Is NATO relevent in todays age and should Britain be a member of it?

OP

You may want to read up on lend lease and Americas pre war involvement.

Defeat of maxi Germany was a team effort. No one ally nation could've succeeded without the others help.

Im perfectly aware of Americas pre-war involvement from IBM to Standard oil and the American division of Swedish match etc. then again we helped them and so did the soviets so that's a mute point? As for lend lease what about it? It was a **** deal for us then and it still is since war crimes are being committed through our territory and being able to base their weapons here is hardly good for us.

Read what I said again, I never said any one of the three could have won but without the Russians it is doubtful Europe would have been freed considering it was the eastern front that broke the Nazi war machine, imagine those millions of troops, planes, tanks etc. if they were aimed at the west and not Russia you think the retaking of Europe wouldhave been possible?

Reply 21

uberteknik

21

Original post by Soldieroffortune

Read what I said again, I never said any one of the three could have won but without the Russians it is doubtful Europe would have been freed considering it was the eastern front that broke the Nazi war machine, imagine those millions of troops, planes, tanks etc. if they were aimed at the west and not Russia you think the retaking of Europe wouldhave been possible?

One can conjecture that the Atomic bomb could have easily been used on European soil as well as in Japan to end both wars. The Russians at that time would have been in no position to argue.

Also, do not forget that since 1991, NATO has pulled back and reduced it's strength immensely in direct response to the thawing of tensions up to the point Putin started his muscle flexing.

Reply 22

Soldieroffortune

OP

2

Original post by uberteknik

One can conjecture that the Atomic bomb could have easily been used on European soil as well as in Japan to end both wars. The Russians at that time would have been in no position to argue.

Also, do not forget that since 1991, NATO has pulled back and reduced it's strength immensely in direct response to the thawing of tensions up to the point Putin started his muscle flexing.

Maybe but the war in Europe was basically over by then and there was nothing left to bomb was there aha.

Cant argue there but I stand by its mere existence now, it was founded for the Cold War the fact it continued after is strange and continues to be dangerous even more so now that its absorbed former warsaw pact nations that is essentially giving Russia the finger..

Reply 23

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by Soldieroffortune

Im perfectly aware of Americas pre-war involvement from IBM to Standard oil and the American division of Swedish match etc. then again we helped them and so did the soviets so that's a mute point? As for lend lease what about it? It was a **** deal for us then and it still is since war crimes are being committed through our territory and being able to base their weapons here is hardly good for us.

Read what I said again, I never said any one of the three could have won but without the Russians it is doubtful Europe would have been freed considering it was the eastern front that broke the Nazi war machine, imagine those millions of troops, planes, tanks etc. if they were aimed at the west and not Russia you think the retaking of Europe wouldhave been possible?

Lend lease was a great deal for the UK and Russia.
You've obviously mistaken the transfer of bases as being the whole of lend lease and ignored other factors such as rossevelt ensuring that at no charge whatsoever multiple British and commonwealth (empire) divisions were equipped and financed.

I'm not going to hold it against the Americans pre pearl harbour for not wanting to get actively involved in war fighting and rely on material and financial support...although the actions of the United States Navy and U.S. coastguard in the Atlantic pre Americas official entry is often over looked.

It's doubtful is the Russians could've achieved success in Europe with American or british support. Lend lease in the early days to Russia threw Russia a lifeline as did British material support. Daylight bombing of German city's by USAAC (USAF) and the RAF held back in excess of 1 million Germans front the esteem front. The western front consumed 1.5 million Germans and the tough old guy of Europe (italy) just under another half a million.

The naval blockade of Germany reduced incoming war material going to Germany as did key strategic bombing raids on places line schweinfurt

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweinfurt–Regensburg_mission

And operation tidal wave.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tidal_Wave

You are right to claim that Russia bore the brunt of the fighting, but that was the biggest battle field.

I often wonder how the heroic members of the soviet army would view Putins Russia which is now acting like hitlers Germany annexing with outing country's.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 24

Observatory

20

A Russian attack on Western Europe isn't just a possibility but a present reality, and NATO is a very cost effective mechanism for containing that Russian threat. Leaving NATO today would be an absurd move for any country with the possible exception of the United States itself.

(edited 8 years ago)

Is NATO relevent in todays age and should Britain be a member of it?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you