Customer Discussions > History forum

Why the interest in WWII?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 295 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 3, 2013 5:38:03 PM PST
IGS says:
Why the fascination with WWII?
The Question:

Why the fascination with WWII?
I admit, that the subject holds a good deal of fascination for me. The sheer cataclysmic world changing aspects of it are impossible for me to turn away from it. Moth to a flame.

Again, this is a bit of an attempt to clean up the garbage that has polluted this board of late by a number or posters, or more likely a few, posing as many. I even suspect some are paid to involve themselves in "pi$$ fights" .

"pi$$ fight"

And "pi$$ fight" shall be defined as any Neo-Nazi, pro-Israel, Anti-Israel, Neo-Nazi,Islamo- ... pro-Zionist, Anti-Zionist discussion involving Al, cattle prod, puppy, LAD, Ostrova, Kessler, Schwartz, and regrettably Rachel in right wing mode. There are others but can we PLEASE give it a rest? WE don't need 10 threads so Neo-Nazi truther's can go at it with pro-Zionist Nazi fanatics. I don't care, never did. Quit pi$$ing on everyone else's threads. I am going to add a bunch of these threads in the hopes a more interesting sort will, arrive!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 3, 2013 5:51:02 PM PST
Debunker says:
For me it's the fascination of the Eastern Front. The sheer size of the combats and battles there. Something that always has, and always will, interest me.

Posted on Mar 3, 2013 6:02:21 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 3, 2013 6:03:02 PM PST
Leslie Funk says:
My fascination with WWll is mostly focused on the Battle of Staligrad. In many ways it was a complex battle with many personalities in power invovled. This bloodied battle of the war defined many events to follow...i.e. shifts in militery thinking from both sides.

I am just learning of this epic battle, but from what I've read, this could very well be the turning point of the war.

Posted on Mar 3, 2013 11:19:56 PM PST
To me the fascination is that it (if you leave the Soviets out) was a pretty clear cut battle of good versus evil. All the Axis nations were out to conquer and enslave as much of the world as they could, and the Western Allies were resisting them. I'm not saying that horrible actions weren't taken by the Western Allies, but their intentions were to safeguard their citizens from domination by totalitarian Axis governments.

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 8:56:06 AM PST
Eric Preston says:
The impact it has on civilization overall, and the personalities that waged it.

The fact that as a race of beings, we simultaneously reached a point where our military could wage war on a world range, and also developed a weapon that would make them obsolete.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 1:54:19 PM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 2:06:48 PM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Eric Preston says:

[The fact that as a race of beings, we simultaneously reached a point where our military could wage war on a world range, and also developed a weapon that would make them obsolete.]

Yes a lot happened during the World War II period. For America it started with Pearl Harbor and ended with the atomic bomb blasts in Japan.

As you said the face of warfare was changed forever, at least between nuclear powers. No longer could one country overrun another just by shear force of numbers when both sides have nuclear weapons. Then the creation of thermonuclear devices made war unthinkable to any sane person although that happened after the war.

We can see the hand of The Fates in these events. Many things could have happened differently.

Hitler and the Nazis are a source of fascination for many people because of the strange individuals involved and how an ideology based on mythology, spiritualism, and the occult pulled the entire world into a gigantic holocaust.

Himmler had his weird castle which was out in a black forest near some ancient stones that may have been like a German Stonehenge. A mosaic on the floor of this castle showed an image of the 'Black Sun'. He felt the Nazis were reincarnations of the Atlantean gods.

These were all people who never went anywhere without their cyanide capsules in case they wanted to check out in a hurry. And the 'big four' of Nazism which I guess was Hitler, Himmler, Goering, and Goebbels did just that.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 7:15:19 PM PST
Woodruff says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 7:29:11 PM PST
Woodruff says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 9:34:27 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 4, 2013 9:39:11 PM PST
F. Gleaves says:
Even Chamberlain got a bit ticked off with Mr. Hitler after he broke his promise and overran Czechoslovakia.

Churchil thought Hitler too evil and duplicitous to deal with, or he could have made peace and left Hitler free to get on with his war against Communism.

If the British blockade had ended and Hitler defeated the Soviets, Hitler would have had all the resources he needed to dominate Europe and defy any future British blockade.

Seeing what Stalin did to the Poles, Balts and other East European Class Enemies may have influenced Churchill's views of the communists.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 10:16:56 PM PST
For me it is the fascination of how much of popular WWII History and what the public thinks is true just isn't true at all. For example, Hitler never wanted to conquer the world although the public repeats this nonsense over and over again in the entire western world (America included which was the least threatened by Hitler), even his Press Chief Otto Dietrich who often saw Hitler everyday said that Hitler's mind wasn't interested in a serious way with anything beyond Europe.

Posted on Mar 4, 2013 10:23:57 PM PST
I wonder what America and Britain would have been like both politically and culturally in 1950 if the Germans had won WWII, would there have been a Cold War similar to what occurred between America and the Soviets?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 11:03:10 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 4, 2013 11:11:35 PM PST
Richard, the Western Allies weren't motivated by the desire to protect other countries for the sake of it, the primary British motive was to maintain the European balance of power favorable to themselves which had been the driving principle in British foreign policy since the early 18th Century. Also, the actions by the Western allies actually caused greater suffering in Europe than the Germans had even intended. The whole war in Western Europe had not been desired by Hitler and thus the only reason France, Holland, Belgium, Norway, etc..were invaded by the Germans was because Britain and France had declared war on Germany. The British Naval blockade against the entire continent of Europe also caused massive civilian deaths from starvation and this was intentional because the British sought to starve the Europeans in Nazi occupied Europe into rising up against Nazi rule. I don't consider these to be "good" actions taken by the Western Allies.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2013 11:51:34 PM PST
Joe Hill says:
"Why the fascination with WWII?"

Mostly because there doesn't seem to be a single thing that happens in the national arena: political, economic, or social, that doesn't have a direct connection to it.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2013 8:54:41 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 5, 2013 9:04:24 AM PST
I never said GERMANY was out to conquer as much of the world as IT could. I said that the AXIS was out to conquer. And regardless of your attempts at changing history that was a self-evident fact based on the Axis's conduct from 1932 on. And if Germany didn't have designs of Europe, why did Hitler invade first Czechlovokia and then Poland?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2013 8:57:47 AM PST
Joe Hill says:
Dream on. Or maybe you've simply read and 'enjoyed' Harris' book too much...

Posted on Mar 5, 2013 8:59:45 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2013 9:04:06 AM PST
Brtiain and France declared on Germany because their treaty obligations with Poland required it. As far as the blockade affecting Europe, mainland Europe was self-sufficient in regards to food, unlike Britain which Hitler's blockade almost succeeded in starving out of the war. The only things the Nazi war machine couldn't produce in Europe were Tin, Rubber and Oil. The Soviets were willing to sell the Nazi's as much oil as they wanted and they were able to import most of the Tin and Rubber and a couple of other strategic minerals through or from neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland. What caused starvation in western europe was the Nazi's looting the fields and economies of western europe to suport it's war effort.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2013 9:08:08 AM PST
Joe Hill says:
Additionally, the massive dragooning of Europe's manpower for slave labor in nazi Germany created an intense agricultural labor shortage, given that most of Europe was farmed on smaller, less efficient plots, unlike the large farms of the USA.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2013 9:10:17 AM PST
Correct. Even then there was still no large scale starvation in western europe. All the historical footage agrees that you never see emaciated starvation victims in France.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2013 12:50:22 PM PST
Richard, Czechoslovakia and Poland aren't all of Europe and they aren't Western Europe at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2013 12:54:16 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 5, 2013 1:05:14 PM PST
Richard M. Smith, a treaty with a foreign power designed to hold down another power is an act of aggression. If Russia created a defensive treaty with Mexico and the U.S. invaded Mexico and Russia declared war on the U.S. in response how many people would consider the Russian action an act of aggression? Most people would! You are wrong completely, Britain suffered less from U-Boat blockade than Europe from the British Naval blockade. There were numerous food items which could not be gotten in Nazi Europe due to the British Naval blockade, the Germans didn't even have real coffee, they were forced to drink some kind of imitation coffee that most people thought tasted terrible. Even neutral Sweden was punished by the British by severely limiting the amount of Swedish ships which were allowed to depart from Swedish waters to the Oceans of the world.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2013 12:55:55 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 5, 2013 1:06:35 PM PST
Richard M Smith, Greeks died by the thousands from starvation. The French didn't eat like Kings, they didn't starve to death but they certainly weren't eating that well, everyone knows this. Read old New York Times articles from during the war, there were frequent stories about the hunger of Europe.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2013 1:04:10 PM PST
The post I was replying to said that Hitler only had designs on the Soviet Union. I was pointing out that the poster was incorrect. While the Soviets might have been his ultimate objective, he was perfectly willing to gobble up the odd independant country on the way.

Posted on Mar 5, 2013 1:06:03 PM PST
Richard, actually no, Hitler had at first sought an alliance with Poland against Russia but they turned down his offer.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  25
Total posts:  295
Initial post:  Mar 3, 2013
Latest post:  Jun 13, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions