WW1 100 years ago

Author
Discussion

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Wednesday 6th August 2014
quotequote all
It's the main reason why they became so proactive after 1941.

It just shows you can't win.

Octoposse

2,152 posts

184 months

Wednesday 6th August 2014
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
Their intelligence was poor though, as said above, not getting the US carriers was their downfall.
Surely the measure of Japan's folly is that it would have made no difference to the end result if they had sunk all the carriers and mounted a third strike, except perhaps prolonged the war a few months?

I believe Japan entered the war with ten carriers, lost about twenty, and had something like three at the end.

The US started the war with seven, lost about twelve, and had about 100 at the end of the war.

(Rough figures but in the right ballpark).

cardigankid

8,849 posts

211 months

Sunday 31st August 2014
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
You ask if Eire should have stayed neutral. I'd suggest their government should have decided on what was best for Eire. Whether they were right or wrong is a moot point but from a 'benefit' point of view, it is for them to decide. The stance seemed to affect its international relationships for some time.

I know some were a bit resentful that they received Marshall Aid. I remember a family chat where the money going (gone by then) to Germany and Italy was felt to be an inspired act by the USA, and bewilderment as to why Eire got its snout in the trough.
Of course, the fact that there are a hell of a lot of Irish in America may have had something to do with it. Either way, until the EU came along Ireland was still a poverty stricken backwater, so the sums involved can't have been massive. Marshall Aid certainly didn't turn them into another Germany, and the EU may care to note, never will.

On the Spanish Civil war, the reason that I can't get terribly passionate about those who volunteered for the International Brigades was because they were fighting for communism, which did not of course turn out particularly well elsewhere. We used to spend holidays in Spain in the late 60's and early 70's, so we got to see at first hand the transfer from dictatorship to democracy. In the Franco era it was certainly a poor country, in the sense that there was a big gulf between rich and poor, though nothing compared with the old eastern bloc which was a form of slavery. People had freedom, their traditions and a reasonable quality of life, bullfighting of the old fashioned sort, and stacks of spiffing Me.109's and Heinkel 111's. The Guardia Civil were a little overbearing, topless sunbathing wasn't allowed, but that was about the worst of it.

The transition to democracy was easy and painless, and the role of King Juan Carlos, as was recognised widely at the time, was crucial. I don't think that Franco gets anywhere near enough credit for the way in which he prepared Juan Carlos to take over. It could have been a lot messier. He should also get credit for not getting involved in WW2 on the Germans' side, particularly when they looked like winning, which would have been a very easy thing to have done. How many Spanish lives did he save by doing that. I would suggest, one hell of a lot.

The only glitch came a few years later with the Tejero 'putsch', but he was an obvious nutter, and once again, King J-C treated him as such. All in all, not a bad result. Not to disparage your father's humanitarian efforts, but if the Left had won, what then?

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 31st August 2014
quotequote all
You need to study the Franco era more carefully. Secret police, disappearances, torture, all the apparatus of a dictatorship, with added Catholic bigotry and repression of women.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 31st August 18:48

cardigankid

8,849 posts

211 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
I only saw the end of it, and it didn't seem too bad, at that stage at least. Not sure why everyone is so forgiving about Stalin, Mao, and all the rest but Franco is unspeakable.

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Stalin and Mao are rightly seen as mass murderers and two of the most evil rulers in history. Franco was not in their league but he was a nasty tyrant all the same.

Negative Creep

24,942 posts

226 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Stalin and Mao are rightly seen as mass murderers and two of the most evil rulers in history. Franco was not in their league but he was a nasty tyrant all the same.
If anything Stalin and Mao were worse than Hitler, but we don't see them in the same light since they tended to kill their own people instead of us

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Niall Ferguson suggests that two reasons why Hitler perturbs us more than Stalin and Mao are -

(1) that Germany lies at the heart of European civilization, having produced some of the greatest writers, musicians and scientists of the western world, so its rapid descent into barbarism is all the more alarming;

(2) that Hitler was (sort of) elected (or at least used democratic processes to leap to power).

He adds that one of the paradoxes about WW2 is that in order to defeat Hitler's evil we did lots of evil stuff ourselves, (although for us evil was a means and not an end).

Grumfutock

5,274 posts

164 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Negative Creep said:
Breadvan72 said:
Stalin and Mao are rightly seen as mass murderers and two of the most evil rulers in history. Franco was not in their league but he was a nasty tyrant all the same.
If anything Stalin and Mao were worse than Hitler, but we don't see them in the same light since they tended to kill their own people instead of us
Well Stalin didn't do to bad. Best estimates are that up to 2,000,000 POW's died in Russian captivity. Add to that all the countries he conquered and their dissident groups that disappeared and he is getting close. Granted he was around a lot longer.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Stalin killed lots of non Russians as well as lots of Russians. Hitler killed lots of Germans (most notably lots of Germans who happened to be Jewish) as well as lots of non Germans.

Grumfutock

5,274 posts

164 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
I think we can agree both were as evil and loathsome as Piers Morgan.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Grumfutock said:
I think we can agree both were as evil and loathsome as Piers Morgan.
Is this referring to the sum of evilness and loathsomeness? An equation perhaps? Stalin + Hitler = Morgan? Yes, there is something in that.

Grumfutock

5,274 posts

164 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
Grumfutock said:
I think we can agree both were as evil and loathsome as Piers Morgan.
Is this referring to the sum of evilness and loathsomeness? An equation perhaps? Stalin + Hitler = Morgan? Yes, there is something in that.
Hang a sec. I have recalculated and the formula is incorrect, it should read.

Stalin + Hitler x Mao = Morgan

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Grumfutock said:
V8 Fettler said:
Grumfutock said:
I think we can agree both were as evil and loathsome as Piers Morgan.
Is this referring to the sum of evilness and loathsomeness? An equation perhaps? Stalin + Hitler = Morgan? Yes, there is something in that.
Hang a sec. I have recalculated and the formula is incorrect, it should read.

Stalin + Hitler x Mao = Morgan
Brackets for clarification please, or BODMAS applies.

Halmyre

11,148 posts

138 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
What about Pol Pot? Although he's only responsible for about a million deaths, hardly worth mentioning I suppose. Anyone else - Genghis Khan? Alexander the Great?

Grumfutock

5,274 posts

164 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
The Mosquito?

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Pol Pot gets a special mention because he managed to kill so many in such a short time. Also he did it all on purpose. Mao killed millions through incompetence and neglect (notably in the famine caused by the "Great Leap Forward"), as well as through deliberate actions.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Spanish Flu? It's them foreign types again.

Grumfutock

5,274 posts

164 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
This banter has made me wonder. How many did we kill capturing the Empire? I am thinking war of invasions, putting down rebellions, imported disease, mistreatment etc. Must be quiet a figure?

scorp

8,783 posts

228 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Grumfutock said:
This banter has made me wonder. How many did we kill capturing the Empire? I am thinking war of invasions, putting down rebellions, imported disease, mistreatment etc. Must be quiet a figure?
I've heard figures of 10s of millions being quoted, the Famine in India being the biggest I think.

Not quite as bad as the reigning genocide champ Genghis Khan.