so. you were taught D-day was the "turning point????"

……. I thought the US and other allies (or anyone other than Germany, Italy and Japan) were in fear of the Axis taking over...… it seemed necessary to engage in war. There were several "Turning Points" or important events that determined the outcome of the war...….. D Day being the onset of a major European Invasion from the "western" nations...… and west of Germany......
 
My estimate is there is something like 10,000 books on WW2 so we aren’t likely to agree on every point. The so called experts don’t either.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget while the Russians were a meat grinder it was also due to their policy's and Stalin's purge of his military leadership. Look at how the Russian Army did against the Finns. Also the Russians only fought on one front for the majority of the war and didn't go against the Japanese until the last few weeks of the war. The USA fought the Japanese all through the Pacific, North Africa, Italy and then Europe. The US also equipped every Allied Army with material and food.

CD
 
Was not taught it.
Do not teach it.

turning points:
Midway in the Pacific
Stalingrad on the Eastern front
Bulge on the Western

That's what I teach.
 
Not going to enter into the fray other than to post this. If you have not seen it, you need too. Pretty sobering on the loss of life in WWII. We don't even know how many lives were lost by the Russians, they refuse to actually give a number.

Oh, and we killed more French than the Germans did. Taking a country back is far bloodier than loosing it.



 
Last edited:
My two cents: Russia did not save us from the Nazis. Russia did not attack Germany, it was the either way around. Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading Russia and failing to secure that country by the onset of winter, the outcome could have been far different. Germany over-reached. Too few troops, supplies, and weapons to cover too much area. Germany’s strength (tanks) were inferior to the new Russian tanks. This was a shock to Hitler and his officers. Russia didn’t put the world on its back and say FOLLOW ME, I WILL SAVE YOU ALL. Russia merely responded to an attack by Germany and eventually pushed them back all the way back to Berlin. Hitler got greedy.
 
B00ger said:
I have a degree in history. It was never taught that D-Day was the turning point in the war. It was, perhaps the nail in the coffin, but far from a “turning point”. Britain was no longer in danger, the Soviets were pushing back. Africa and Italy were a lost cause. D-Day and the following actions pushed the Germans out of occupied territory and forced the eventual surrender.

So the premise of your entire rant is completely moot to anyone who actually has studied the war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sorry. I guess I considered editorial articles either yesterday or recently that claimed (specifically, using the precise words "turning point") it was such - or that it is a commonly held belief - to be enough to support that it in fact IS a commonly held belief, correct or not. Had I only know you had "majored in history" I would have gone ad fontes and just avoided any other unnecessary searches for whether it is a commonly held opinion. Silly me. I will be sure and check with you first, since a history degree SHOULD have tipped me off that the editorial writers cited below know zero and less than nothing.

I am not going to provide the cites simply because I am too lazy. I did do a cursory sketch and found them but I figure anyone interested would be able to do what I did and quick google/duck duck go/bing.

NY Times
History.com
AP News
The Telegraph
Times(London)
WAPO
CBS News
Russia Today (!!!!!)
USA Today

... and after that I got tired of looking and decided to take a nap.

I do see the error of my ways, and will refrain from the ridiculous and idiotic mad hatter ideas that many people may believe this, even though the sources cited above claim otherwise.

After all, who am I to argue with a person who has a degree in history? Next time I will just check with you on what commonly held beliefs are, so I won't be ashamed when you set me straight.

Happy now?

proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpeg
 
Last edited:
tanstaafl72555 said:
Sorry. I guess I considered editorial articles either yesterday or recently that claimed (specifically, using the precise words "turning point") it was such or that it is a commonly held belief to be enough to support that it in fact IS a commonly held belief, correct or not. Had I only know you had "majored in history" I would have gone ad fontes and just avoided any other unnecessary searches for whether it is a commonly held opinion. Silly me. I will be sure and check with you first, since a history degree SHOULD have tipped me off that the editorial writers cited below know zero and less than nothing.

I am not going to provide the cites simply because I am too lazy. I did do a cursory sketch and found them but I figure anyone interested would be able to do what I did and quick google/duck duck go/bing.

NY Times
History.com
AP News
The Telegraph
Times(London)
WAPO
CBS News
Russia Today (!!!!!)
USA Today

... and after that I got tired of looking and decided to take a nap.

I do see the error of my ways, and will refrain from the ridiculous and idiotic mad hatter ideas that many people may believe this, even though the sources cited above claim otherwise.

After all, who am I to argue with a person who has a degree in history? Next time I will just check with you on what commonly held beliefs are, so I won't be ashamed when you set me straight.

Happy now?

View attachment 130325
Click to expand...

So, some articles appear that distort history and get it completely wrong so you decide to come here under the belief that the majority of people here also hold those distorted views. And when called out on it you resort to more snide bickering.

As I said. Just a pigeon crapping on a chessboard.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
No one will argue that it wasn't "a" turning point. But not "the" turning point. Although OVERLORD/NEPTUNE was bigger, with bigger ramifications, than HUSKY, I think the invasion of Sicily and Italy held more strategic importance. It was that which caused Hitler to move armies to Italy and create a pressure valve for the Soviets.

The Soviets had their eyes on eastern Europe, and we knew it. I am not the biggest Churchill fan, partly because he shafted the Poles and gave away the farm. By the time FDR had any real say in post-war events, his mind was too far gone.
 
HMP said:
Was not taught it.
Do not teach it.

turning points:
Midway in the Pacific
Stalingrad on the Eastern front
Bulge on the Western

That's what I teach.
Click to expand...

These + The Battle of Britain are what I was taught as losses for the Axis from which they never recovered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HMP
B00ger said:
I've never really read anything that pointed to Roosevelt >wanting< war. Id be interested to see any source data on that. But it is pretty well accepted that Japan, especially the military leaders, didn't want to fight the US. But they felt it inevitable. Their goal of Pearl was to completely knock out our Pacific carrier fleet, leaving us toothless in the Pacific. If someone >wanted< to point out a possible conspiracy would be that our carriers just happened to be out of dock when the attack struck. Leaving the carriers, coupled with an enraged and encouraged population, allowed the US to recover extremely fast and bring fire to bear on the Japanese far before they expected.
Click to expand...
If you listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast I'm curious if you've heard his episodes about the war in the Pacific. He basically said it appears Roosevelt wasn't wanting war, but that the American public were still screaming that we needed to do something. The public didn't want war, but they wanted to punish Japan for the atrocities they were committing somehow. Embargoes were the way they handled that, kind of like we are handling Iran now.
 
I read a book recently written by a German who fought at Normandy during the invasion. A very unique perspective. Most of the soldiers stationed along the beaches were older, had illicit backgrounds, were cowards, had health problems, or were survivors from the Russian front sent to France to recuperate or heal from their injuries. Duty in France was considered the backwater of the war and easy duty. There were also several thousand Russians who had fled their country and supported the Nazis there as well. After the invasion, the Russians that were captured were quickly loaded up on transports and shipped back to Russia where they were summarily executed as traitors. There were also French troops, including one SS battalion, who were later known for their brutality against allied troops and the French underground. When we hit the beach many of the German/French/Russian troops ran away. If there had been crack German divisions along the beaches the outcome may have been quite different. We hit the third string on D-Day, so the speak.
 
ChickenHawk said:
If you listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast I'm curious if you've heard his episodes about the war in the Pacific. He basically said it appears Roosevelt wasn't wanting war, but that the American public were still screaming that we needed to do something. The public didn't want war, but they wanted to punish Japan for the atrocities they were committing somehow. Embargoes were the way they handled that, kind of like we are handling Iran now.
Click to expand...

Unlike some people who will just google a few things and feel themselves qualified to speak intelligently, Ill go ahead and admit that my pre-WWII knowledge on the feelings the US had on the pacific is very weak. But knowing what I do know, I would tend to agree with Mr. Carlin's views. The US, despite some peoples opinions, up until the Cold War was generally always isolationistic in its policies where military action is involved. So, just as we are hearing the atrocities of in the middle east and people are clamoring to "do something" no one was really wanting to churn up the military machine and go into action to do something about it. If you look at the numbers (here is an interesting site http://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_Mil_Manpower_1789-1997.htm) its clear the US was still operating at post WW1 force reduction numbers.
 
Downeast said:
I read a book recently written by a German who fought at Normandy during the invasion. A very unique perspective. Most of the soldiers stationed along the beaches were older, had illicit backgrounds, were cowards, had health problems, or were survivors from the Russian front sent to France to recuperate or heal from their injuries. Duty in France was considered the backwater of the war and easy duty. There were also several thousand Russians who had fled their country and supported the Nazis there as well. After the invasion, the Russians that were captured were quickly loaded up on transports and shipped back to Russia where they were summarily executed as traitors. There were also French troops, including one SS battalion, who were later known for their brutality against allied troops and the French underground. When we hit the beach many of the German/French/Russian troops ran away. If there had been crack German divisions along the beaches the outcome may have been quite different. We hit the third string on D-Day, so the speak.
Click to expand...

Not only did we not hit their top troops, we also hit relatively well where they weren't expecting. It was a very complex operation, no doubt, and part of that was the subterfuge behind it.
 
Downeast said:
I read a book recently written by a German who fought at Normandy during the invasion. A very unique perspective. Most of the soldiers stationed along the beaches were older, had illicit backgrounds, were cowards, had health problems, or were survivors from the Russian front sent to France to recuperate or heal from their injuries. Duty in France was considered the backwater of the war and easy duty. There were also several thousand Russians who had fled their country and supported the Nazis there as well. After the invasion, the Russians that were captured were quickly loaded up on transports and shipped back to Russia where they were summarily executed as traitors. There were also French troops, including one SS battalion, who were later known for their brutality against allied troops and the French underground. When we hit the beach many of the German/French/Russian troops ran away. If there had been crack German divisions along the beaches the outcome may have been quite different. We hit the third string on D-Day, so the speak.
Click to expand...

Hitler believed the invasion was going to be elsewhere. We did have plans for an invasion on the French coast in the Med, and with the "ghost army" and good disinformation, the Germans believed Normandy was safe, and put their better forces elsewhere. Lucky break for us. Even so, we came 'that' close to losing Omaha.
 
Eltonfan59 said:
My two cents: Russia did not save us from the Nazis. Russia did not attack Germany, it was the either way around. Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading Russia and failing to secure that country by the onset of winter, the outcome could have been far different. Germany over-reached. Too few troops, supplies, and weapons to cover too much area. Germany’s strength (tanks) were inferior to the new Russian tanks. This was a shock to Hitler and his officers. Russia didn’t put the world on its back and say FOLLOW ME, I WILL SAVE YOU ALL. Russia merely responded to an attack by Germany and eventually pushed them back all the way back to Berlin. Hitler got greedy.
Click to expand...

After WWI the Russians always had their eyes on Western Europe. Lenin tried first time in Feb 1919- Mar 1921 but were stopped by Gen. Pilsudski in Poland. Then Stalin on 16 Sep 1939 without a declaration of war attack Poland from the north. 16 days after the Germans invaded Poland. Never had an explanation from the Brits or French on way they didn't declare war on the USSR then. Germany and Russia divide Poland among themselves. Russians later attack Finland on 30 Nov 1939 till 13 Mar 1940, known as the "Winter War". Russia and Germany were allies till Operation Barbarossa on 22 Jun 1941.


CD
 
Last edited:
gm-nazis-768x736.jpg

ford-nazis.jpg

ibm-nazis.jpg
(IBM)

coke-nazis.jpg
 
Ferrisfan said:
These + The Battle of Britain are what I was taught as losses for the Axis from which they never recovered.
Click to expand...
Good call on Battle of Britain, keeping the Germans from invading the island
 
Downeast said:
I read a book recently written by a German who fought at Normandy during the invasion. A very unique perspective. Most of the soldiers stationed along the beaches were older, had illicit backgrounds, were cowards, had health problems, or were survivors from the Russian front sent to France to recuperate or heal from their injuries. Duty in France was considered the backwater of the war and easy duty. There were also several thousand Russians who had fled their country and supported the Nazis there as well. After the invasion, the Russians that were captured were quickly loaded up on transports and shipped back to Russia where they were summarily executed as traitors. There were also French troops, including one SS battalion, who were later known for their brutality against allied troops and the French underground. When we hit the beach many of the German/French/Russian troops ran away. If there had been crack German divisions along the beaches the outcome may have been quite different. We hit the third string on D-Day, so the speak.
Click to expand...
D Day Through German Eyes?
 
chiefjason said:
Keep in mind the swatstika was a good luck symbol before the Nazis. So the last one may or may not be symbolic. I’ve got good luck tokens from the teens with them on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Boy Scouts of America used it for the same purpose up until Adolf ruined it for everyone. And the little mustache too.
 
The Russians used to clear mine fields by getting cows to walk through them first.
When there were no cows available, the field commanders made their own soldiers link arms, and walk through the field...with a machine gun behind them for any soldier who might be reluctant to think it was a good idea.

I reject the idea that Americans had it easy. You didn't have to put a machine gun behind them...they just did it, and the examples are numerous.

With the Germans fighting for the Fatherland, the Russians for the Motherland, the Japanese for the Emperor, the British for King and Country, the French for Viva la France...the Americans had this strange core value of fighting for Freedom. Freedom for the oppressed to choose which direction they wanted to take their own people, whether we liked it or not. The only fighting force of the time to feel that way.

Rather than fighting for an idol, or a political identity..the Americans fought for the idea of individual destiny. Did it always turn out perfectly? Of course not. But if you're gonna drag us into this crap, individual destiny and humanity was going to be the ultimate objective..and that's why this is America's Greatest Generation.
 
B00ger said:
I've never really read anything that pointed to Roosevelt >wanting< war. Id be interested to see any source data on that.
Click to expand...

ANYTHING? REALLY??????? You have never read Arthur McCollum's memo to FDR and tracked the precise execution of this, nor the puzzled and frustrated responses of FDR's commanding officers in the Pacific? Maybe you should sue your university for malpractice?

This response reminds me of the guy in here (I don't remember his name) who charged that any assertion that there might be a link between the US Central bank and the Rothschilds as conspiracy nonsense, and thus dismissed any evidence for it as wild eyed John Bircher illuminati-ism.
It is quite easy to assert there is no evidence for something when one deliberately screws his eyes shut and refuses to look.

I would be more gentle if you has said something like "there is a small historical backwater of folks who claim there is evidence that Roosevelt wanted war, backed by a book by XXXXXXXXXX (I will let you google that, as I suspect you never heard of it, frankly), a couple of PhD historians, who claim that there is a memo by Lt Commander McCollum which advocated pushing Japan into war, and laid out several steps to do so. Roosevelt, it is claimed, did follow these steps, and against the advice of his commanders in the Pacific" (all this is true, which fact you, as the historical scholar :) , should know). If you cited this, and then said you rejected it for 1,2,3,4 reasons, I would have less reason to suspect your response (which I anticipate) is some kind of pathetic crawfishing to insult my mad insane slobbering rants and falsely paint yourself as an expert who deigned this evidence as beneath mentioning.

That is what I have come to EXPECT in these kinds of convos with you. I would love to be proved wrong.

Bishop D7. Check. Your move.

Sincerely, Pigeon Boy.
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
ANYTHING? REALLY??????? You have never read Arthur McCollum's memo to FDR and tracked the precise execution of this, nor the puzzled and frustrated responses of FDR's commanding officers in the Pacific? Maybe you should sue your university for malpractice?

This response reminds me of the guy in here (I don't remember his name) who charged that any assertion that there might be a link between the US Central bank and the Rothschilds as conspiracy nonsense, and thus dismissed any evidence for it as wild eyed John Bircher illuminati-ism.
It is quite easy to assert there is no evidence for something when one deliberately screws his eyes shut and refuses to look.

I would be more gentle if you has said something like "there is a small historical backwater of folks who claim there is evidence that Roosevelt wanted war, backed by a book by XXXXXXXXXX (I will let you google that, as I suspect you never heard of it, frankly), a couple of PhD historians, who claim that there is a memo by Lt Commander McCollum which advocated pushing Japan into war, and laid out several steps to do so. Roosevelt, it is claimed, did follow these steps, and against the advice of his commanders in the Pacific" (all this is true, which fact you, as the historical scholar :) , should know). If you cited this, and then said you rejected it for 1,2,3,4 reasons, I would have less reason to suspect your response (which I anticipate) is some kind of pathetic crawfishing to insult my mad insane slobbering rants and falsely paint yourself as an expert who deigned this evidence as beneath mentioning.

That is what I have come to EXPECT in these kinds of convos with you. I would love to be proved wrong.

Bishop D7. Check. Your move.

Sincerely, Pigeon Boy.
Click to expand...

You have too much time on your hands Pigeon Boy, I literally said I hadn’t read it and asked for a source. You so obnoxiously provided. Good work. I studied WWII nearly 20 years ago and I never, despite your autistic screeching, claimed to be an expert on the pre-war USA. Just that your original asinine premise that most people see D-Day as a “turning point”.

You seem to be doing your absolute best to spike a ball in a game no one is playing with you in some vain attempt to save face over being universally shown to be full of horse hockey in your initial post.

Keep pooping on the board. I’ve got plenty of paper towels, and it does nothing but further expose how absolutely insane you really are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HMP
So, FWIW, here are a few of the sources you never heard of:

Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor Robert B. Stinnett, (this is where you should start). Stinnet has documented evidence that his foia creds were revoked in researching this, and clear evidence that documents relating to FDR's activities AND prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor were destroyed before the trial of his scapegoat admirals.

Pearl Harbor Betrayed: The Story of a Man and Nation Under Attack, Michael Gannon

W. At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor. Gordon Prange

Wedge: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11--How the Secret War between the FBI and CIA Has Endangered National Security. Mark Riebling

The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable. (can't remember the author, and the title is a guess for precision)

Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision. Wohlstetter


A&E also did a series on this (which I have never seen), I am told. The title is Conspiracy: FDR and Pearl Harbor I may just snatch it off Pirate Bay one of these days and look at it.

In the interests of fairness, there are historians who think that this is buncombe. There is a good online debate Between Stinnett (cited above) and Stephan Budiansky at The Independent Institute Online http://www.independent.org

coo coo, and all that
 
Last edited:
tanstaafl72555 said:
So, FWIW, here are a few of the sources you never heard of:

Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor Robert B. Stinnett, (this is where you should start). Stinnet has documented evidence that his foia creds were revoked in researching this, and clear evidence that documents relating to FDR's activities AND prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor were destroyed before the trial of his scapegoat admirals.

Pearl Harbor Betrayed: The Story of a Man and Nation Under Attack, Michael Gannon

W. At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor. Gordon Prange

Wedge: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11--How the Secret War between the FBI and CIA Has Endangered National Security. Mark Riebling

The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable. (can't remember the author, and the title is a guess for precision)

Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision. Wohlstetter


A&E also did a series on this (which I have never seen), I am told. The title is Conspiracy: FDR and Pearl Harbor I may just snatch it off Pirate Bay one of these days and look at it.

In the interests of fairness, there are historians who think that this is buncombe. There is a good online debate Between Stinnett (cited above) and Stephan Budiansky at The Independent Institute Online http://www.independent.org

coo coo, and all that
Click to expand...

Thanks for continuing to let me live rent free in the insane confines of your mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
DrPhudd said:
I am not sure about that token, but Coke absolutely collaborated with Nazis
https://timeline.com/fanta-coca-cola-nazi-845ee7e513af
Click to expand...

Business is a fickle thing. I'm surprised there wasn't any mention of Henry Ford in those pics. IIRC there were a number of big businesses either sympathetic or supportive of the Nazis early on. I just don't jump at the symbol anymore. Unless it's clearly geared in that particular direction.
 
Combat Diver said:
After WWI the Russians always had their eyes on Western Europe. Lenin tried first time in Feb 1919- Mar 1921 but were stopped by Gen. Pilsudski in Poland. Then Stalin on 16 Sep 1939 without a declaration of war attack Poland from the north. 16 days after the Germans invaded Poland. Never had an explanation from the Brits or French on way they didn't declare war on the USSR then. Germany and Russia divide Poland among themselves. Russians later attack Finland on 30 Nov 1939 till 13 Mar 1940, known as the "Winter War". Russia and Germany were allies till Operation Barbarossa on 22 Jun 1941.


CD
Click to expand...

And Japan had it's eyes on the entire Pacific as well. Both countries ignored treaty limits and circumvented international law to build their militaries after WW 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom