Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Im sorry but food aid is in no way equivalent to fielding a 10 million strong army. Let alone the impact upon the country when half of those men didnt return or the complete destruction of local infrastructure.

The US used WWII for profit and that is pretty much the extent of their involvement.
"Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II"

Great book on the subject, LOTS of info gotten from Russian documents which historians accessed after the fall of the USSR. As much as 92% of the railroad infrastructure of the USSR + trains were delivered via the lend-lease aid. Much of the food used to keep the army up and running came through lend lease as well, because major Russian agricultural food sources were being occupied by the Germans. And then we're not talking about the enormous amount of trucks, guns, raw materials and aircraft delivered through the system.

+ that is only counting US aid, not that of the commonwealth, which again supplied vast amounts of goods to the eastern front helping the Russians beat the Germans. The Russians have supplied the manpower which was tremendously important in ending WW2, but much of the industrial punch came from the west.

"only for profit!!" Lol. If you'd actually know how many goods the US shipped to Europe after the war through Marshall aid, and how many goods were shipped during the war under the lend-lease program you'd see that the payback they got was no more than justified. They were just lucky that the US suffered no infrastructure damage whatsoever from the war, in fact, it expanded because of necessity during the war. Thanks to that they managed to emerge as a superpower, which was good on them really.
inane little opines
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5394|Canberra, AUS
I'm sure the millions of starving Soviet citizens and soldiers in the bitter cold of the Russian winter were particularly concerned with the morality of the underlying economic principles used by those who were putting the food on their tables.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...
Oh and not to discredit the soviet industry; their war machine did outproduce anyone else in armored vehicles, aircraft and weapons towards the later half of the war. Stalin's steel industry did pay itself off tremendously. Nevertheless, lend lease was absolutely necessary.
inane little opines
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5451|Cambridge, England

Shocking wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Im sorry but food aid is in no way equivalent to fielding a 10 million strong army. Let alone the impact upon the country when half of those men didnt return or the complete destruction of local infrastructure.

The US used WWII for profit and that is pretty much the extent of their involvement.
"Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II"

Great book on the subject, LOTS of info gotten from Russian documents which historians accessed after the fall of the USSR. As much as 92% of the railroad infrastructure of the USSR + trains were delivered via the lend-lease aid. Much of the food used to keep the army up and running came through lend lease as well, because major Russian agricultural food sources were being occupied by the Germans. And then we're not talking about the enormous amount of trucks, guns, raw materials and aircraft delivered through the system.

+ that is only counting US aid, not that of the commonwealth, which again supplied vast amounts of goods to the eastern front helping the Russians beat the Germans. The Russians have supplied the manpower which was tremendously important in ending WW2, but much of the industrial punch came from the west.

"only for profit!!" Lol. If you'd actually know how many goods the US shipped to Europe after the war through Marshall aid, and how many goods were shipped during the war under the lend-lease program you'd see that the payback they got was no more than justified. They were just lucky that the US suffered no infrastructure damage whatsoever from the war, in fact, it expanded because of necessity during the war. Thanks to that they managed to emerge as a superpower, which was good on them really.
So despite the exclamation you are in fact agreeing with me? USA sent loads of the stuff to Europe and charged "fairly" with the result of becoming a super power.

Yes they sold a vast quantity of supplies to Europe however that is not even similar to fighting a large scale invasion. You have all of the benefits and hardly any of the negatives. Sure Europe greedily gobbled up all the help it could get and it is impossible to speculate the outcomes otherwise. However the USA had a minimal involvement. Not the superheroes they portray themselves as.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...
The superhero image is only repeated by idiots. Nevertheless, their contribution was of vital importance.

I don't feel it's just to portray them as 'greedy' because helping Europe obviously wasn't charity. It wasn't even their war to begin with.
inane little opines
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5451|Cambridge, England

Shocking wrote:

The superhero image is only repeated by idiots. Nevertheless, their contribution was of vital importance.

I don't feel it's just to portray them as 'greedy' because helping Europe obviously wasn't charity. It wasn't even their war to begin with.
Okay perhaps greedy is unfair but the war was not to their detriment and they made the most of the opportunity presented to them (as im sure any country would).

The biggest factor I would use to explain the outbreak of WWII would have to be the settlement of WWI for which the US was as equally to blame as the other allies. I suppose we are also ignoring the impact of the great depression upon Germany..
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|5390|UK
Relax, they got involved and did their part, rather late than never.  To say "minimal involvement" is a huge disservice to every US WW2 vet.

And its not like Britian ever exploited its economic position ever right?  the sun never sets...
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5451|Cambridge, England

m3thod wrote:

Relax, they got involved and did their part, rather late than never.  To say "minimal involvement" is a huge disservice to every US WW2 vet.

And its not like Britian ever exploited its economic position ever right?  the sun never sets...
To argue that the USSR has minimal involvement is a worse disservice as they gave between 9 and 10 million men to the war effort. In comparison to the USAs  <0.5 million.

But yes.. better late than never.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/WW2.gif/613px-WW2.gif

Shocking wrote:

WWII wasn't primarily between the USSR and Germany, that's bollocks.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-06-23 07:41:08)

Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...
Nobody argued that. I originally intended with all my posts to show that the involvement of all three powers was vital to ending WW2. If any one of them did not participate the war would either have been lost or be won at a significantly higher cost and last many years longer.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-06-23 07:45:19)

inane little opines
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|5189
this talk again? some of you guys could have an oxbridge PhD in history by now with all the endless shit you talk about ww2 interventionism.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Shocking wrote:

WWII wasn't primarily between the USSR and Germany, that's bollocks.
What's your point? I'm still right. Quoting death statistics doesn't in any way give you a better argument. That means you're simply ignoring everything that happened during WW2 bar the combat.

And still; there was an ocean seperating Hitler from the west, no such luck for the Russians.
inane little opines
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|5189
please stop using semi-colons like that it's fucking irritating. it doesn't make you look smarter, just more stupid.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4077|London, England
Thanks; for contributing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5451|Cambridge, England

Shocking wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Shocking wrote:

WWII wasn't primarily between the USSR and Germany, that's bollocks.
What's your point? I'm still right. Quoting death statistics doesn't in any way give you a better argument. That means you're simply ignoring everything that happened during WW2 bar the combat.

And still; there was an ocean seperating Hitler from the west, no such luck for the Russians.
So it is unrealistic to suggest that the theater where almost all of the fighting took place had any relevance to which country saw heaviest involvement in the war?

If you are arguing troop deployment is completely unrelated to war then there is no further discussion to be had.

If the USA had lost 15% of their population then I may be more sympathetic to your claim.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-06-23 08:13:18)

Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...
My points completely flew over your head.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-06-23 08:13:15)

inane little opines
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5451|Cambridge, England

Shocking wrote:

My points completely flew over your head.
So how do you justify that the cost to the USA was higher than to USSR?
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...
Point to where I stated that.
inane little opines
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|5189
i'm really glad bf2s have taken up the noble mission to ONCE AND FOR ALL decide just who contributed most to the war effort and just who, exactly, secured allied victory. please make sure you email me the answer when you arrive at it after 15 pages of recycling the last non-fiction history book you read in the airport. thanks.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...
when we're done I'll get right to it thanks for your input uzique
inane little opines
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|5189
i like the audacity that a bunch of pimply undergraduates have in trying to ascertain something that not even a professor would try to definitively put forward. it's just a shame that all 'world war 2' threads turn into this bollocks. yawn. how uninteresting.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|5189
i mean war history is interesting and all but what i want to know is WHO WAS THE BEST?!?!?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...

Uzique wrote:

the audacity to ascertain something that not even a professor would try to definitively put forward.
Hey now we could apply that to most if not all DST threads.

also;

I originally intended with all my posts to show that the involvement of all three powers was vital to ending WW2. If any one of them did not participate the war would either have been lost or be won at a significantly higher cost and last many years longer.
That being the case, clearly the best were THE NAZIS

Last edited by Shocking (2011-06-23 08:33:14)

inane little opines
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+558|5433|Purplicious Wisconsin

Shocking wrote:

Hey now we could apply that to most if not all DST threads.

also;

I originally intended with all my posts to show that the involvement of all three powers was vital to ending WW2. If any one of them did not participate the war would either have been lost or be won at a significantly higher cost and last many years longer.
That being the case, clearly the best were THE NAZIS
NAZIs without Hitler
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4718|...
I hope you were as serious with that statement as I was with the one you quoted.
inane little opines
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+558|5433|Purplicious Wisconsin

Shocking wrote:

I hope you were as serious with that statement as I was with the one you quoted.
I was, Hitler was partly the reason Germany lost.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard