Support NeoGAF

[Chococat]

is inaccurate, especially since the USSR was neutral-friendly with the Nazis until Operation Barbarossa.

Britain repeatedly treated Stalin and Russia like shit when they negotiating to be Allies. It no wonder when Hitler gave them the royal treatment that Russia "joined" Germany to buy time to build up their war machine to defend against the Germany. Stalin was warning Britain for years about German. Churchill was happy to let Germany bleed Russia for years before committing troops to the European front.

Thankfully Roosevelt saw through Britain's political empire machinations and worked with Stalin to retake the continent. But by then, it was too late. After dicking Russia over in WWI, Britain waging a separate war against Russia between the Great Wars, and Britain again dicking them around in WWII- Russia was done trusting the West.

So yes, WWII was won with Russian blood and American production.

 

[SuperHans]

If you think English pie and chip racists are bad, NI unionists are basically fascists. Feel bad for the poor Irish who have to live with them.

Reading what EleventhHourSuperpower is posting makes me think it might be the same guy. Whataboutism when every questioned about their atrocities.

 

[Theonik]

Britain repeatedly treated Stalin and Russia like shit when they negotiating to be Allies. It no wonder when Hitler gave them the royal treatment that Russia "joined" Germany to buy time to build up their war machine to defend against the Germany. Stalin was warning Britain for years about German. Churchill was happy to let Germany bleed Russia for years before committing troops to the European front.

Thankfully Roosevelt saw through Britain's political empire machinations and worked with Stalin to retake the continent. But by then, it was too late. After dicking Russia over in WWI, Britain waging a separate war against Russia between the Great Wars, and Britain again dicking them around in WWII- Russia was done trusting the West.

So yes, WWII was won with Russian blood and American production.

That's rubbish. Churchil despised Hitler and Stalin equally. It was not he that wrote the UK policy of appeasement for Hitler and when he eventually came to power Britain and France entered war with British troops withdrawing from Dunkirk as the Germans bypassed their lines.

Also Britain's delay in re-joining the continental war was because they had almost capitulated to the third Reich before the Germans decided to waste precious resources on the Blitz.

It is very complicated to attribute these events to a single player as the USSR would have capitulated if Germany committed its full resources, without wasting it on the Blitz. And without the US's industry and resources the UK and the USSR would have probably fallen. Similarly, the Blitz wasted precious resources Germany had difficulties to recover that made their later war efforts difficult and their USSR invasion an even bigger folly. German military advisors wanted to seize the middle eastern oilfields rather than a Soviet invasion. The only player that plays to all these scenarios is the US tbh.

 

[D4Danger]

Britain repeatedly treated Stalin and Russia like shit when they negotiating to be Allies. It no wonder when Hitler gave them the royal treatment that Russia "joined" Germany to buy time to build up their war machine to defend against the Germany. Stalin was warning Britain for years about German. Churchill was happy to let Germany bleed Russia for years before committing troops to the European front.

Thankfully Roosevelt saw through Britain's political empire machinations and worked with Stalin to retake the continent. But by then, it was too late. After dicking Russia over in WWI, Britain waging a separate war against Russia between the Great Wars, and Britain again dicking them around in WWII- Russia was done trusting the West.

So yes, WWII was won with Russian blood and American production.

you should write stories for video games

 

[Spaced Harrier]

Well imagine living in the country where we can see all their self agrandisng media and lack of historical awareness, but they can't see any of ours.

They voted Olvier Cromwell as one of their best of all time. And don't get me started on the potato "famine".

 

[Pancake Mix]

Britain repeatedly treated Stalin and Russia like shit when they negotiating to be Allies. It no wonder when Hitler gave them the royal treatment that Russia "joined" Germany to buy time to build up their war machine to defend against the Germany. Stalin was warning Britain for years about German. Churchill was happy to let Germany bleed Russia for years before committing troops to the European front.

Thankfully Roosevelt saw through Britain's political empire machinations and worked with Stalin to retake the continent. But by then, it was too late. After dicking Russia over in WWI, Britain waging a separate war against Russia between the Great Wars, and Britain again dicking them around in WWII- Russia was done trusting the West.

So yes, WWII was won with Russian blood and American production.

You're living in a fantasy world, and I'm not sure why you're trying to humanise Stalin. There's a reason non-Roosevelt's didn't trust him, not least of which his taking the Baltics, the east of Poland, and part of Germany. In fact, Russia still holds that part of Germany (after they expelled the indigenous population) as the Kaliningrad Oblast.

You're also discounting the contributions of the UK, the British Empire (especially Canada, Australia, and India), the Free French, and more. What you're saying is typical two-power bullshit, but you're talking about the time right before the US and USSR emerged as the sole superpowers. There's a reason we're all telling you that you don't know what you're talking about.

Reading what EleventhHourSuperpower is posting makes me think it might be the same guy. Whataboutism when every questioned about their atrocities.

No, I acknowledged that the British Empire caused a lot of suffering. Linking an image of Gandhi talking about the capacity to forgive and noting that Japan for example was way fucking worse is just pointing out facts. It's already been said in the thread, but essentially, every world superpower that has ever existed had some skeletons in the closet relating to how they got their. The UK is no exception.

I had a conversation with a guy in Belfast who praised all of the atrocities committed during Colonolialism. He said they were good tactics.

Felt ill as he justified genocide and war crimes.

I read this quote today made by Nassau William Senior a political advisor that the Great Irish Famine of 1845 "would not kill more than one million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do any good".

The general consensus is that the Irish Potato Famine, as horrific as it was, was not intentional genocide like the Holodomor.

Also, you're leaving out context:

Costigan[16] argues, however, that the quote is taken out of context and reflects Senior's opinion purely from the viewpoint of the theory of political economy; in other words, even such a large reduction in the population would not solve the underlying economic, social and political problems, which would be proved correct. He argues that Senior made attempts over many years to improve the lot of the Irish people, even at considerable personal cost (in 1832, he was removed, after one year in office, from his position as Professor of Political Economy at King's College, London, for supporting the Catholic Church in Ireland). In his letter [17] of 8 January 1836 to Lord Howick, Senior wrote,

With respect to the ejected tenantry, the stories that are told make one's blood boil. I must own that I differ from most persons as to the meaning of the words 'legitimate influence of property'. I think that the only legitimate influence is example and advice, and that a landlord who requires a tenant to vote in opposition to the tenant's feeling of duty is the suborner of a criminal act.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassau_William_Senior#Controversy_on_Irish_Famine

The Irish were not treated very well, yes, and I'm not about to condone that situation, but you're misplacing blame with Senior, certainly. This is a fellow who went out of his way to advocate for Irish Catholics within the UK government and lost his position for it.

At least things did get better later on, though. There was even a name for it: "killing home rule with kindness."

http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/ireland/1867-93.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_(Ireland)_Act_1898

Then, it was just called Home Rule, period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1914

Technically, things did improve, slowly, for all the Irish, and it was better to be a British citizen than a British subject. Obviously though, most Irish didn't feel British, especially after hundreds of years of abuse. Most Northern Irish are unionists though, due to the large influx of immigrants.

 

[Chococat]

You're living in a fantasy world, and I'm not sure why you're trying to humanise Stalin.

I'm not humanizing Stalin. I'm pointing out that Russians, including Stalin, had just as many reasons to distrust the West. The West turned down and alliance with him, . Yes Stalin was a horrible human being, but he still had a country to defend.

There's a reason non-Roosevelt's didn't trust him, not least of which his taking the Baltics, the east of Poland, and part of Germany. In fact, Russia still holds that part of Germany (after they expelled the indigenous population) as the Kaliningrad Oblast.

Ah yes, because the British were saints when it came to conquering and colonizing other countries. Russia being terrible doesn't make Britain's atrocities any better or worse. It just makes them history we should learn from and not repeat.

You're also discounting the contributions of the UK, the British Empire (especially Canada, Australia, and India), the Free French, and more.

I'm not discounting the lesser contributions to the war, but that is exactly what they are. The European powers, like Britain, allowed Hitler to rise because they didn't have the stomach to fight*, nor the troops or equipment to challenge Hitler. They handed over free people and countries to appease Hitler in an effort to protect their own assets. That was horrible even not knowing what Hitler was going to do.

Yes, the French were brave, no doubt. The colonies of Canada, Australia, and India were brave fighting on shores that were not theirs for their royal masters. The British, when the final mobilized, were brave too. But without the endless waves Russian citizens dying in the quagmire of the Eastern Front and the USA ability to manufacture and stock the allies with weapons, the end of the war would have been quite different. The wave of Americans and colony citizens help speed up the end of the war. Without those troops, Russia eventually to Berlin out of sheer grit, no matter the cost of lives.

What you're saying is typical two-power bullshit, but you're talking about the time right before the US and USSR emerged as the sole superpowers. There's a reason we're all telling you that you don't know what you're talking about.

It's not two power bullshit. It the simple fact that the European empires of old, like Britain, were simply spent after WWI.




*everyone was tired and skittish after WWI. That is not a slight to bravery, just the fact the populations were still emotional drained

 

[Pancake Mix]

Nonsense

First of all, Stalin was a worse human being than Churchill. Yes, I will speak in relative terms, doesn't matter if you don't like it.

In the European and North African theatres, the British Empire (most prominently including Canada, Australia, and India) did not have a "lesser contribution". You're objectively wrong Chococat.

And then...so because everyone was spent after WWI, the UK wasn't a world power during WWII? Weakened after WWI quite a bit, yes, but only after WWII did the UK truly and entirely decline in influence. WWII was the last gasp of the British Empire.

As for your fantasy view of Stalin's overtures, Stalin was not to be trusted. The following posters here already said what I was going to say:

That's rubbish. Churchil despised Hitler and Stalin equally. It was not he that wrote the UK policy of appeasement for Hitler and when he eventually came to power Britain and France entered war with British troops withdrawing from Dunkirk as the Germans bypassed their lines.

Also Britain's delay in re-joining the continental war was because they had almost capitulated to the third Reich before the Germans decided to waste precious resources on the Blitz.

It is very complicated to attribute these events to a single player as the USSR would have capitulated if Germany committed its full resources, without wasting it on the Blitz. And without the US's industry and resources the UK and the USSR would have probably fallen. Similarly, the Blitz wasted precious resources Germany had difficulties to recover that made their later war efforts difficult and their USSR invasion an even bigger folly. German military advisors wanted to seize the middle eastern oilfields rather than a Soviet invasion. The only player that plays to all these scenarios is the US tbh.

you should write stories for video games

In the European and North African theatres, the UK and the British Empire as a whole (most prominently including Canada, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and India) did not have a "lesser contribution". You're objectively wrong Chococat. The US helped out enormously with money and forces later, but to even hold the Nazis to a stalemate prior to the entry of the USSR on the allied side is quite remarkable and an enormous contribution. The Nazis got within kilometres of Moscow and Leningrad, but they were drained from The Battle of Britain by that point, with the UK being the only country other than the USSR not to collaborate, claim neutrality, or capitulate. That is an enormous contribution.

That the USSR did not have natural protection via the sea, had a larger population, and threw that ill-equipped but patriotic population at waves upon waves of Nazi soldiers does not mean that the US had a minor contribution because it paid fewer lives. That's preposterous, the US was very important for the allies (which did not include the USSR at this time as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was still in effect) even before it formerly entered the war. You don't dispute that, but you dispute the role of the British Empire because you incorrectly think that the UK ceased to effectively be a world superpower about 30 years before it actually did.

You're reduced to talking about "feelings", as if they don't apply to the USSR. The British Empire was not spent until after WWII.

 

[redcrayon]

We didn't learn anything about Wellington/Napoleon when I was at school (I'm 38), I learned about it off my own back after reading the Sharpe novels (and watching the TV series) instead. That seems to be the running theme of the spark of virtually all interest in it amongst my generation any way, and to a far lesser extent wargames as the horrific 'stand in line and keep firing volleys' of the musket combat lends itself well to that format.

Any British teenager learning about Napoleon in organised education is going to be doing so during A-levels or maybe even University these days, where I'd like to think a more complex view than 'British lines beat French columns' could be explored.

As for World War II, I remember it focusing more on the civilian aspect of life during rationing and the Blitz than the general jingoism of war films.

I think the reason is that there was only a few weeks per topic (bearing in mind that the range went back to the Roman invasion and beyond) from hundreds of years of history. They were trying to provide snapshots of history that both boys and girls could relate to and, with WWII, were more likely to have grandparents that remembered it, and wartime civilian life covered that fairly well.

Actually, same goes for WWI, in that I distinctly remember the lessons almost revolving around a 'image' of a 'wartime kitchen' for WWII and a 'trench' in WWI, as teachers tried to associate stuff with a sense of place. There was a lot of further reading encouraged and museum visits though, any historian is going to shake their head at the limited scope of what you can teach a roomful of teenagers with no frame of reference and few resources in a handful of hours.

 

[PdotMichael]

and British spirit!!!!

You mean the decision of the pointless moral bombig while American bomber pilots were risking their lives, with at times the lowest survival rate of all branches, with day bombings on industrial relevant points?

Shit was so bad that even Churchill didn't know how to handle Arthur Harris after the war.

 

[milanbaros]

You could replace the word British with American and it'd read pretty well.

I don't know much about Napoleon and I'm not downplaying America's role in both the Pacific and Euro theaters in WW2. Allies likely wouldn't have won without them.

BUT people here constantly forget that Germany invading Russia and Russia paying in as many lives as they did was just as big a contribution. If not bigger at least in the Euro theater.

I guess we are probably culturally more similar to England then anyone else so it makes sense. The bit about Napeleon just struct me though because it's so familiar.

Indeed. The US+UK narrative of WW2 because of the Cold War is almost laughable when you read about the war. It was a German and Russia war at its core.

 

[pa22word]

Indeed. The US+UK narrative of WW2 because of the Cold War is almost laughable when you read about the war. It was a German and Russia war at its core.

You know there was this entire theater on the other side of the world, right?

 

[Mr. Luchador]

I get the impression that most countries romanticise their history (with the exception of Germany). Anyway, from what I can remember from school history. I'm 32 so things might have changed over the last 15 years!

- Franz Ferdinand and the reason for the war starting
- "Machine Gunner", Rationing, Civilian life during the blitz
- Elvis (!?)
- Henry VIII, Oliver Cromwell and the Church of England
- Yeomans and Crop Rotation
- Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece
- Anglo-Saxons
- George Stephenson
- Civil Rights in America

Some of the topics were region heavy too, due to living in the North-East (especially George Stephenson and The Romans). I can't remember ever learning about the British Empire in great detail.

 

[redcrayon]

Indeed. The US+UK narrative of WW2 because of the Cold War is almost laughable when you read about the war. It was a German and Russia war at its core.

To be fair it was also that most of the media regarding WWII that we've seen afterwards was naturally US/UK made and in English for an English-speaking audience, so no wonder that US/UK filmmakers looked for US/UK stories to tell. Agree that Russian actions were also ignored because of the Cold War, but you could say the same for the reason most of the films set in Iraq for a US/western audience feature US soldiers as the main characters rather than from an Iraqi POV. Hence the narrative, imagery and general sympathy becomes one of soldiers driving humvees through bombed-out cities rather than about civilians trying to survive.

 

[Cocaloch]

For entirely the sake of its history, I'm not totally convinced that England deserves to exist.

I'm kind of joking and kind of not joking.

Britain, the Scots and the Welsh shouldn't get out of the blame, has done a number of terrible things, but do you not see how wrong your line of reasoning is? Deciding what nations should and should not exist smacks of British imperialism after all.

Selective historic interpretations ARE dangerous.

All historical interpretations are selective....

 

[Toxi]

Indeed. The US+UK narrative of WW2 because of the Cold War is almost laughable when you read about the war. It was a German and Russia war at its core.

* In Europe

 

[michaelius]

Indeed. The US+UK narrative of WW2 because of the Cold War is almost laughable when you read about the war. It was a German and Russia war at its core.

Well it's also forgotten that being "liberated" by Russians was fate only slightly better than being occupied by Nazi Germany - since Russians were only doing selective killing of elites in liberated states while Germany killed everyone methodically.

 

[Spectone]

Silly British the Australians won World War II when we allied with the Turks invaded Gallipoli and defeated the Chinese.

On a more serious note Australia is still doing shitty things let alone looking at history. The way we treat PNG, our "efforts" around the independence of East Timor and inhumane treatment of refugees.

 

[pa22word]

Well it's also forgotten that being "liberated" by Russians was fate only slightly better than being occupied by Nazi Germany - since Russians were only doing selective killing of elites in liberated states while Germany killed everyone methodically.

Not to mention the red army raped and looted on a scale that would have made Genghis Khan blush on their way through "liberated" territory.

 

[redcrayon]

For entirely the sake of its history, I'm not totally convinced that England deserves to exist.

I'm kind of joking and kind of not joking. Seems like you'd have to employ some powerful selective thinking to just keep in mind the sunny side of history.

Come off it, the list of countries that have done horrific stuff but like to focus on their achievements is pretty lengthy.

The UK, US, Spain, Italy, France, Russia, Japan, the list goes on, and those are some of the most widely documented due to Imperialism. It's not even just history, the atrocities committed by some developing countries against their neighbours (or their own people) even today are utterly disgusting too, we just don't hear about them, or they go barely noticed as we flick past it in the newspaper. Which is why right-wing rhetoric in wealthy countries that has rebranded refugees as 'migrants' in order to make them sound less sympathetic to voters is so awful, especially when it's poorer countries that deal with the most refugees fleeing their neighbours.

 

[Cocaloch]

I don't think there is a country that does a good job, this is including Germany, with teaching its history at anything below an undergraduate level. Historians tend to not be a particularly respected group of people which is certainly a large part of the issue. They also tend to produce tentative and contentious accounts which are incredibly unappealing to lawmakers and pedagogues.

The goals of education and popular history and academic history are, despite repeated attempts, probably irreconcilable.

 

[zer0das]

I'm not humanizing Stalin. I'm pointing out that Russians, including Stalin, had just as many reasons to distrust the West. The West turned down and alliance with him, . Yes Stalin was a horrible human being, but he still had a country to defend.

The west turned it down because the Polish never, ever would have allowed Soviet troops into their territory because they had a long history of being partitioned by the Germans and the Russians, not to mention had an existential war against the Soviets within the past 20 years. And the fact the Soviets invaded Poland with the Germans not one month later is a pretty good indication it likely would have been political suicide to let the Soviets into their country.

 

[pa22word]

I don't think there is a country that does a good job, this is including Germany, with teaching its history at anything below an undergraduate level. Historians tend to not be a particularly respected group of people. They also tend to produce tentative and contentious accounts.

The goals of education and popular history and academic history are, despite repeated attempts, probably irreconcilable.

Even undergrad is problematic, with professors often overcorrecting and having students read obvious revisonary and overly reactionary histories that lose meaning outside of context.

Like, reading a revisionist account of the Civil War is probably a good idea for undergrad history....unless 7/8s of incoming freshman had no civil war history outside of "north won, reconstruction happened, bunch of amendments got passed, and lincoln got shot". I think the bigger problem there is that most colleges make students take like two histories--up to mexican american war and after mexican american war. Professors feel that's just not enough time to really cover any of the subjects in detail so they just assume the students have a decent grasp of what happened and issue revisionist accounts to cover the otherside better.

 

[Cocaloch]

Even undergrad is problematic, with professors often overcorrecting and having students read obvious revisonary and overly reactionary histories that lose meaning outside of context.

Like, reading a revisionist account of the Civil War is probably a good idea for undergrad history....unless 7/8s of incoming freshman had no civil war history outside of "north won, reconstruction happened, bunch of amendments got passed, and lincoln got shot". I think the bigger problem there is that most colleges make students take like two histories--up to mexican american war and after mexican american war. Professors feel that's just not enough time to really cover any of the subjects in detail so they just assume the students have a decent grasp of what happened and issue revisionist accounts to cover the otherside better.

Universities teach more history courses than just Gen Eds. Also what's the problem with "revisionary" history? The vast majority of historians do not create work that fits the popular narrative. That doesn't mean they are wrong, in fact it's indicative of quite the opposite.

Unless you are saying it's a problem that historians are assigning texts that are explicitly historiographical in their aims, I'm not quite sure what the issue is. And even if that's what you're saying I don't think it's that big of an issue anyway since in my experience it isn't common and, even if it was common, not really much of a problem.

Undergraduates, my experience only extends to the Anglo-sphere and Germany, have access, even if it isn't mandated that they receive it, to the modern state of the field. That's about as good as historical education can get content-wise.

 

[Screaming Meat]

WWII was basically Germany vs. Russia feat. The Allies. It's not even close.

It was basically Germany vs. Russian manpower & American industry power.

Aren't these exactly the sort of gross oversimplifications of history that MacGregor is criticising?

Relevant

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2016/oct/05/akala-the-propaganda-of-british-values-is-a-distortion-of-history-video

That is DAMN good.

 

[timetokill]

Indeed. The US+UK narrative of WW2 because of the Cold War is almost laughable when you read about the war. It was a German and Russia war at its core.

Okay so in your version of history

So not only was there not a western front

The entire Pacific ocean didn't exist


Fascinating

 

[PdotMichael]

Aren't these exactly the sort of gross oversimplifications of history that MacGregor is criticising?

If they are wrong.

You can't overstate how crucial the American lend-lease act was for the allies was and most of the war deciding battles happened on the Eastern Front.

 

[Mung]

As a brit, I can say that we, unlike Germany, have not come to terms and are not truthful about our terrible past. Our wealth was based on enslavement, piracy and a terrible empire (which was based on racketeering). The industrial revolution was an excuse to get rich, like don corleone's olive oil factory. It was not the reason for our wealth, which was stolen. Because people don't accept the he truth, they yearn for something than never existed. Interestingly, students are barely taught about the empire here.

 

[Desmond]

Most Northern Irish are unionists though, due to the large influx of immigrants.

that's a lovely way to refer to the Ulster Plantations.

 

[daviyoung]

Engerland, Engerland, Engerland!!!

 

[Screaming Meat]

If they are wrong.

You can't overstate how crucial the American lend-lease act was for the allies was and most of the war deciding battles happened on the Eastern Front.

If they are oversimplifications, then they are by definition 'wrong', surely?

Whilst American and Russian contributions are of absolutely vital importance, there are a variety of other factors and factions that affected the course of the war. I'm not talking about 'winning' the war, either.

 

[PdotMichael]

If they are oversimplifications, then they are by definition wrong, surely?

Whilst American and Russian contributions are of absolutely vital importance, there are a variety of other factors and factions that affected the course of the war. I'm not talking about 'winning' the war, either.

It's really that simple.

Industrial power & Manpower were the two crucial elements in defeating Germany, both things were provided by the USA and the Soviet Union.

 

[Screaming Meat]

It's really that simple.

Industrial power & Manpower were the two crucial elements in defeating Germany, both things were provided by the USA and the Soviet Union.

I didn't say they weren't crucial. I said they weren't the only factors.

 

[SuperHans]

No, I acknowledged that the British Empire caused a lot of suffering. Linking an image of Gandhi talking about the capacity to forgive and noting that Japan for example was way fucking worse is just pointing out facts. It's already been said in the thread, but essentially, every world superpower that has ever existed had some skeletons in the closet relating to how they got their. The UK is no exception.

Technically, things did improve, slowly, for all the Irish, and it was better to be a British citizen than a British subject. Obviously though, most Irish didn't feel British, especially after hundreds of years of abuse. Most Northern Irish are unionists though, due to the large influx of immigrants.

Poining out that Japan were worse and that every other empire also did bad things is completely irrelevant and distracts and trys to diminish what Britain did.

And technically things improved for the Irish after 1 million died and another million emigrated. I'm shocked. They couldn't have got much worse could they.

The Irish didn't feel British as they weren't British and they're were laws in place that made the Irish Catholics second class citizens.

Also a large influx of immigrants is an odd way to phrase the confiscation of lands from the natives during the ulster plantation.

 

[PdotMichael]

I didn't say they weren't crucial. I said they weren't the only factors.

You know what happens with factors which aren't significant to the result.

 

[hodgy100]

Yet if you acknowledge these atrocities and demand we, as a country, learn from them you are branded a traitor to the country and unpatriotic. It disgusts me. The real reason I'm not patriotic is due to the fixation on insisting that we have always been good.

The anti intellectualism that has engulfed the public of this country, brexit, people. oting against their own interests because they are too proud. This is what makes me feel like I don't belong here.

Fuck this country.

 

[Screaming Meat]

You know what happens with factors which aren't significant to the result.

Wait, who said these other factors weren't significant...?

 

[Saint of Killers]

Kind of related:

Were Scots responsible for the Ku Klux Klan?

Scotland and the Klan

Documentary in which Neil Oliver explores the possible links between racism in America's Deep South and the Scottish settlers that first occupied it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07yjk0j/scotland-and-the-klan

 

[KonradLaw]

First of all, Stalin was a worse human being than Churchill.

Even Hitler was better than Stalin and it's not even close.

 

[Don Draper's Hat]

Kind of related:

Were Scots responsible for the Ku Klux Klan?

I wonder how many Gaffers will pretend to feel sorry for the Scotch now, like they always do in a Brexit thread?

 

[PdotMichael]

Wait, who said these other factors weren't significant...?

You did.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Also Britain's delay in re-joining the continental war was because they had almost capitulated to the third Reich before the Germans decided to waste precious resources on the Blitz.

Their delay was based primarily on it being completely impractical to rejoin the continental war until they had built up sufficient forces to force a landing and secure a beachhead. They did a trial run in 1942 with the Canadians, the Dieppe raid, which was a colossal failure and taught them a lot of important lessons about what they would actually need to pull off something successful. They did invade Italy in 1943, but got bogged down. In any case, if Stalin had his way and the British attempt to open a second front in 1941-42 when he's begging for it desperately, it would have been a complete route. They didn't have the men or material, the Germans would have counterattacked and the British would have had to evacuate the continent again.

Side note though, the German switch to bombing London didn't actually save the RAF, although that is mentioned in basically every pop history and a lot of older sources. A statistical analysis of force strength indicates that the RAF were winning the Battle of Britain almost consistently, the Germans could not sustain their rate of loss and would have run out of pilots and aircraft sooner than the British would have. The Germans underestimated RAF strength, and the British overestimated Luftwaffe strength. Thus, the LW believed they were winning, and the RAF believed they were on the verge of losing at several points. However, after the fact, we can say that this was not true, particularly because the LW failed to make meaningful progress in knocking airfields or other installations out of action during the period where they were focused directly on that.

It is very complicated to attribute these events to a single player as the USSR would have capitulated if Germany committed its full resources, without wasting it on the Blitz. And without the US's industry and resources the UK and the USSR would have probably fallen. Similarly, the Blitz wasted precious resources Germany had difficulties to recover that made their later war efforts difficult and their USSR invasion an even bigger folly. German military advisors wanted to seize the middle eastern oilfields rather than a Soviet invasion. The only player that plays to all these scenarios is the US tbh.

Whether the Soviets could have gone it alone is not really known. There's too many factors to say with reasonable certainty. The Soviets did manage to halt the Germans in 1941, and again in 1942, in both cases before huge amounts of Lend Lease aid had come online to really do anything meaningful. It's not likely that the Germans could have totally defeated the Soviets.

On the other hand, there were other less visible factors going on too. The British were an obstacle to the Germans securing all of the resources they needed, and the Germans as a result dealt with constant shortages. Additionally, there were factors like the loss of skilled pilots and aircraft in the Battle of Britain, as well as the various other commitments that the Allies forced on the Germans. The Germans needed to invest in their navy, then later their submarine arm in particular to attempt to strangle the British. They needed to maintain defensive formations along the Atlantic coast. They needed to invest in air defenses against bombers and maintain a portion of their strength for defensive operations. They needed to constantly repair things that were getting bombed, and this got worse and worse as the war went on.

While it's true that the German divisions on the ground were mostly defeated by the Soviets, in terms of aircraft lost, something close to 80% were lost on the Western Front.

Lend Lease was not required to halt the Germans, however it did never the less provide the Soviets with a huge quantity of resources, finished goods, trucks, locomotives, food, rifles, tanks, aircraft. Would the Soviets have been able to retake all of the land they lost and push into Germany without this support? That's unknonw. Maybe they would have, but just have paid a higher price in lives than they did. Maybe they wouldn't have. I can say for sure that without losing a lot of formations in the West in 1944, losing access to French resources and having to gamble the last of their strength in the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans could have held out in the East much longer than they did.

 

[daviyoung]

You know what happens with factors which aren't significant to the result.

So we've gone from Britons thinking they won the war single handled to GAF thinking they might as well not have been in it.

What a joke.

 

[sasliquid]

I have heard similar concerns from teachers as well.

I mean I remember really admiring Churchill till a couple of years ago, he's treated like some untouchable great saviour

 

[PdotMichael]

So we've gone from Britons thinking they won the war single handled to GAF thinking they might as well not have been in it.

What a joke.

In the large scale of the things they didn't win the war alone. They were successful in winning the Battle of Britain but failed to stop the German Invasion forces in Norway and Montgomery wasn't capable of pushing Rommel out of Africa until the USA joined the war, same story in the Pacific.
There was also no chance for the UK to somehow to start any offensive operation in continental Europe against Germany.

 

[Condom]

First of all, Stalin was a worse human being than Churchill. Yes, I will speak in relative terms, doesn't matter if you don't like it.

Lol, Churchill never was so bad right unlike Stalin who was a monster who killed 1 billion people. Or is that just influence from years of one sided propaganda where of course Stalin never wanted anything good for his people but Churchill is either a hero or someone who simply has human flaws?

Records show that while Stalin was a known hard handed leader and made mistakes, he still meant the best for his country.

What about the 'allies' by the way who did everything in their might to take down the Russian revolutions? They acted like crap against Bolshevik Russia from the start because they wanted their class interests and bourgeois buddies at all costs.

 

[RocknRola]

Interesting. I mean I think most are aware history is always slightly romanticized (or sometimes a lot even) in favour of who is telling what, but it's always interesting to get outside perspectives.

I think I may have lucked out a bit with my history teachers who werent particular afraid of telling us how slavery+the atlantic slave trade was awful, inhumane and how it fucked over the African continent in general despite the massive amounts of money we were making off of it. Can't say if that's what was actually in the school program though.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Records show that while Stalin was a known hard handed leader and made mistakes, he still meant the best for his country.

"Hard handed", that's certainly one way to describe it. Stalin's great purge involved the execution of approximately 650,000 people, and hundreds of thousands more in long term imprisonment. That's the low end of the estimates, by the way.

Some of Stalin's "mistakes" include small matters like a man-made famine resulting in ~5-7 million deaths, jumping into bed with Adolf Hitler (not just signing a non-aggression pact, but generously supplying him with raw materials necessary to wage his war), extinguishing the independence of the Baltic states, invading Poland 2 weeks after Hitler, and demanding territory from Romania. The lovely, caring uncle Stalin in his later life also attempted to starve West-Berlin into submission with a full blockade, managed to kick off the Korean War by giving his approval and extensive military aid to Kim Il-Sung, and set up all of the puppet regimes in Eastern Europe that those countries are so fond of having lived under. He had to actually perform a coup-d'etat to get control of Czechoslovakia for that last one.

 

[Heartfyre]

Considering Neil McGregor's criticism of Britain's portrayal of its own history appears to be primarily focused on the colonial period, I'm unsure why this thread is so focused on 20th Century history.

You might say this thread is "focusing almost exclusively on the 'sunny side'," at least as far as British accomplishment is concerned.

 

[D4Danger]

So we've gone from Britons thinking they won the war single handled to GAF thinking they might as well not have been in it.

What a joke.

This thread has taking an absolute insane turn. I never thought I'd see anyone praise Stalin but here we are.