10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#16

Post by Plain Old Dave » 16 Sep 2018, 22:57

Stiltzkin wrote:
16 Sep 2018, 21:53

WW2 was won with the blood of the slavic soldier. WW1 by the french soldier. Soviet horse drawn rifle divisions decided WW2 and not Liberators, they certainly played their role in the strategic war effort (the american economy tipped the economic balance) and certainly more in the pacific, but for the EF it is clear: Demographics.
The Reds rode to war in Studebaker and Ford trucks, with close air provided by P-39s. All delivered by Henry Kaiser's Liberty Ships on the Murmansk Run. It's said, with a good deal of accuracy, the three most important implements of the Second World War were the 2 1/2 ton truck, the M-1 rifle, and the fleet submarine. In no order.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#17

Post by ljadw » 17 Sep 2018, 08:33

Stiltzkin wrote:
16 Sep 2018, 21:53
1 Equality of power had nothing to do with the outbreak of wwii
Nobody said so, but it actually did, since the distribution of power did not match the political reality anymore since 1913, France and Britain were not the dominant powers in Europe anymore and totalitarian regimes emerged in Germany and Russia.
2 One has the right to violate the sovereignty of other states : this happend before WWI, before WWII and after WWII . Besides, right is a wrong and irrelevant word .And Poland was not a democracy
You joking right? So someone has a right to break into your house and steal from you without repercussions? Maybe in a failed state. Whether Poland was a democracy is unpertinent and had little to do with Soviet and Nazi intentions, the same applied to the Baltics, parts of China, Bessarabia and Finland. You need at least a ratification or mandate by the UN, (causa) humanitarian missions or interventions against genocide. They took territory by force, aggression. Russia still does up to this day. The 20th century was an age of politically motivated murder, incited by these regimes, unprecedented (since the middle ages maybe). How anyone can still defend or try to whitewash Nazi or Soviet crimes with the knowledge that exists today, is beyond my comprehension.
The statement "Poland and the Baltics were no democracies and should have handed over the corridor" is emphasized by Russians and nationalist Germans alike, a very dangerous game, possible consequences would be a schism of the European Union, if one would pursue this narrative.
4 Britain did not make concessions .
Chamberlain traded with territory in order to appease. The situation is clear, before anyone should try to "rehabilitate" him. That does not make him a Nazi sympathizer, but a "Realpolitiker" like Bismarck.
7 Today's special relationship is the relationship between the billionaire and the beggar/ the butler .
I would not go that far.
9 Britain is not essential to the balance in Europe :there is no balance .
Then you should educate yourself on European history, after two world wars, the foundation of the EU and NATO, no new wars emerged. Muslim and Orthodox borders are the "hotzones" right now. Britain is very important to European politics, roughly 15% of EU GDP (market rates). There is at least peace, since Germany is enchained by the Euro. This is however threatened lately by (nationalist) French ambitions, which are disguised as general European interests (Macron).
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui ... .%23%23%23
The Second World War was won on American assembly lines.
WW2 was won with the blood of the slavic soldier. WW1 by the french soldier. Soviet horse drawn rifle divisions decided WW2 and not Liberators, they certainly played their role in the strategic war effort (the american economy tipped the economic balance) and certainly more in the pacific, but for the EF it is clear: Demographics.
[/quote
1 British/French DoW had nothing to do with Poland/the Balance of Power ( no one was interested in Poland ): in November 1937 the British Government had told Hitler that he could have Eastern Europe, as long it happened without fighting .
2 In international politicks right is might and might is right .UN can giove NO mandate , only the Security Council can do this : 3 world powers and 2 former world powers .And since 1945 countless counties have been invaded by other counties,and mostly the SC looked the other way :
Turkey invaded Cyprus
India Pakistan
China Cambodja
Congo was invaded by its neighbours
Syria was invaded by Turkey
Iraq was invaded by Turkey
US attacked Somalia and Libya and Grenada
Latin American countries are talking of invading Venezuela
Etc,etc
Poland was ruled by military (coup d'etat of Pilsudski )
4 Britain and France did not make concessions ,because there were no German demands to Britain and France : Hitler did not demand the island of Man,or the Alsace . The concessions were made by Benesj .


Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#18

Post by Stiltzkin » 17 Sep 2018, 14:41

The Reds rode to war in Studebaker and Ford trucks, with close air provided by P-39s. All delivered by Henry Kaiser's Liberty Ships on the Murmansk Run. It's said, with a good deal of accuracy, the three most important implements of the Second World War were the 2 1/2 ton truck, the M-1 rifle, and the fleet submarine. In no order
Yes, but on the EF railways and horses were the most significant way of transportation and we also have to take into consideration that the Wehrmacht was already halted in 1941. American help (and British and Canadian) reduced the possibility that the USSR might collapse economically, so that the war effort would not seep in. The aid made also sure that the war of attrition would not go in Germany's favour (since the USSR was economically inferior to Germany), while making the RKKA progressively more effective till the end of the war. Most of the casualties however were inflicted by Soviet 76mm field guns and mortars (with poor projectile quality one might add), which were drawn by horses and transported by locomotives.
Aircraft inflicted very few casualties actually, the Soviets never invested into strategic air bombing, but had a strong tactical arm nonetheless. Aircraft is primarily utilized as recon anyway, especially on the wide steppes of the EF planes had to cover a lot of ground.
Do note that it is also a common myth of WW2, that there was a substantial difference in manufacturing methodologies, this was however not the case, aircraft, tanks and other equipment were constructed in a similar way. Of all the factories in the US, Bell-(Boeing) had probably the "nicest" assembly lines though, judging by factory pictures from the 40s.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#19

Post by ljadw » 17 Sep 2018, 15:10

The Soviets did not ride in Studebakers and Ford trucks,they were going by foot : compared to the millions of Soviet soldiers, the number of Ford Trucks/Studebakers was meaningless .
From Vorsin in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies September 1994:
1/1/1942 : Domestic trucks : 317000 ( 99,6 % 0f the total )
1/1/1943 :Domestic Trucks : 378000 Imported : 22000
1/1/1944 : Domestic Trucks : 387000 ( 77,9 % ) Imported 94000 ( 19 % ) Rest = captured
1/1/1945 : Domestic Trucks : 395000 ( 63,6% ) Imported 191000 ( 30 % )
And not all trucks were Studebakers

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#20

Post by South » 17 Sep 2018, 20:49

Good afternoon Stiltzkin,

If Germany is "enchained by the Euro", who allowed for the EU member nations to operate their own central banks ?

Perhaps, the EU is enchained to Germany.

Recommend a review of the Bank For International Settlements, established on 17 May 1930 at Basel, Switzerland.

Is it a coincidence that Berlin runs a trade surplus in their China trade ?

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

User avatar
MarkF617
Member
Posts: 581
Joined: 16 Jun 2014, 22:11
Location: United Kingdom

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#21

Post by MarkF617 » 17 Sep 2018, 21:01

Stilzkin,

Any imagined rights are only applicable when backed up with adequate force. To use your burglary analogy, in Britain my house is protected by the law. This is backed up by the police force who will do their utmost to catch perpetrators. Once caught they will then be tried and punished. If my house was out in the wilderness somwhere where no-one really owns and a passing traveler breaks into my home and steals everything then it is just tough. Rights do not naturally exist, they are man made and must be backed up with force or they are just words. If a country invades another country then it is not right or wrong it's just the way it is. It needs enough force to back up it's "rights" or enough friends willing to do it for them, otherwise any whinging about breach of rights is just hot air.
You know you're British when you drive your German car to an Irish pub for a pint of Belgian beer before having an Indian meal. When you get home you sit on your Sweedish sofa and watch American programs on your Japanese TV.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#22

Post by Andy H » 18 Sep 2018, 22:14

Hi All

This thread obviously could go off in 10 different directions given the initial statements by Hitchins.

For clarity and ease of reading, may I suggest that in this thread we discuss the basic tenants if Hitchins list as a whole.
If you want to discuss an individual aspect as listed, then may I suggest that someone starts a specific thread on it. That way this
thread won't turn into a bowl of spaghetti which will be nigh impossible to read by anybody not participating in it now.

So please don't waste your time posting specifics about each aspect, as they'll be deleted. Just start a new thread, so simple.

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#23

Post by wm » 18 Sep 2018, 22:46

it's better this way:
1) We were forced into way by the Germans = true (Germany attacked the purely defensive French-British-Polish alliance)
2) Poland was a bastion of democracy = unclear and irrelevant (it was a good enough democracy)
3) We fought to protect the Jews = false
4) Chamberlain was nothing but an appeaser = false
5) We stood alone against the Nazi Menace = true
6) The looming shadow of invasion = false
7) We can thank the 'special relationship' = false (Germany attacked the US)
8) British bombing of Germany was justified = true
9) Heroic Britain won the war = false, heroic = true
10) We were glorious in victory = true

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#24

Post by Terry Duncan » 18 Sep 2018, 23:34

wm wrote:
18 Sep 2018, 22:46
9) Heroic Britain won the war = false, heroic = true
I would certainly disagree here. Britain was heroic, agreed, but it did also win the war. It is more true that Britain lost out in the peace.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#25

Post by wm » 18 Sep 2018, 23:58

I assumed "won the war alone" - a copy of the more known "the Russians won the ww2". That Britain won the war in alliance with others is an indisputable fact.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3209
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#26

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 19 Sep 2018, 00:02

Terry,

Wm - absolutely.

Is the point here that Britain did not alone win the war? Britain played a part in winning the war, yes, but if left to fight alone (with Aus, Canadian, Indian, New Zealand, S African et al support, so not alone really) then would war have been won?

Regards

Tom

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#27

Post by Stiltzkin » 19 Sep 2018, 00:38

Stilzkin,

Any imagined rights are only applicable when backed up with adequate force. To use your burglary analogy, in Britain my house is protected by the law. This is backed up by the police force who will do their utmost to catch perpetrators. Once caught they will then be tried and punished. If my house was out in the wilderness somwhere where no-one really owns and a passing traveler breaks into my home and steals everything then it is just tough. Rights do not naturally exist, they are man made and must be backed up with force or they are just words. If a country invades another country then it is not right or wrong it's just the way it is. It needs enough force to back up it's "rights" or enough friends willing to do it for them, otherwise any whinging about breach of rights is just hot air.
Yes, a system should always have teeth, this goes beyond the "exegesis" of control or governing, since everything else would be just utterly defeatist ("the way it is", that is usually the view of individuals who never lived under oppression). There is clearly something like a difference between injustice/aggression and invasion and intervention. North Korea is hardly the epitome of human rights. There is a reason why the CPI exists and anglo-saxon nations are in the top 10 list, amongst the countries which uphold international law. Dictatorships are not amongst these, that is what I am referring to.
America has open borders with Canada. The German - French border was a mass grave for millions.
If a bully punches you in school you should fight back, either with diplomacy or self defense. If someone trespassed on your private property threatening your life, you have the right to defend your soil and your life. If you were conquered by the Roman empire, youd quickly enjoy the advantages of being a roman citizen, living the etruscan and latin way of life. If you were however under Soviet or Nazi occupation...(just compare North and South Korea).
Good afternoon Stiltzkin,

If Germany is "enchained by the Euro", who allowed for the EU member nations to operate their own central banks ?

Perhaps, the EU is enchained to Germany.
Well, this does not belong here but still a short excursus: What was the prerequisite of unification of East and West Germany after the collapse of the USSR? Germany had to accept the Euro after negotiations with France (they refused to ratify, if not for this condition). Most of the important positions in the EU are distributed amongst Franco-Benelux members, so maybe you should reconsider your statements, especially considering the massive amount of redistribution (aka "financial aid to save french banks", remember the US has no bailout system, the same is formulated in EU law §125 AEUV) that is occuring, for the "sake of the Union". With Britain out of the EU, Germany will be in a worse position, simply because of the reduction of the blocking minority - Britain swung the balance in favour of the free trade nations. The strength of the vote of countries like Cyprus or Malta and their influence is beyond any rationale.
There are no obligations and reasons why nations like the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Austria should agree to a permanent fiscal union in the very first place. They do not suffer a financial crisis, the mediterranean nations do, yet living standards are far above their possibilities, austerity seems to be a foreign term, a keynesian approach is hardly an option nor would it matter, money does not go where it is forced, but rather where the conditions are optimal.
Britains motivations to leave were also manifold, from economic issues to anxienty of mass migrations (which they already endured in the 60-70s). Keep in mind who is actually turning the Brexit into a painful process, unfavorable negotiations for the United Kingdom, it is Jean-Claude Juncker.
"Dominance" by passiveness through economic power is probably the most ridiculous incrimination I have ever heard. China and the US will not simply slow down or donate their income for the sake of altruism either. Nobody is forced to buy American or German products, to this has to be added that both Germany and the US possess relatively low trade barriers, the French (ask British fishermen) or Chinese system is very protectionistic.
The chef of the EZB by the way is italian (and printing money is all they do, "yay inflation, what do we do? Devaluate, we cannot since we are trapped in the € - Then let Germany pay. Why dont you leave? Because we want to retain all privileges and high wages, we do not want to work hard for it like Estonia, Poland or Czechia are doing) and his predecessor was french.
For more information here, from one of the the most prolific economists, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw9xAlY4gR8 (he also speaks about Britain at the end, basically Prof. Sinn stated, "Britains exit might be the beginning of the end of the Union").
Everytime I hear "Germany is dominating the EU" I get a headache, which is technically just propaganda. What is the €? Nothing but a cage for Germany, Britain did not even accept it, nor does the Czech republic, Poland or Denmark. Germany's economy was stable and strong before the € and it is still after its introduction, there were only limited benefits (in export) that came with the €. Euro was never a German idea, it was french.
What about the armed forces? German expenditure is 1.1 of GDP now raised to 1.4, because of Trumps protests, the prerequisite of NATO is 2%. They are practically non-existent. Meanwhile Britain intervenes (as one of the most loyal ally of the United States) overseas and France prepares to protect African uranium mines.

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#28

Post by Plain Old Dave » 19 Sep 2018, 02:28

wm wrote:
18 Sep 2018, 22:46
it's better this way:
1) We were forced into way by the Germans = true (Germany attacked the purely defensive French-British-Polish alliance)
Pretty clear Germany provoked the war.
2) Poland was a bastion of democracy = unclear and irrelevant (it was a good enough democracy)
3) We fought to protect the Jews = false
A lot of people thought the stories about what was happening to the Jews was Allied propaganda, like the "rape of Belgium."
4) Chamberlain was nothing but an appeaser = false
Maybe, won't argue the point.
5) We stood alone against the Nazi Menace = true
Partly. FDR wanted into the War in Europe in the worst way. Lend Lease, and the U-boat campaign where the Germans sank the Reuben James....
6) The looming shadow of invasion = false
Maybe.
7) We can thank the 'special relationship' = false (Germany attacked the US)
Hm. I suppose all the Fleet Air Arm Grumman aircraft and all the Liberty ships that fed Britain were purely incidental?

8) British bombing of Germany was justified = true
Agreed.
9) Heroic Britain won the war = false, heroic = true
Without Lend Lease, British defeat is even more certain than with no AEF in WW1.

10) We were glorious in victory = true
The V-E Day festivities are as iconicly(sp?) British as the 1897 Jubilee, the Fab Four, and Doctor Who.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#29

Post by South » 19 Sep 2018, 08:21

Good morning Stiltzkin,

Acknowledging receipt.

Am ready to reply but Andy's correct and governs the direction of the thread.

As soon as I see the subject matter in other current or new threads, will, of course, surely reply.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: 10 Myths of the WWII by Peter Hitchens

#30

Post by wm » 19 Sep 2018, 17:02

Plain Old Dave wrote:
19 Sep 2018, 02:28
Hm. I suppose all the Fleet Air Arm Grumman aircraft and all the Liberty ships that fed Britain were purely incidental?
Plain Old Dave wrote:
19 Sep 2018, 02:28
Without Lend Lease, British defeat is even more certain than with no AEF in WW1.
I meant Britain stood alone during the Battle of Britain and the few next months, later the US sent money and weapons, or rather sold money and weapons at exorbitant prices (nothing wrong with that btw).

But it was the British who were fighting, who suffered the bombing and the blockade. The Americans were getting richer and just enjoyed the show (again, nothing wrong with that).

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”