world war 2 (1 Viewer)

[Yee-Ming]

I suppose the difference was that England was colonising what (in their view) were "uncivilised" peoples, whereas Germany was invading established European nations? so if Germany had decided to colonise some previously uncolonised Asian or African country, it might not have sparked off WW2.

the time frame may also be relevant, England threw its weight around in the 19th Century, whereas Germany in effect did it twice in the 20th. perhaps by then it was no longer considered appropriate to barge in and invade?

this is some speculation on my part, I have an interest in history but did not formally study it beyond the early years of high school. so I might be completely off base.

 

[Greg Morse]

the time frame may also be relevant, England threw its weight around in the 19th Century, whereas Germany in effect did it twice in the 20th. perhaps by then it was no longer considered appropriate to barge in and invade

I wouldn't really think that's the case. More a matter of Germany invading allies of Britain (Belgium in WWI, Poland in WWII). Credit where credit is due, the Brit's tend to uphold their alliances.

Remember, it was less than 15 years before WWI that England got into a tussle with the Boer's and resorted to quite extreme actions to finally ensure victory (rounding up the Boer women and children and putting them in concentration camps). In the early 20th century they were no more or less civilized than the rest of the colonial powers. I'm sure if Germany got too close to the British colonies, they would have done a little dance.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I'm with Yee-Ming, on both counts. A lot can happen in 15 years. Think USA from 1944 to 1969? No changes there!

No, seriously. Britain, along with Spain, Portugal, Belgium, France. - Ok, just about all of Europe, established colonies in the 19th century. Britain just had them spread out more - but the differance was that Europe considered them uncivilized, and thus colonization was justified, but by 1900, there weren't any more places to conquer, so it stopped.

A decade later, Germany invades a neighbor. It just wasn't PC anymore!

Glenn

 

[RobertR]

A lot can happen in 15 years. Think USA from 1944 to 1969?

Uh, 1944 to 1969 is 25 years, not 15.

 

[Lew Crippen]

england had conquered so many countries all over the world and no one in europe seems to care. but when germany conquered a few european countries, world war 2 started. the bad guy ( england ) now becomes the good guy.

Aside from what some others have said, it is well to remember the maxim:

History is written by the victors.


Perhaps more lateer.

 

[AjayM]

Well I don't think that's to political, more history.

Most of what England conquered was well before the 20th century (we'd like to think that we've evolved past that type of thinking), and back in those days that's more or less the way the world worked. Spain did it, the Dutch did it, the Greeks, the Romans, the French, etc all had periods of time. Also England, never tried to take over all of Europe (at least for the past few hundred years), they were more concerned about taking possesion of countries that would help with their trade in the world, hence why a lot of islands in the S. Pacific are/were in some way related to the UK, among a number of other countries.

Andrew

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Sorry, finger slipped. Meant 59.

Bad fingers. Bad, bad fingers.

Glenn

 

[felix_suwarno]

what is the meaning of "un-civilized"?

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

what is the meaning of "un-civilized"?

It means that your guns suck. :p)

 

[Greg Morse]

To quote Hilaire Belloc, "Whatever happens, we have got/The Maxim gun, and they have not."

 

[Holadem]

what is the meaning of "un-civilized"?

"Who decides the meaning of right and wrong?"

"Why are we?"

"Is there a god?"

You get the point...

--
Holadem

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

I still think my definition, although flippant, is correct.

I've just finished reading Winston Churchill's book 'The River War' concerning the British re-conquest of the Sudan in the 1890's. Somehow some things never change. Modern weapons and tactics overwhelm enemy forces that don't have them. The battle of Omdurman was as lopsided as our recent taking of Baghdad.

 

[Greg Morse]

The battle of Omdurman was as lopsided as our recent taking of Baghdad.

which happens to be the battle that Belloc quote is from.

 

[felix_suwarno]

technologically speaking, during world war 2, who had the better weapons? was usa the only one with nuke?

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

The Maxim gun.

As far as rifles are concerned, only the US was able to equip large portions of their troops with semiautomatic rifles: the M1 Garand. Other countries (Germany, Russia, UK) reserved submachine guns and semiautomatic rifles for small groups of "special" troops. Patton said that the M1 was the finest infantry weapon ever devised. The standard bolt-action rifles for the other countries were the No. 4 Mk 1 Lee-Enfield (UK), K98k Mauser (Germany), M91/30 Mosin-Nagant (Russia), and M91/38 Carcano (Italy). (I actually own specimens of all four.)



In general, the US started the war with inferior gear but put a crash program together to devise superior weapons by the war's end. The P-38 and P-51 were the finest fighters produced in quantity during the war. The German ME-262 jet fighter was a great plane but was produced in too small a quantity to be of any great value.



The US only got nukes in the last couple of weeks of the war. In fact, that's WHY they were the last couple of weeks of the war.

 

[Holadem]

The P-38 and P-51 were the finest fighters produced in quantity during the war.

P-51 no question. P-38 is arguable. I would say the Focke Wulf 190 (especially D) ranks up there.

--
Holadem

 

[RobertR]

In general, the US started the war with inferior gear but put a crash program together to devise superior weapons by the war's end.

I was shocked by a recent episode of Mail Call that talked about how poorly designed the Sherman Tank was thought to be. It was nicknamed the "Ronson" because it would burn (light) every time it was hit.

The M1 is highly regarded. Another episode of Mail Call showed a prototype of the new standard issue field weapon (I forget the name) scheduled for use in 2008 that looked very impressive.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Although the German tanks were highly regarded, the Russian T-38 was probably the best in terms of quality (firepower, armor, etc.), quantity and when it was available.

 

[BrettB]

"P-51, Cadillac of the sky!"

 

[Greg Morse]

Although the German tanks were highly regarded, the Russian T-38 was probably the best in terms of quality (firepower, armor, etc.), quantity and when it was available.

That's a debate that could go on for years (assume you mean the T-34, the T-38 was a light 7300lb amphibious tank made prior to WWII). I like to think the Panther G was the best tank overall seen in large numbers. Of course, when you take quantity into account, the T-34 was turned out in overwhelming amounts.