|
| Thread: WWII : Who Saved The World |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
CB_Duke
Hired Hero
Gamer
|
posted February 06, 2004 09:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I was under impresion that I read whole 82 pages ,and I can`t remember where did the anti-semetism remark occured
Does anyone remotely remember what page it was ?
Oh, man, I can not believe that 82 pages is really readable. To read that spam is to traumatize your mind. I think this thread would become idle talks too.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 06, 2004 09:21 PM |
|
|
There's some good discussion there too 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
CB_Duke
Hired Hero
Gamer
|
|
posted February 06, 2004 09:32 PM |
|
|
|
Really some good thoughts I did find here. Tryed read about Iraq I tired soon because facts of matter was lost from the very outset. And some dubious letters and quotations began to appear. Here I can hear some facts I indeed can discuss cause I know much about subject.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 06, 2004 09:39 PM |
|
|
Is he critisizing our thread, PH?
____________
|
|
CB_Duke
Hired Hero
Gamer
|
|
posted February 06, 2004 09:57 PM |
|
|
If you call 82p thread "yours" then let cease offtopic.
We did not touch jews theme. I do believe its interesting. Soon I shall expresss it, cause I have no time now.
BR
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 07, 2004 12:45 AM |
|
|
I think I added the anti-semetic thing because I spent quite some time arguing against Israel with IYY.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
CB_Duke
Hired Hero
Gamer
|
|
posted February 07, 2004 03:32 AM |
|
|
|
Interpret what is IYY, please, I do not understand.
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted February 07, 2004 05:52 AM |
|
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2004 10:45 AM |
|
|
I always believed it stood for Inconsiderate Yawning Yank.
Anyway I would like to see some Kennedy debate going on,
but I know too little about it ti seriously start it..
|
|
CB_Duke
Hired Hero
Gamer
|
|
posted February 07, 2004 02:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Me?
LOL. I considered IYY is abbreviation.
8))
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 07, 2004 08:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you call 82p thread "yours" then let cease offtopic.
BR
I don't see any reason to break with form on the Iraq thread, it's traditional to be off topic
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 08, 2004 04:13 AM |
|
|
“Well the figure was out of the book. the wiesenthal centre quotes 600,000 (civilian and military) fell into Russian control as prisoners, of whom it says "most" were never seen again.”
Are you (or that book, whatever) suggesting that the Russians extrerminated more than 300,000 prisoners? Death camps? No wonder I’ve never read something similar in a serious source.
“Sarcasm is truly the lowest form of wit, you seem to be proving this.”
And insults are the lowest form of communication. That and the “overwhelming evidence” you’ve provided are too much for me to argue against. I guess I’ll be a good ostrich again and stick my head in the sand. I don’t intend to fight your stubborness and arrogance. I’m gonna let others judge for themselves by the things they read. The ostrich is gone.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 08, 2004 07:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Are you (or that book, whatever) suggesting that the Russians extrerminated more than 300,000 prisoners? Death camps? No wonder I’ve never read something similar in a serious source.
I have no idea what happened to them, on the other hand a cursory glance at Russian attitudes to their POWs shows that this kind of number was hardly shocking. There's not many Germans who surrendered in Stalingrad who ever came back from Russia, and those that did came back many, many years after WWII. Also if you weren't so busy denouncing a figure I just offered a secondary source for (and a source that I'd consider pretty accurate at that) you might just remember that Siberian work camps (read slave labour camps) were not that far removed from death camps either. It certainly would not shock me to consider that 300,000 simply never returned from Russia or were killed in Manchuria considering the barbaric treatment of POWs and civilian populations under Stalin during the ending years of his reign.
This was a man who had managed to kill off millions of his own people during the pre-war years, why is it that hard to believe he and his reign might have killed a few thousand Japanese people? The answer is, once again, despite evidence to the contary and the obvious paralells to German POWs and civilians to support the figure, you denounce the claim simply because it fails to fit with your preconceived ideas. I wonder how you have the nerve to consider others stubborn when facts and supporting proof is offerred and you STILL cannot refute them, but fail to accept them.
Quote:
And insults are the lowest form of communication.
It was no insult, merely a remark that your choice of blatant sarcasm to reply to a point neither refutes the point, nor makes you look particularly clever. Simple remark, that's all.
Quote:
That and the “overwhelming evidence” you’ve provided are too much for me to argue against.
If you can kindly tell me how a single decoded document that disagrees with the entire imperial archives and the testimony of the Prime Minister of Japan is better evidence than both of those then I'll give you a cookie!
Hell how about explaining how McArthur didn't blatantly lie about his true feelings? That's because he did not, he clearly couldn't give a damn about Japanese civilians, or the use of the atomic bomb...
How about even telling me, or proving that the statistics are based on faulty evidence? You can't, not only are they not, some of the same people you selectively quote agreed that invading Japan would cost more lives than you claim!
You can't refute the evidence behind the civilian casualties despite the supporting evidence from Germany and supporting source I offerred. You don't even manage a very capable argument since it's quite obvious that Russia's workcamps were hardly places you likely returned from!
Quote:
I guess I’ll be a good ostrich again and stick my head in the sand. I don’t intend to fight your stubborness and arrogance
If you showed me something to contradict what I said on the same level of evidence I might consider it. You've not. As I said, you need evidence of a higher level than the existing evidence to prove your case. So far your case is laughably weak and reliant on arguments that either lack proof, or is shattered by logic and/or other evidence of higher value.
You simply cannot offer a decoded message and selective quotes from allied generals, sprinkle it with unprovable remarks and faulty figures, and less than that figures that records show Truman was shown, but were refuted by others at the time, and then expect everyone to accept such a ludicrously unproven point as the one you make.
Quote:
I’m gonna let others judge for themselves by the things they read. The ostrich is gone.
Quite typical. Well I guess if you can't refute anything it would be expected that you would leave.
Oh and btw, if we're talking selective quoting, Ike also once said 4 things won WWII, and one of them was the atom bomb. Anyone can quote one remark and make it seem like it supports their point
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 08, 2004 08:08 AM |
|
|
What is even the debate here? I don't understand how someone can stare the facts right in the face and deny them. Being stubborn on the side of truth is nothing wrong by the way...
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 08, 2004 08:43 AM |
|
|
The Debate Is On Which Country Saved The World
To answer your question Wolfman:
This debate is to see who can prove that any one country made the difference in WWII. That is to say, without that country then the Axis powers would have won.
So far Hamsi128 and IYY answered Russia(even though it didn't exist I assume they mean Soviet Union).
Bort tried questioning, what if the major allied powers weren't committed to the war such as the Soviets and the Americans. Please don't be offended by me asking this Bort but were you trying to say, "What if Brittain was the lone opposition?"
As for PrivateHudson and Svarog they both agreed that it was a joint effort that saved the world and not any single country. However, they both gave details on which country was at the top of their lists and then became hopelessly marred in the quagmire that is the nuclear bomb influence theory.
Zonekill please don't be offended if I read you wrong but by saying that the weather won the war, are you implying that it was luck that saved the world? I was wondering.
As for myself I'm still gathering information to support a theory based on strategic air power. Until I finish my research I can only say that I believe the country that had the greatest air superiority was the most influencial and in turn, the one who saved the world.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 08, 2004 01:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As for PrivateHudson and Svarog they both agreed that it was a joint effort that saved the world and not any single country. However, they both gave details on which country was at the top of their lists and then became hopelessly marred in the quagmire that is the nuclear bomb influence theory.
Uhmmm, actually I meant none of the nations I forwarded to be any more important, I merely commented more on the UK because it almost always gets written off as an unimportant issue in WWII as compared to the others.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 08, 2004 03:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bort tried questioning, what if the major allied powers weren't committed to the war such as the Soviets and the Americans. Please don't be offended by me asking this Bort but were you trying to say, "What if Brittain was the lone opposition?"
No. I was saying that if the UK had fallen quickly (or had sued for a separate peace) than the USSR would not have been able to take on the entire might of Germany's armies (or at least would not have been able to push them backwards) and that the US would have been unable to affect the European front since they would lack an allied base to build up troops in. If the UK had actually fallen, North Africa, with all of its oil would have become a German province as well.
The USSR's involvement it interesting since, while it is often correctly pointed out how much the USSR lost and how much damage they inflicted upon the German war machine, it is often overlooked that Stalin started the war off by partitioning Poland off with Hitler and giving him free reign to attack France through a non-aggression pact.
I was saying that if the US sat out the outcome was really dependent on whether Japan turned it's eyes westward.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 08, 2004 07:27 PM |
|
|
Thanks Fellas
Thankyou for clearing that up. I was confused on some parts. There were a lot of opinions to sift through. I guess it sort of confused me.
Bort that's a very interesting point. I had always wondered what Stalin might have done had the U.S. not entered through Pearl Harbor. I imagine the Japanese would have held China successfully without U.S. support. Much further than that I haven't the slightest idea if the Soviet Union would have fell or not. Sort of humorous to think of, but what if Stalin decided to play general some more? It was said that whenever he would lead the military forces and ignore his general's advice then the battle would be lost horribly. I thought Hitler was the only one that did that for a while until I finally learned Stalin did that too. If Stalin had decided to play general after a lack of U.S. involvment in the war then the Soviet Union might have done very poorly on the military fronts.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 08, 2004 07:52 PM |
|
|
I'm of the opinion that the USA simply could not afford to allow Germany to dominate the resources and manpower of the whole of Europe, which most people think they probably could of without US involvement, even if the final deal meant a negotiated peace in terms of keeping European Russia and pushing Stalin back beyond the Urals. However, the US blatantly couldn't allow this to happen without it severely tipping the balance of power against them. I do think that without the US early involvement and both US and British support, Russia would probably have fallen. As it was it came very close to falling, remove the advantageous support the west gave, or change some of the more blatant errors the Germans made and it's hard to see how a lone Russia would have coped at all.
I certainly think China could have fallen to the Japanese if the US had for some bizarre reason stayed out. The Japanese army here was pretty much the best equipped forces they had anywhere, and Russian support for the communists would have been lessened due to Russia being pressed harder than she was.
Stalin's military inteference was limited when it did happen though, an example being 1941, where his sycophants and political officers commanded the army to the disasters of that year rather than the experienced officers who had either been purged out or were not on the scene yet. Fortunately, after this his inteferences were limited and usually he bowed to the superior knowledge of the likes of Zukhov. I think Stalin, unlike Hitler did know when a fight was too important to intefere in and usually gave his generals a bit more of a free reign than Hitler did. As I said though, in reality, just removing the US from the war, or the UK (thereby hindering US support to Russia) would have been enough alone to hamstring Russian efforts and probably persuade Stalin that the war was lost anyway.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
silx87
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2004 02:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
WWII : Who Saved The World
nobody have not right judge whose contribution was greater.
I strongly disagree!
I still think the CCCP's contribution was still the greatest!however,they did get a lot help from USA...
among other things the pathetic Sherman tanks...
but okay,thats another story...
the fact remains,the CCCP had the grandest part in defeating the axis.
so if the questin is,who saved the world,I'd say it was Jossif (Vissorionovits Dzugasvili) Stalin...
____________
|
|
|
|
