2 years ago a set of documents came out which clearly stated that Japan had in fact surrendered to US 1 week before they dropped the first atomic bomb, thus removing all justification the US had for such an act

[maisetofan]

=My point here is not that we should admirer or respect this man, but we should damn well fear him, as he came closer to victory than I like to think and to say he did that without being skilled or clever is, well wrong, hate him if you wish, fear him always
-However if he made one mistake, I believe it was attacking when he did, if he had held back, chances were he would have held the first atomic bomb and then no one could have stopped him


I do not have any respect for the man.
I meant to suggest that he came terribly close to taking over europe and ruling it
He almost took over england, he managed to bomb the hell out of the major cities and got through the english channel.

[Jotenks]

I do not have any respect for the man.
I meant to suggest that he came terribly close to taking over europe and ruling it
He almost took over england, he managed to bomb the hell out of the major cities and got through the english channel.

They say that if the germans bombed London for one more day they would have surrendered. Or that if Mussolini didn't invade Greece and lose (ok I'm Greek and take every chance I get to say this) then Hitler wouldn't of had to postpone invading Russia.

[maisetofan]

Jo, i am afraid you will find this was not true
my grandparents were in the forces during the war. My grandmother worked making weapons and sending out signals to the allies.

do you remember winston churchills famous speech
"We will NEVER surrender"

The british would fight to the death, they would never surrender and thank god they did not need to as it worked out in the end the russians did come in, the americans started fighting in Europe in 1943, not to mention the various new zealand and australian soldiers who were fighting in the pacific and in europe.

[AdjacentOrigin]

This doesn't apply anymore. New lesson: Don't blow up Russia unless you're ready to be blown up.

True. I remember my parents telling me about all the insecurity and fear people felt when the USSR dissolved in 1991 (of course including the Cold War that preceded it). Half of Russia's nuclear weapons arsenal essentially disappeared with it. People were afraid that these nukes would be left in the hands of former USSR satellite states or sold in underground markets. Volatile years those were.

The fear of international communism ended in the 90's. Now the western world fears international terrorism. The United States in particular fears both terrorism and non-existent socialism. There always has to be something to turn our days upside down huh?

My point here is not that we should admirer or respect this man, but we should damn well fear him, as he came closer to victory than I like to think and to say he did that without being skilled or clever is, well wrong, hate him if you wish, fear him always
-However if he made one mistake, I believe it was attacking when he did, if he had held back, chances were he would have held the first atomic bomb and then no one could have stopped him

The only respect that Adolf Hitler should ever deserve is that he had charisma. He had powerful leadership potential and oratory.He used all of his abilities to commit the worst atrocities of modern man and destroy countless lives. He exploited minds of the German people during immense economic and social strife. If it wasn't for things like WW1, unfair postwar treaties, and the Great Depression, Hitler and his Nazi followers would have forever remained a minority fringe group in government.
He should never get points for military expertise as I have mentioned before. Too long to list so here's a wikianswer:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Hitler's_key_mistakes_during_the_war

[Prince Babel]

World War I is actually kind of funny when you think about.

Serbian nationalists assassinate an Austrian archduke, war breaks out and in the end Germany is blamed despite only joining because they were allied with Austria-Hungary.

Although they did have a never give up attitude unlike the Russians who gave up when a revolution broke out and the royal family was killed.

I think the outbreak of World War I was hilarious and I always summarize it up for my friends like this:

Serbian nationalists: Haha! we've killed your surprisingly hard-to-murder archduke! What are you going to do about it?

Austria: You bastards! You've got twenty four hours to kiss and make up or it's WAR.

Serbia: Wha-what?

Austria: WARRR!

Russia: You can't declare war on Serbia! They're our allies and our key to our Balkan sphere of influence! We declare war on you!

Austria: Germany, save me from big bad, tsarist Russia!

Germany: What ever you say! Russia, I declare war on you and Serbia!

France: You can't do that! I declare war on you, Germany, and your allies!

Germany: Fine then! War for you, froggy. To fulfill my master plan of conquering France I need to invade neutral Belgium!

Belgium: What? No! I'm neutral!

Germany: Too late for that! Troops in your capital!

Great Britain: I say, how dare you invade a neutral country! Your ass is mine!

Germany: Fine, I can take you!

Turkey: I want to play, too!

*Europe explodes*

Had Hitler not double crossed Stalin and Russia had remained allies with the Germans i doubt The americans and the british etc would have won the war and WW2 would have been conquered by two of the most fascist super powers of the century, although i think hitlers hatred for communism played a massive part in breaking his alliance with Stalin, hitler also referred to the Slavic (eastern europeans) as dogs and the lowest of the low, whereas jews were not even considered humans

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was just a way for Hitler to cover his ass while he fought Great Britain and France.
The entire world, along with the two countries signing the pact, knew that this peace agreement was a joke and it was only a matter of time before Germany and the Soviet Union started duking it out. It was only a question of who would attack first and when. Hitler hated Communism and Stalin and Stalin hated "German fascism". (Stalin had told Molotov to go to Germany and "learn how to beat them".)
The Soviet Union was only apart of the Axis for a brief time and in name only because they weren't included in the Tripartite Pact or the Anti-Comintern Pact (which was an anti-Communist treaty and especially anti-Soviet.)

In my opinion, there wasn't so much a betrayal rather than it was stalling the invetible war between the high priests of two ideologies that hated each other so. Hitler and Stalin would never ally with each other to take over the world. Despite being totalitarian (not fascist) dictators they were very different in beliefs.

Also, totalitiarian =/= fascism. The term fascism in particular describes the Italian political beliefs played out in Italy until the end of World War II. Nazism is certainly a "branch" of fascism but it can't really be compared to Communism, though Stalinism/Maoism could be called "Red Fascism".


Oh, dear... I've gone off into a rant.

[greymagick711]

Hitler hated Communism and Stalin and Stalin hated "German fascism". (Stalin had told Molotov to go to Germany and "learn how to beat them".)
In my opinion, there wasn't so much a betrayal rather than it was stalling the invetible war between the high priests of two ideologies that hated each other so. Hitler and Stalin would never ally with each other to take over the world. Despite being totalitarian (not fascist) dictators they were very different in beliefs.


This.

Though I was in awe in how long Germany lasted entirely on its own at some points.

[Prince Babel]

It was mostly because a lot of the countries weren't prepared for the war like Germany was.
And Germany certainly wasn't alone, it had allies other than Italy and Japan to fight alongside.

[JesusRocks]

The only respect that Adolf Hitler should ever deserve is that he had charisma. He had powerful leadership potential and oratory.He used all of his abilities to commit the worst atrocities of modern man and destroy countless lives. He exploited minds of the German people during immense economic and social strife. If it wasn't for things like WW1, unfair postwar treaties, and the Great Depression, Hitler and his Nazi followers would have forever remained a minority fringe group in government.
He should never get points for military expertise as I have mentioned before. Too long to list so here's a wikianswer:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Hitler's_key_mistakes_during_the_war

The only other good thing to say about Hitler that hasn't been mentioned yet, was that his government, while shoddy and disorganised at best, managed to pull Germany out of the depression very effectively...

Hell... he managed to get a country that was completely buggered over by the failures of the weak Weimar coalition government AND almost completely destroyed by the effects of the depression, ready for war a hell of a lot sooner than it should have been.

One of the most horrendous committers of atrocities the world has ever seen, must be bitterly granted credit for having a damn good economic policy. Germany was hit so hard by the depression that it's a wonder anyone managed to get them economically stable again... let alone actually ready to fight a huge-scale war, and take most of Europe while everyone else is still not quite ready for it...

That's it...

[Prince Babel]

Props to Stalin, too.
With is Five Year plans he revolutionized the Soviet Union from the most backward country in Europe to the second strongest economy in the world.
Granted, millions died in his purges and even more in his man-made faminines...

[greymagick711]

The only other good thing to say about Hitler that hasn't been mentioned yet, was that his government, while shoddy and disorganised at best, managed to pull Germany out of the depression very effectively... .

Was getting out of the depression mainly because his policies, or the war itself? I've heard people say that the economy rises in times of war because of all the jobs it creates.

[HarleyThomas1002]

Props to Stalin, too.
With is Five Year plans he revolutionized the Soviet Union from the most backward country in Europe to the second strongest economy in the world.
Granted, millions died in his purges and even more in his man-made faminines...

Five year plan done in four.

[HarleyThomas1002]

Was getting out of the depression mainly because his policies, or the war itself? I've heard people say that the economy rises in times of war because of all the jobs it creates.

I'd say it's a bit of both.

Gotta create jobs to rebuild the military and create more jobs for keeping the military in shape.

Nazi Germany also discovered the link between smoking and lung cancer. So they did some good when it comes to health in terms of how to not die a horrible, painful death.

[Fat1Fared]

-War drives all economy, there is no half and half about it, one of the reasons the US can justify dropping bombs on sand farms is because for very 100,000 they waste doing so, their economy probably gains ten times that from war itself,

=You want to know how crazy war economies are, it is cheaper for the US to leave 90% of its crude weapons behind after a war and buy new stock for next one, than it is to simply ship it all home and reuse it, o_0

I do not have any respect for the man.
I meant to suggest that he came terribly close to taking over europe and ruling it
He almost took over england, he managed to bomb the hell out of the major cities and got through the english channel.

=I know you don't, I just wanted to make the point that I was not saying we should as it is sort of comment which can be met with your Hitler lover because you don't critise very part of him, however even if he had defeated Britain, he had no plans to rule us if he could help it, because we were better as trading allies than servants, also for very bomb we took, we dropped ten back on Germany, so to be fair, we probably over play that point as well

True. I remember my parents telling me about all the insecurity and fear people felt when the USSR dissolved in 1991 (of course including the Cold War that preceded it). Half of Russia's nuclear weapons arsenal essentially disappeared with it. People were afraid that these nukes would be left in the hands of former USSR satellite states or sold in underground markets. Volatile years those were.

The fear of international communism ended in the 90's. Now the western world fears international terrorism. The United States in particular fears both terrorism and non-existent socialism. There always has to be something to turn our days upside down huh?



=The thing is, most of time the leaderships completely overplay these threats as excuse to infringes upon our liberties

It was mostly because a lot of the countries weren't prepared for the war like Germany was.
And Germany certainly wasn't alone, it had allies other than Italy and Japan to fight alongside.

-I think it must also come down to not so much not being ready for war <despite popular belief, Chamberlain was one who started rearming Britain during some of Hitler’s earliest campaign’s>, but not ready for new war, at start of WW2, most allied forces were digging up Belgium and West French again, sadly this did little good for them, when several heavily armed tanks jump drove over the top of those trenches (there something sad about one of our main tactics during WW1, being used so well against us in WW2)

=Yer Germany wasn't alone, but problem was, like in WW1, its allies were mostly useless:-
-Japan was effective fighting force, but too isolated to be of much use
-Italy was having as much trouble with own followers as much as those countries was fighting
...etc

JR true, true, he simply drove it out of depression, though one of the saddest parts of our history, is that Hitler was far from worst of his kind (even if go by modern histories standards, some of the Slavic states were simply unthinkable and to think men like Churchill were rubbing shoulders with Nicolae Ceau?escu and Gheorghiu-Dej, it is almost shaming on us)

[AdjacentOrigin]

-War drives all economy, there is no half and half about it, one of the reasons the US can justify dropping bombs on sand farms is because for very 100,000 they waste doing so, their economy probably gains ten times that from war itself.

It really depends on the scale of the war itself and it's length. The Soviet war in Afghanistan back in '79 proved disastrous for the USSR compounding on the fact that they were suffering from the backlashes of a centrally planned economy. Nazi Germany was bankrupt from the beginning of the war to the end. Hitler was never concerned with the economy because he and his followers presumed that invading other countries and seizing their resources and territory would eventually offset any debt the country had. World War 2 was on such a massive scale that it required all economic sectors of a participating country to contribute to the war effort. This explains the boom America experienced after the war and FDR's policies.

[Fat1Fared]

.

It really depends on the scale of the war itself and it's length. The Soviet war in Afghanistan back in '79 proved disastrous for the USSR compounding on the fact that they were suffering from the backlashes of a centrally planned economy.


=i think you are mixing cause and effect slightly here, yer Russia's economy starting going down the pan at this point, but that was because of the cold war with West starting to take its toll, the War in Afghanistan was small fries really
-The thing which actually took Russia down was star wars in 1983/4, cannot remember exactly (no not the film,)
-Now I may joke about US at times, but man that peice of poker play deserves massive respect lol

-back to Agan, it was more socially diseaterious than economically (bit like Viteruam for US)


Nazi Germany was bankrupt from the beginning of the war to the end. Hitler was never concerned with the economy because he and his followers presumed that invading other countries and seizing their resources and territory would eventually offset any debt the country had. World War 2 was on such a massive scale that it required all economic sectors of a participating country to contribute to the war effort. This explains the boom America experienced after the war and FDR's policies.

=No they really weren't, well not practically, As main thing he did, was simply write off all Germany's debts, 90% of reason germany was in a black hole was because of debts to other countries, Hitler simply said, I won't pay it anymore and no one stopped him lol (rest was internal debts, which he simply removed)
-With that gone, he was simple matter of pump piming back to power and part of what made germany effective was that Hitler used similar plan to what Britian did wit DORA plan and simply built lots of factories for others things, then when War was starting, he turned them all into War Factories and it caused massive economic bomb
-
=As for US, they recived a boom because Countries like Britian had ran out of factories to build their own tanks and so brought them all from US, leaving them in massive debts for next 60 years or so
-britian was in US's debt till 2005, because of WW2, which shows just how much money these countries where giving you and that is why had such economic might, it was the War economy at its finest (if want to put it erroneously by using word fine)

[AdjacentOrigin]

=i think you are mixing cause and effect slightly here, yer Russia's economy starting going down the pan at this point, but that was because of the cold war with West starting to take its toll, the War in Afghanistan was small fries really

Yes, that's what I stated in my above post. I guess I have to elaborate. The USSR was projected to collapse by western economists in the 50's and 60's. The impracticality of a centrally planned economy could only function for so long before unbearable inefficiencies and corrupted bureaucracy crept into the system. The war hastened the collapse of the Soviets and was anything but minor (The post-war situation in Afghanistan eventually contributed to the state it was in 2001).

-The thing which actually took Russia down was star wars in 1983/4, cannot remember exactly (no not the film,)
-Now I may joke about US at times, but man that peice of poker play deserves massive respect lol

I presume you mean the Strategic Defence Initiative proposed by Ronald Reagan. I highly doubt that the SDI had any impact for the Soviets at all. Besides, the fact that it was scientifically impossible back then, and even now 30 years later.

[Fat1Fared]

Yes, that's what I stated in my above post. I guess I have to elaborate. The USSR was projected to collapse by western economists in the 50's and 60's. The impracticality of a centrally planned economy could only function for so long before unbearable inefficiencies and corrupted bureaucracy crept into the system. The war hastened the collapse of the Soviets and was anything but minor (The post-war situation in Afghanistan eventually contributed to the state it was in 2001).


=How did you state that?????
-You said that Afghanistan caused soviets economy to collapse which is rubbish, it barely had any effect on the soviet union economy, as the economy was being effected by far bigger problems else where

=As for your other comments, well a centralised system can work, (whether US wants to admit that or not is neither here nor there) just needs a far stronger ecomony at start than Russia ever had, Russia didn't fall because the system could never work, (because if truthful no system "ever works", but how other debate) it failed because it simply lacked the resources from day 1 to do what it planned,
-It was lacked the modernised industry
-It lacked funds
-It lacked allied with funds
-It lacked balanced workforce
-It lacked present class which cared about this stuff
-It was too big
-it was compounded by several wars
-It foolishly tried to outmight US in terms of flashing its cash
-There were too many unstable leaders/power struggles within it


And range of other things...etc, so yer it was doomed, but that is not because communism is any more stupid than any other theory, their all equally stupid, it is just communism has only ever appeared in countries which simply too weak for any system (russia was hardly a great capitalist county ether and if Russia hadn't gone communist, but instead county like UK, would have been more interesting, probably still failed, but would have been more fair test as Marx himself stated that countries like Russia were not suitable to communism before he died)



I presume you mean the Strategic Defence Initiative proposed by Ronald Reagan. I highly doubt that the SDI had any impact for the Soviets at all. Besides, the fact that it was scientifically impossible back then, and even now 30 years later.

=Ok, now sure you have not studied this, no offense, but this is one of most major points of any history course in this age.
=Of course it was not possible, that was the whole point, the US barely put any effort into this, they just acted like they were and allowed russia to decode several messages which made russian's believe they were on way to creating this system which would basically destroy any threat from Nuke's what so ever. The Russia's fearing that this would end everything for them, basically reshaped their whole defence budget into trying to make one of these themselves and due the fact it was impossible, it quickly became a black hole for masses of money, masses they couldn't afford, due to the events of time starting to compound them and states within their eastern block, beginning to pull out, it was not long after this, they economy copallsed beyond repair and the rest as they say is history

On another point-Something found the other day, French in 1950's tried to join British Commonwealth, (the thought of that makes smile lol)

[AdjacentOrigin]

=How did you state that?????
-You said that Afghanistan caused soviets economy to collapse which is rubbish, it barely had any effect on the soviet union economy, as the economy was being effected by far bigger problems else where

Here is my original quote post a couple days ago: It really depends on the scale of the war itself and it's length. The Soviet war in Afghanistan back in '79 proved disastrous for the USSR compounding on the fact that they were suffering from the backlashes of a centrally planned economy. I was saying that the Afghanistan war was another factor to the already crumbling Soviet economy. I was not suggesting that the Soviet war in Afghanistan alone contributed to their complete collapse. That would be foolish. But I guess I could have worded it more properly.

And range of other things...etc, so yer it was doomed, but that is not because communism is any more stupid than any other theory, their all equally stupid, it is just communism has only ever appeared in countries which simply too weak for any system (russia was hardly a great capitalist county ether and if Russia hadn't gone communist, but instead county like UK, would have been more interesting, probably still failed, but would have been more fair test as Marx himself stated that countries like Russia were not suitable to communism before he died)

This I agree with. Neither the USSR, China, North Korea, or Vietnam ever acheived true Communism as envisoned by Marx and Engels. The reason that the USSR failed was because it relied on a centrally planned economy. In a true communist society, it would be a classless system, and therefore no need for government or bureacracy to run things. The Russian Revolution, as you stated above, occured to early before enough people were ready for the next step. This left the power of the Revolution not in the hands of the proletariat, but the ruling Bolsheviks. The biggest culprit who destroyed communism before it could even be born was Stalin and his creation of a totalitarian state. This influenced all the brutal dictators of "communist" countries from then on.

=Ok, now sure you have not studied this, no offense, but this is one of most major points of any history course in this age.
=Of course it was not possible, that was the whole point, the US barely put any effort into this, they just acted like they were and allowed russia to decode several messages which made russian's believe they were on way to creating this system which would basically destroy any threat from Nuke's what so ever. The Russia's fearing that this would end everything for them, basically reshaped their whole defence budget into trying to make one of these themselves and due the fact it was impossible, it quickly became a black hole for masses of money, masses they couldn't afford, due to the events of time starting to compound them and states within their eastern block, beginning to pull out, it was not long after this, they economy copallsed beyond repair and the rest as they say is history

You probably know more about it than I do, but the whole Star Wars project still seems that it was not contributing factor to it's collapse. After all, doesn't the MAD doctrine already serves this purpose?

By the way, I think we got off topic. Might as well go back to talking about World Wars.

[Fat1Fared]

Adj that probably good idea, and sorry rereading first comment, I now see you what you are getting at, misunderstood you at first,

-With whole commusim thing, I studied (against my will lol) for 5 years and so have pretty strong views on it and readinh the theory made me realise how false a view the world has been of commusim and how unfair a test it was given, and yet democracy is put on this throne of glory, but it only really it has failed big time, its just we keep pushing it along, but the most telling fact there is, how bad is democracy if it fails this badly despite all effort given it

[AdjacentOrigin]

Adj that probably good idea, and sorry rereading first comment, I now see you what you are getting at, misunderstood you at first,

-With whole commusim thing, I studied (against my will lol) for 5 years and so have pretty strong views on it and readinh the theory made me realise how false a view the world has been of commusim and how unfair a test it was given, and yet democracy is put on this throne of glory, but it only really it has failed big time, its just we keep pushing it along, but the most telling fact there is, how bad is democracy if it fails this badly despite all effort given it

Well, Direct democracy failed (Ancient Greece and the Roman Republic). Even though Ancient Greece deserves much credit for introducing democracy to the world, it was imperfect as all politics are when they are first introduced. Later on, the Roman Empire replaced the Roman Republic and everyone in the western world basically forgot about democracy for hundreds of years until the American and French Revolutions brought it back into effect. Unfortunately, the failure of democracy in certain situations like the Weimar Republic allowed Hitler to seize power. Constitutional republics and democracies are not perfect, but they're the best things we have got and the threshold of our civil liberties and freedoms.

This is a interesting and I would like to continue talking about it but it really belongs on another thread. We should get back on topic.

The idealogy of Fascism that the Italians followed and the Germans copied depends on conflict to fuel it's economy. Because of it's extremist and nationalistic nature, any country following a form of Fascism would at one point eventually go to war. Neville Chamberlain often gets the rub for his appeasement policies, but in retrospect it seems that it was the smart thing to do. The British and French were not prepared for war and were jsut beggining to rearm whereas Germany began early rearmament for quite some time.