Yes, there were more than 3 Allied nations...
The UK forces included commonwealth armies from Australia and
New Zealand (the Anzacs), Canada, India (the Ghurka Rifles), and
South Africa (as well as smaller colonies and ex-colonies)... and
the Russians certainly had contingents of Kazakh, Turkmen, Tadjik,
Uzbek, Yakutsk, Ukranian, etc. soldiers from all the Soviet regions.
Next, we can move on to the fact that the Polish government in exile
and the organized partisan army which reported to Sikorski fielded more
troops in WWII than France (according to the book History of Polish
Forces in WWII), despite being sold up the river at Yalta and conveniently
forgotten... so those who bring up France as the 4th ally need to bring
up Poland as the 5th.
Next, we can move on to the fact that the Nationalist Chinese of Chiang
Kai-Shek were long involved with a war against Japan (this was actually
the beginning of WWII, prior even to the invasion of Poland in 1939...
prior even to the annexation of the Sudetenland and the Anschulss).
Next, we can move on to the fact that organized resistance in not only
Poland, but France, Norway, Holland, Greece, Yugoslavia, and several other
occupied countries (including occupied areas of Russia) contributed
substantially to intelligence gathering and disruption of supply and
communications lines for Axis troops.
In Asia, Indonesia, Burma, and numerous smaller Southeast Asian and
pacific island nations were involved in the war on both sides - but
mostly on the side of the allies.
Note also that the Axis powers included not only Germany, Italy, and
Japan, but also Romania, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, and
collaborationist elements (which were very prevalent in fighting against
the Russians) in the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and the lands
of the Cossacks and Tatars.
If you read the history, WWII really completely engulfed Europe and Asia
in war, and involved armies from every continent (though minimally so
from South America). They called it a world war for a reason...
The lesson for contemporary times is that a determined enemy requires a
determined fight. I don't know if the US and its allies armies have
sufficient morale to win a protracted ground war, or if the American
people and their Western compatriots truly feel justified in bringing
the horrors of another World War to either the enemy population or
their own... However, I do think that the Hitler parallels are correct
in terms of succeptability to appeasement and general lack of concern
for soldiers or civilians on either side as long as they get the power
they crave.
LL+P,
Stephan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
[mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of Michael Wiik
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 9:58 AM
To: extropians
Subject: Re: Apocalypse Pretty Soon
Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
> Hitler thought he could win WWII, yet analyses of the logistics of any
> one of the three ally countries shows that each of them could have
> beaten Germany on their own with enough time.
Surely there were more than three allied countries in WWII. I can
understand that Russia or the U.S. could have beaten nazi germany on its
own given sufficient time, but presuming the 3rd ally is Britain, I
would think that would be much more iffy.
Thanks,
-Mike
-- ====================================================================== Michael Wiik Principal Messagenet Communications Research Washington DC Area Internet and WWW Consultants http://messagenet.com mwiik@messagenet.com ======================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:50 MDT