- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why did France and Britian declare war on Germany and not the Soviet Union in WW2
Posted on 5/3/22 at 2:29 pm to troyt37
Posted on 5/3/22 at 2:29 pm to troyt37
quote:
You're confused or something.
Or were talking about a hypothetical where Germany doesn’t invade the USSR….
quote:
Germany declared war on the US before the US declared on Germany.
I know that?
You…. You realize we are talking about a hypothetical situation…. Right?
1
Posted on 5/3/22 at 2:33 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
we’ll the initial post of yours the I replied to was when you said that without the ussr then we “simply lose” and I just believe that is quite the hyperbolic statement, so I was playing off the parameters you had already set in that we were at war with Germany
Well, I was referring to we as the Allies.. which I guess would be incorrect since we wouldn’t have been included in that… so that would be a mistake on my part.
quote:
Say the Germans and soviets make peace somehow around the spring of 1942 right soon after america and Germany have already declared war. I still don’t see the USA losing. That’s my point.
Well I was referring to the Germans simply staying true to their word and not invading Russia at all.
quote:
And if you remember Germany declared war on us not the other way around. So after Japan attacks us, and we declare war on japan it seems the Germans would declare war soon after regardless of the situation in the Eastern front
I never said otherwise? Matter of fact, I said that we would go full bore at Japan had they still attacked Pearl Harbor, but I didn’t see why hitler would want to drag us into the war with him.
But hitler isn’t exactly a logical person so, who knows. Maybe he would still declare war on the US.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 2:41 pm to Girth Br00ks
quote:
I believe Hitler wasn’t really concerned with Great Britain. Of course when they declared war on Germany he had to engage them. But, his main concern was Russia. Make no mistake about it he hated the Soviet Union and communism. He wanted Lebensraum (living space) for Germany in the East. The reason I say this is he had British troops surrounded at Dunkirk and allowed them to be evacuated by sea. He had every opportunity to slaughter British troops but didn’t. He wanted England to mind their own business and let him work in Russia.
So you're completely discounting the fact that Germany killed 20,000+ Britons in 1940, bombing the shite out of them?
I think a lot of the problems in discussing WW2 is that we are trying to make sense on the decisions and doings of a fricking madman. You don't go kill a bunch of folks, and then expect them to leave you alone as you go invade somebody else.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 2:46 pm to lsunatchamp
30 god damn miles
---30 miles was still 30 miles too short.
Zhukov: "Behind us lies all of Russia because behind us lies MOSCOW!"
---30 miles was still 30 miles too short.
Zhukov: "Behind us lies all of Russia because behind us lies MOSCOW!"
Posted on 5/3/22 at 2:49 pm to Girth Br00ks
quote:
I believe Hitler wasn’t really concerned with Great Britain. Of course when they declared war on Germany he had to engage them. But, his main concern was Russia. Make no mistake about it he hated the Soviet Union and communism. He wanted Lebensraum (living space) for Germany in the East. The reason I say this is he had British troops surrounded at Dunkirk and allowed them to be evacuated by sea. He had every opportunity to slaughter British troops but didn’t. He wanted England to mind their own business and let him work in Russia.
This is a bullshvt Hitlercel myth that needs to die off. Dunkirk was stalled due to logistical reasons, not because Hitler did it out of the goodness of his heart. Why are people so naive lol.
quote:
I think a lot of the problems in discussing WW2 is that we are trying to make sense on the decisions and doings of a fricking madman. You don't go kill a bunch of folks, and then expect them to leave you alone as you go invade somebody else.
That and a lot of our info comes from Nazi generals with their own lost cause theory.
This post was edited on 5/3/22 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 5/3/22 at 2:55 pm to beerJeep
quote:
Or were talking about a hypothetical where Germany doesn’t invade the USSR….
Okay Germany doesn't invade the USSR. Japan still bombs Pearl, we still declare war on Japan, Germany still declares war on the US. How does the lack Russian involvement make it less likely that Germany declares on the US? Doesn't it make them exponentially stronger, not having to fight the Russians?
Posted on 5/3/22 at 3:00 pm to troyt37
quote:
Okay Germany doesn't invade the USSR. Japan still bombs Pearl, we still declare war on Japan, Germany still declares war on the US. How does the lack Russian involvement make it less likely that Germany declares on the US? Doesn't it make them exponentially stronger, not having to fight the Russians?
We were already technically enemies to the Germans with lend lease and the battle or the Atlantic so it’s not like Hitler was like jeeze, might as well invite the USA to the party.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 3:05 pm to beerJeep
quote:this is what I’m counting on
But hitler isn’t exactly a logical person so
Posted on 5/3/22 at 3:10 pm to troyt37
quote:
Germany still declares war on the US.
Why are you so sure?
quote:
How does the lack Russian involvement make it less likely that Germany declares on the US?
Assuming that Britain is near or at her knees, what do they have to gain by declaring war?
I mean, it’s definitely possible because hitler is.. well. A fricking retard. But there is zero reason for them to declare war on the US
quote:
Doesn't it make them exponentially stronger, not having to fight the Russians?
It does. But again, why fight the US? They have fortress Europe. They have Britain on her knees. Russia is playing the ally still because hitler isn’t betraying him.
Why bring in the US who you have no means of conquering and holds nothing of use in the immediate area?
I mean, if you’re just banking on “bc hitler is dumb” then I mean.. yeah it’s possible but it just makes no sense.
But then again, invading Russia made no sense… so I guess if we’re suspending belief in that he didn’t do that, then I guess the alternate reality we are in is a more logical hitler.
This post was edited on 5/3/22 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 5/3/22 at 3:49 pm to beerJeep
quote:
Why are you so sure?
Why are you so sure a stronger, more focused Germany refrains from declaring on the US, when they in fact did declare war on the US as a weaker country, already fighting a war on multiple fronts?
quote:
Assuming that Britain is near or at her knees, what do they have to gain by declaring war?
I think that's a pretty big assumption, since the British pretty much handed them their arse in 1940. You really think the British are on their knees, with the US sending an absolutely insane amount of weaponry and support, just one year later? That's why they went ahead and pulled the trigger on declaring on the US. They were never going to conquer or subjugate Britain without dealing with the US. And I don't think for a second that they didn't want to, but the Brits just didn't roll over like the French did. I have no doubt they would have turned right back to Britain at the first opportunity, had they been successful in Russia.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 3:52 pm to bdavids09
quote:
The Soviet Union also invaded Poland and also Finland. The soviets like Germany also had labor camps and committed mass murder. Why was the Soviet Union not considered an enemy at that time?
The Soviet Union did not i vade those countries per say. They liberated them from the Nazis. The Russians were the eastern half of the vise that crushed Germany. The Soviet takeover came through the Pottsdam Conference where the US, UK, and Russia split up postwar europe
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:03 pm to GetmorewithLes
The Germans sank hundreds of boats in the gulf with the mouth of the Mississippi being their focal point. I bet Louisiana has the second highest civilian casualties behind Hawaii
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:07 pm to GetmorewithLes
I recommend you perform more research. Hitler and Stalin divided Poland in the summer of 1939. Stalin invaded Finland in the winter of 1939-1940.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:15 pm to IAmNERD
Not that this had anything to do with it, but Poland was committing acts of war against the USSR in Ukraine for 15 years leading up to the invasion of Poland. From the USSR side, they had at least a reasonable argument for invading Poland.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:18 pm to Sundance
quote:
Stalin invaded Finland in the winter of 1939-1940.
Which was more or less what Putin is doing with Ukraine right now, except the USSR was defending against Germany rather than NATO. Finland wouldn't cooperate, so Russia invaded.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:23 pm to beerJeep
quote:
However, without the soviets on our side, we would have lost wwii.
If Hitler doesn't split his army and go into Stalingrad, we very possibly could of lost.
Hitler's own hubris gave us the war.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:30 pm to Palmetto98
I've seen a lot of documentaries that echo Hitler had a certain respect for England. The halt at Dunkirk came from the top and I don't think we'll ever know the real reason.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:48 pm to troyt37
quote:
Why are you so sure a stronger, more focused Germany refrains from declaring on the US, when they in fact did declare war on the US as a weaker country, already fighting a war on multiple fronts?
Because they have nothing to gain. The weakened Germany had something to gain (in their eyes) by being able to go after the people funding and arming the enemies on both of their fronts
quote:
think that's a pretty big assumption, since the British pretty much handed them their arse in 1940
The Germans were preparing to invade Russia. They weren’t throwing their full forces against Britain.
quote:
You really think the British are on their knees, with the US sending an absolutely insane amount of weaponry and support, just one year later? T
After a full year of the entirety of the German war machine against them? Yes.
quote:
That's why they went ahead and pulled the trigger on declaring on the US. They were never going to conquer or subjugate Britain without dealing with the US.
Yes. Yes they would have.
quote:
And I don't think for a second that they didn't want to, but the Brits just didn't roll over like the French did.
The French did more damage to the Luftwaffe in the battle of France than the Brit’s did in the Battle of Britain in the same time frame. What you talking bout Willis.
This post was edited on 5/3/22 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 5/3/22 at 4:57 pm to sta4ever
quote:
that they don’t teach us in schools
What schools did y'all attend and how bad were they? Yes, this is definitely taught in schools.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 5:45 pm to beerJeep
quote:
battle of France
Less than 30,000 dead Germans to 375,000 French, with another 1,750,000 captured. Tell me more about the damage the French did to the Germans in the battle of France….
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News