Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Let's Talk About the UN

United Nations 2006

  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#41 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 13 November 2006 - 01:46 AM

View PostRhea, on Nov 13 2006, 12:04 AM, said:

We did it WITH them, after all, and nobody sacrificed more than the Brits to get through the war (both of them, in fact).
The Russians....  The USSR had the vast bulk of the allied losses.  Britain's civilian population was bombed whereas the USSR was invaded.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#42 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 13 November 2006 - 02:40 AM

The Soviet Union lost somewhere between an estimated 19-23 million dead in World War II.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#43 ilexx

ilexx
  • Islander
  • 2,791 posts

Posted 13 November 2006 - 08:35 AM

View PostG1223, on Nov 12 2006, 02:54 AM, said:

The Second war one I agree they were the agressors. The First war they were fulfilling their treaty agreements with Austria Hungry.

Which was subject to a terrorist attack and when they demanded of the nation that hosted the attack that they turn over the terrorists had that nation refuse and mobilized and their Allies modilized. The Central powers did so as well.

Well, they were also fulfilling William II.'s illusions of grandeur, I'm afraid. It was actually the Kaiser and not the German generality, let alone the Germans as a state, that wanted this war. And Willie-boy wanted it just to prove a point against the Brits, whom he really hated for purely personal reasons... I doubt it that he really gave a damn' about Austria-Hungary.


View PostCJ AEGIS, on Nov 13 2006, 05:24 AM, said:

Quote

SparkyCola: It annoys me on many, MANY levels when Americans say 'oh yeah well you'd all be speaking German if it weren't for us' - a minor bugbear of mine.

Well from a very pragmatic angle I think the two biggest contributors toward an ally victory in World War II were the United States and USSR.  Both the US and USSR would have had the capability to beat Germany along under many circumstances.  England while it contributed heavily never had the capability to go toe to toe with Germany and win.  At best all she could have hoped for was to hold off the Germans and fight them to a stalemate.  Then it would have been a waiting game while Germany absorbed the resources of Western Europe and became stronger while England remained at the same level.  

Hitler effectively lost the war when he made the very stupid mistake of invading the USSR and picking a fight with General Mud, General Winter, and the Russian People.  He just compounded the situation by then very stupidly declaring war on the United States and upped the amount that he was going to lose by.  It’s important to keep the perspective that the USSR suffered millions of casualties compared to the other Allied Powers during her fight with the Nazis.  Meanwhile the US was fighting effectively two wars at once.  Helping with the main allied war effort Europe with most of her focus and then fighting Japan with what was leftover with only very limited help from the other Allies.  

Without the US or USSR England was on the path to at best a embarrassing stalemate or far worse than that.  The British deserve the glory in how they stood alone against Hitler but without the arrival of the USSR and US the war would have ended for England eventually.  In the same situation the US or USSR would have probably been able to take out Germany without any aid with heavier losses of course.

Well, it is a little acknowledged fact that Hitler did cover his bases with the so-called Ribbentrop/Molotow-treaty, better known as the Hitler/Stalin-pact, that stated - among other things - that Germany and the USSR were to attack Poland on the same day and divide it between the two of them. So technically: Germany and the USSR were both the original aggressors in WWII.
Unfortunately, the Russians were - as always - a little late and got on their way only on Sep., 17th 1939. So they weren't given their 'due share' as expected. Still, things went on merrily between Germany and the USSR for the better part of the following year, until Hitler came clear with his plan of not respecting the treaty... And then the original German-Soviet plan got forgotten, as the Russians were needed and did have to mourn a huge number of victims.


View PostCJ AEGIS, on Nov 13 2006, 07:46 AM, said:

View PostRhea, on Nov 13 2006, 12:04 AM, said:

We did it WITH them, after all, and nobody sacrificed more than the Brits to get through the war (both of them, in fact).
The Russians....  The USSR had the vast bulk of the allied losses.  Britain's civilian population was bombed whereas the USSR was invaded.

However, Britons did not pact with Hitler, originally, in order to swallow up another European state.




View Posttennyson, on Nov 13 2006, 08:40 AM, said:

The Soviet Union lost somewhere between an estimated 19-23 million dead in World War II.

Yes, but don't look at the absolute numbers, look at the percentage. And put it in relation to how many Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Balts, Austrians even etc. were slaughtered by the Soviets starting with January 1944.

#44 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 13 November 2006 - 09:30 AM

Quote

Ilexx:  However, Britons did not pact with Hitler, originally, in order to swallow up another European state.

Munich was darn close to that.  Britain and France might not have helped Hitler defeat the Czechs but they did sell them out.  You might as well say that both countries were complacent in Hitler dividing up another European State.  “Peace in our time” for Britain and France came at the price of turning the Sudetenland and eventually all the country over to the Germans.  It was this fear from the French and British failure to act that led Stalin to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Quote

Ilexx:Yes, but don't look at the absolute numbers, look at the percentage. And put it in relation to how many Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Balts, Austrians even etc. were slaughtered by the Soviets starting with January 1944.
No one is saying that Stalin was a nice guy.  We are simply stating that the Russian people took the brunt of the fighting and the losses in Europe.  The Russian rarely get the credit they deserve for bleeding the Germans white.  Britain alone had no chance to win the war.  Tossing the US in without the USSR would have tipped the balance.  That said the US and UK would have suffered much higher losses than they did historically.  There is no way that the US could have done it with the 90 divisions that it raised during the war.  

So the Soviets were a critical addition to the Allied Side and really one of the linchpins of the victory.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#45 ilexx

ilexx
  • Islander
  • 2,791 posts

Posted 13 November 2006 - 10:09 AM

[quote]Munich was darn close to that.  Britain and France might not have helped Hitler defeat the Czechs but they did sell them out.  You might as well say that both countries were complacent in Hitler dividing up another European State.  “Peace in our time” for Britain and France came at the price of turning the Sudetenland and eventually all the country over to the Germans.  It was this fear from the French and British failure to act that led Stalin to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.[/quote]

Oh, now I'm not so sure about that! Are you seriously suggesting that Stalin went for the pact with Hitler just because the Entente-powers failed to act against him, so Father Stalin thought: "Oh, before this guy goes further I'll take what I can get?" I think you might find it difficult to prove that.
OTOH: yes, France and England failed to act in time, but then again in the question of the Sudetenland there is this juicy piece about the Czech ambassador calling in the Small Entente-powers (that had a treaty sighned with Czechoslovakia), Poland being an adhering partner to it, for help; when Yugoslavia and Romania agreed to act accordingly, Poland withdrew saying that they had no problem with the Sudentenland going to Germany (after Germany had secretly agreed to allow Poland take out a nice piece of Czechoslovakia and add it to its own territory). The upbuilding towards WWII is a particularly disgusting piece of political failure on all sides with no one looking like the good guy, although I agree that they all appear harmless in comparison to Hitler.

[quote][quote] Ilexx:Yes, but don't look at the absolute numbers, look at the percentage. And put it in relation to how many Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Balts, Austrians even etc. were slaughtered by the Soviets starting with January 1944.[/quote]
No one is saying that Stalin was a nice guy.  We are simply stating that the Russian people took the brunt of the fighting and the losses in Europe.  The Russian rarely get the credit they deserve for bleeding the Germans white.  Britain alone had no chance to win the war.  Tossing the US in without the USSR would have tipped the balance.  That said the US and UK would have suffered much higher losses than they did historically.  There is no way that the US could have done it with the 90 divisions that it raised during the war.  

So the Soviets were a critical addition to the Allied Side and really one of the linchpins of the victory.
[/quote][/quote]

They did, but they did it - among other things - because their own acts were especially disgusting and dispicable both before and after being attacked. I have to admit in feeling not much sympathy towards a people thinking that everything is just great as long as it serves Mother Russia.

And you're wrong: everybody acknowledges the Russian attibution to victory over Germany - especially Germany. And Russia (actually according to their own way of telling the story they did all alone).

#46 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 13 November 2006 - 10:18 AM

ilexx said:

And you're wrong: everybody acknowledges the Russian attibution to victory over Germany
Except in the U.S.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#47 ilexx

ilexx
  • Islander
  • 2,791 posts

Posted 13 November 2006 - 10:24 AM

View PostSolar Wind, on Nov 13 2006, 04:18 PM, said:

ilexx said:

And you're wrong: everybody acknowledges the Russian attibution to victory over Germany
Except in the U.S.

You mean, sort of like: 'great nations/minds think alike?' :p

Just kidding! :D

#48 Mel

Mel
  • Islander
  • 447 posts

Posted 13 November 2006 - 02:02 PM

View PostRhea, on Nov 11 2006, 11:47 AM, said:

View PostGodeskian, on Nov 11 2006, 02:41 AM, said:

View PostMark, on Nov 11 2006, 09:58 AM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Nov 10 2006, 10:45 PM, said:

G, do you want the UN to have the kind of teeth it would need to exterminate genocide from the globe?  Or stand up to every petty dictator?

Mark: As long as the U.N. has the U.S.A....they have their teeth.

Actually, as long as the UN doesn't have it's own troops and has to borrow them of nations like the US, it will never have teeth, because the US can simply withdraw troop support if it doesn't approve of the way the UN uses them.

The UN needs a standing armed force that takes it's orders first and foremost from the UN, not from it's member nations if it ever intends to be able to act decisively.

True. And that isn't going to happen as long as nations are afraid standing UN troops might work against them at some point. ;)
I know the thread has wandered off into WWII, but there's actually a religious component to this as well at least among certain groups in the US.  Certain Christian groups don't want the UN to get to much power, fearing that it will be the one world government that will either give rise to or be born out of the power of the Anti-christ.  (Sorry, I know the theology exists, I'm just fuzzy on it.  I just know "One world government"=bad, therefore UN=bad.)

Edited by Mel, 13 November 2006 - 02:02 PM.


#49 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 13 November 2006 - 02:17 PM

Quote

It annoys me on many, MANY levels when Americans say 'oh yeah well you'd all be speaking German if it weren't for us' - a minor bugbear of mine.

I appreciate the intelligent debate going on here. Another dimension of the comment which annoys me is the ignoble quality of it. The comment, imo, trivialises not ONLY the contribution of the USSR, British Empire and France, but also reduces the honour of the American soldiers who fought, when the 'us' being talked about is not even the people who are saying the comment (if that makes sense).

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#50 Pallas

Pallas

    Wicked--Like the Witch of the West

  • Islander
  • 833 posts

Posted 13 November 2006 - 02:55 PM

Quote

I know the thread has wandered off into WWII, but there's actually a religious component to this as well at least among certain groups in the US. Certain Christian groups don't want the UN to get to much power, fearing that it will be the one world government that will either give rise to or be born out of the power of the Anti-christ. (Sorry, I know the theology exists, I'm just fuzzy on it. I just know "One world government"=bad, therefore UN=bad.)

That's interesting to be sure. I guess I never thought of it that way but then I've never seen the UN as some kind of world legislative body. For one thing, there's that pesky national sovereignty clause worked into the Charter. Secondly, the fatal flaw is not that the UN has to rely on its member states (which only makes sense given that the UN is supposed to be a world forum for all countries irregardless of economic status or cultural diversity) but in that the member states refuse to uphold their end of the deal. The UN is a long way off from becoming a real legislative body, even if we assume that's what its ultimate goal is.
We can do noble acts without ruling the earth and sea--Aristotle

#51 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 13 November 2006 - 03:12 PM

Well, this has turned pretty quickly from "let's talk about the UN" to "let's rehash the Second World War," while sounding like Otto from A Fish Called Wanda-- ("The smallest f***ing province in the Russian Empire!")  Thanks for the threadjack, Sparky!
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#52 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 13 November 2006 - 08:34 PM

topics are allowed to follow a natural path rather than a regimented one - thankfully.

Sorry if I don't happen to be talking about what you want to talk about.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#53 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 14 November 2006 - 12:04 AM

View PostCJ AEGIS, on Nov 12 2006, 10:46 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Nov 13 2006, 12:04 AM, said:

We did it WITH them, after all, and nobody sacrificed more than the Brits to get through the war (both of them, in fact).
The Russians....  The USSR had the vast bulk of the allied losses.  Britain's civilian population was bombed whereas the USSR was invaded.

True, they had big losses. But what I meant was that as a country the British hung on by their fingernails for a long time, and they wouldn't have as many casualties as the USSR - the difference in the size of the countries alone would dictate that. Like us, the USSR was a late entry to the war - 1941 - and again, England suffered terribly as a country hanging out there by themselves until the U.S. and Russia got into the war.

Actually, Poland had the biggest losses if you count civilian casualties - something like 16% to Russia's 13%. Lithuania also had proportionately large losses.

That was never the point. The point was that when the service of the English people was mentioned, you minimized their contribution while maximizing ours and that of the other allies. I don't exactly understand why.

And Zack, threads go where they will. I'm sure Sparky didn't mean to threadjack. ;)

Edited by Rhea, 14 November 2006 - 12:06 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: United Nations, 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users