If the tide of D-day had turned on the Allies

I know, I know...

 

Ome Joop... How can you say that the USSR and the Nazi's posed an equal threat to the western world? It's true both did horrible things in Eastern Europe (particularily Poland), but I'm talking about the USA and the UK... Not even Stalin was psychotic enough to want war with America, if for nothing else but the fact that he knew he could not win... Hitler declared war on everyone!! Hundreds of thousands of US and English men women and children died because of his warlike ambitions...The worst thing the USSR did to Americans was bang thier shoes rather loudly at the UN...

Honestly, Ome Joop can you name ONE violent act that the USSR ever committed against America or the UK??
Now try naming some Nazi ones

I seriously can't understand how you believe that rather McCarthyist assertion that the Nazi's were preferable allies than the USSR?? The only plausible explanation is that you've been watching anti-communist propaganda movies like Red Dawn or Rambo III (great movie ) or something... Can you give me any actual reasons why??[/b]

 

Well they did steal some planes and imprison American aircrews. Refering to soem bombers that were damaged over Japan and landed in not so friendly Russian territories. Stole the plane but allowed the crews to "escape".

 

Really? Thanks Gunter, didn't know about that! Don't forget they maliciously donated pilots and aircraft to North Korea during the Korean War (Damn! I'm giving evidence against myself!), but the US did the same in Afghanistan in the 80's and they boycotted the USSR olympic games, :cry: so it was a viscious circle... Despite this, what I'm saying is they were dream allies compared to the Nazi's

 

ill wager the mongol invasiion of japan had a better than 90% chance of success!...mongol bows would have dusted the local sword teams......the storm that hit nomandie on day 3 or 4 would have turned the landings into shambles,,,pure luck

 

Very easily (you named a few reasons yourself why they were a threat!) I actually said the USSR posed a greater threat then the Nazi's!
How Long did the cold war lasted (altough cold it was a real war)? Northern Korea was a real War against Communism?
Vietnam was a real War against Communism?
Cuba Missile crisis was almost a dead world....

I even think if Germany wouldn't have invaded Poland the USSR would have and would have invaded Germany and probable go even further...
BTW The USA came later in the Picture and at first didn't have anything to do with War in Western Europe....
What if France and the UK didn't declare war with Germany when Germany invaded Poland?
BTW Did you read that UK and France declared war on Germany...so actually they started
BTW Why didn't they declare war with the USSR at that time?
Why do you think Churchill wanted to go right trough to Moskou?
Why do you think the Western World is only the USA and UK :-?

 

No. During World War II both sides used weather forecasts extensively, rather than relying on sacrifices to weather gods. Therefore the start of Operation Overlord was actually postponed one day at the very last moment due to bad weather. The invasion could not have been disrupted by bad weather like the Mongol invasion had been unless someone had made a rather stupid decision.

 

You seem to think that somehow the Vietnam war is an example of USSR agression against America. Communism agression, perhaps, but not USSR- do not confuse the two, they are different things entirely. If anything, the agression rests entirely with the USA; they had no reason to intervene in either of those examples except to wage war simply because they did not favor the political system of one side. Vietnam was not a war on communism until America invaded and made it so. It began as a war against French Colonialism, the French were losing, America did not like the idea of a communist Vietnam, so they made it their war... the same happened in Korea, so you could say in both cases that the it was the USA's decision to fight both wars... not the USSR's as you seem to think.

Again, this event was not entirely the USSR's fault... equal blame must be given to the USA for allowing this event to happen, as the missiles on Cuba were assembled only as 'bargaining chips' for the large number of US missiles present in Turkey... and IIRC it was actually Nikita Krushchev who took the first step to resolving this crisis by opting to withdraw his missiles from Cuba without consideration for the Turkish missilse... not JFK... A good argument could be made that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a concluding example of goodwill between the USA and USSR (as it is in my opinion)

Just because you think that doesn't make it so... None of this so-called "evidence" is even remotely linked to what we're arguing about...
""What if France and UK didnt declare war? blah blah blah""... Do you have a crystal ball? Can you truthfully tell me that the Nazi's wouldnt have fought them anyway, or as you seem to hope, that the USSR would magically begin invading Western Europe?

Just because one great man wanted to invade the USSR, it does not make it a good idea... It does immediately mean that the USSR was a threat to England (throughout the entire cold war they never once invaded did they?), there has always been an irrational and largely unfounded hate of Russians in the West and both Winston Churchill and you are examples of it...

 

Ill answer this one first the others will have to wait:

Atomb Bomb is a good reason not to invade
Saying that the USSR wasn't a threat is strange...why did we had all those weapons in the first place if they weren't a threat?
I didn't say invading Russia was a GOOD idea at all (History has prooven many times that it wasn't

Naming me someone who has an irrational and largely unfounded hate of Russians is a bit strange as i don't have any hate for them...i wonder where you got that idea (You don't even know me) :-?
I said Russia was a threat and that is just a plain fact wich History (Cold War) Confirms...

 

Although D-Day went ahead on a hunch from a British forcaster that the weather that day would be calm enough to go ahead. If his hunch had been wrong...

 

No no Ome Joop... I didn't mean that. What I'm trying to say is this... The USSR was for a long time a military superpower, effectively the only one that could rival the Western Allies, right? This made alot of people in the West scared, and there are alot of films and documents from that period which 'demonise' the Soviets... But if you look at actual Soviet-Western policy, the Soviet approach to western relations, even under Stalin, is very defensive. They didn't want war any more than the US of A, they didn't dream of conquering the capitalist pigs in America or anything crazy like that... At worst it can be said that they were arms rivals; the only reason both the USA and USSR were amassing weapons was Defensively in case the other "evil" side attacked, neither the USA or USSR intended to be the first to use them. The notion of the USSR being a war-mongering machine is simply a false notion that has been spread by propaganda... They may have been so for Eastern Europeans, but not for Westerners

In contast, Nazi foreign policy to the western world consisted of invading and subjugating Belguim, the Netherlands and France, terrorising Britain with bomb raids and destroying US civilian cruise vessels...

You are right in saying that the USSR was a 'threat'... but the threat of war with the USSR was FAR lesser than the almost unaviodable threat eminating from Nazi Germany

 

In 1939 Poland was invaded from both sides, one side being the USSR. At the time they were also at war with Japan. Less than a year later, the USSR invaded Finland. This hardly seems like a passive defensive state to me...

You may say that the USSR was only agressive towards Eastern Europe, not the West, but this was quite simply because Stalin was an opportunist. The East was weak; he ignored the promises he had made at international conferences and simply cancelled all plans for independent democratic Eastern European states. He couldn't do the same in Western Europe because the armies of the Western powers were in the way, but do you honestly think Stalin would have stopped at Berlin if it weren't for that?

Ricky: if the invasion could be postponed at the last moment once because of bad weather, why not twice, or indefinitely, until the weather cleared up? If the weather had actually been worse (it was already pretty bad in the event, without leading to disaster) in spite of this forecaster's "hunch" then the invasion could simply have been postponed again.

 

Hell no. I stated that very clearly at the start... And thats a two sided coin Roel, do you honestly think the West would have stopped at the Rhine if it weren't for the Eastern armies? Strictly in the context of USA/USSR relations I consider neither side more politically rightous than the other...

 

Donno i think the USSR was more of an indirect threat (sending Missiles to Cuba, Sending Pilots, Weaponry To N-Korea...putting more and more oil on fires just to make it escalate) not able to do anything because the superpowers with their weapons created a stalemate with their doomsday weapons...War between them would mean the end...so who would go for that as it's always a lose- lose situation!

politically rightous ?
The USSR with their Communism at that time was never right as it's a form of dictatorship (just like those darn Nazi's)!

 

Just because you think it's the other way around that doesn't make it so either...and to go back to that chrystal ball thing the same goes for you...can you truthfully tell me they would?
The evidence is atleast the USSR invaded Poland declared War on Japan...i think that is linked to what we were arguing about!

Why would i hope the USSR would invade Western Europe?
First you say im Anti-Russia now Pro-Russia :roll:
If i didn't like Dictator Nr.1 why should i go for Dictator Nr.2...i'm glad they are both gonners!
I love the Free World :smok:

 

The Western powers would not have behaved in the Eastern European states like the USSR did when they invaded/liberated them. They would not install dicatorships, execute opposition, treat forces like the Armia Krajowa in the fashion the Soviets did, etc. Britain wanted a democratic government in Poland!

I think that they would have continued and liberated the East European nations from Nazism, but they would not have done it in the same way.

 

Of course not, because that would leave all of eastern Europe and a good chunk of Western Europe still controlled by Nazi Germany.

The difference, as Panzerman points out, is that the Western Allies would have treated Eastern Europe as they treated France, Belgium, The Netherlands, etc (liberate them, support them, allow them to democratically run themselves) rather than simply installing a puppet government and crushing all opposition...

 

Except it could not be delayed. The right conditions (tides, day length, moonlight the night before etc etc) would not be acheiveable for another year.

 

Uh-huh... So alot of you actually believe that the Nazi's would have made better allies for the west than the Soviets?? I must say I'm shocked! Particularily given the actual historical events which denote the Nazi's attacking Western Europe and the Soviets helping the allies fight the Nazi's... This is what ACTUALLY HAPPENED, not might have happened, actually happened . I mean, that's like George Bush saying Iraq would make better allies than the UK... I realise that the USSR was a brutal butchering dictatorship in the 40's, but they didnt actually commit any crimes against the west like the Nazi's did. It's not like being a totaltarian regime automatically makes you an enemy to America (land of the free); i mean this Evil regime actually did most of the work in defeating Americ's #1 enemy... Even if you could somehow prove they were planning to invade America or something, they didn't, and a crime will never be a crime without an 'actus reus'. Doesn't anybody else find this assertion crazy?

THE NAZI'S ATTACKED WESTERN EUROPE
THE SOVIETS DIDNT
Its so so simple!!!
How the F%$* can the Nazi's be considered better allies than the Soviets??
Doesn't anyone see where I'm coming from? let alone agree with me?

Honestly, I'd easily undersand if a Pole or a Czech thought that the Nazi's were better overlords... But westerners preferring Nazi allies to Soviet's?? I really just don't understand