Lol... No. I'm serious. He has the highest ammount of recorded day kills in a fighter plane in WWII.Bertster7 wrote:
Eric Cartman?Heavy_Guns_91 wrote:
(Sorry for getting off topic a little again, but)lowing wrote:
...2. The Lufwaffe was all but whipped out, even if the planes were there, there were hardly any experienced pilots left to fly them. The allies had COMPLETE Air Superiority.
A German ace, I believe his name was "Eric Hartmann" made over 300 comfirmed 'kills' in his ME-109.
There were a few others in Russia aswell, but Eric had been all over.
Anyways, he got shot down twice. And on the second time, he was captured by the Russians.
He was in a POW camp until the end of the war. But after the war ended, the Russian officials inprisoned him for 10 years. The reason? Because of all of his kills, his missed rounds had to have hit at least one Russian Civilian.
Crazy eh?
Nazi fighter pilot, never.....
I think history sees it a little differently.........They call it, WORLD WAR 2..NOw, how did the Soviets contribute the MOST in winning ALL of WORLD WAR 2?jonsimon wrote:
WWII is really two wars, the Pacific and the Eurpean halves. Russia invaded germany, and won that war.lowing wrote:
From the articleBertster7 wrote:
More responsible than any other single nation.
The OP doesn't say that exactly anyway. Just look at the thread title (or in the OP the carefull use of the word Nazis). Hitler, not the Axis powers, was defeated primarily by the Russians.
"Both the British and the American public have long been told that “we won the war” .
Ok, I have explaine my opinion how there is no way the Soviets did more than any other nation to win the WHOLE WAR. So, other than just saying so, why don't you explain how the Soviets won the war for us. Please if you can, be a little more specific than just stating they defeated Germany, we have been over that.
Remember the WHOLE WAR, not just Germany.
The US bombed Japan, and won that war.
US was only 70% against entering the war, in Europe, before Dec 7th. 97% for enetering the war with Japan on Dec 8th, '41 and Europe was an easy add-on.Bertster7 wrote:
No, the US were looking for a reason to join in.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
The U.S. had been helping the whole time in terms of supplies. In terms of troops, I don't know. I guess the U.S. was hoping to not have to go there.silentsin wrote:
well i'll just bring this up, and i don't know if anyone's said it yet (because i'm not reading 14 pages). but was Britain not asking the US when we were gonna help?
Public opinion in the US was totally against them entering the war. So the government allowed the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbour to suceed. Not conspiracy theory, fact (since '94 when the offical documents were released anyway).
item 1. Had the weather held and the Axis Southern Front succeded, the USSR would have lost its oil feed.lowing wrote:
1.So we agree if NOT for the weather Germany would probably have defeated the Soviets in Staligrad.
2. The Lufwaffe was all but whipped out, even if the planes were there, there were hardly any experienced pilots left to fly them. The allies had COMPLETE Air Superiority.
3. Germany wanted to surrender months earlier, his own people tried to assinate him months before they actually surrendered. Once Germany was finished, the US COULD have EASILY taken out the Soviets. WHich was exactly your question. Bottom line. THe US would have won a war against the Soviets in the summer of 45. and NOT ONE soldier would have had to enter Moscow to do it. JUST LIKE JAPAN.
4. AGAIN, You might have an argument for the Soviets mainly defeating Germany. BUt your article doen't say that. It says the Soviets mainly won the WAR. THAT isn't true.
The plan was to move South and link up with Rommel in the oil fields of Iran/Iraq. It may have taken a year to dry up strategic oil reserves but USSR is toast without the weather and the mistakes that attempted to correct for it.
item 2. Complete.
Item 3. lowing I have to say that isn't probable. Even if the US used the atom bomb on the Soviets they probably would have sucked it up, burned the rest of western USSR and fell back to rebuild. No sir we ran a simluation that indicated a closer date of 1948 including the use of Nukes in late '46. Remember we had only two ready models at the end of '45 and used them both on Japan. Patton was right we could have taken the USSR then. UK/US controlled ALL the oil and most every other natural resource going to the USSR so they would be nearly tankless, no airpower, no sea power. But a US attack into Poland and beyond would not have begun until spring '46 due to consolidating western europe. Long range bombing of factories would have begun almost immediately. Well you know the drill...
item 4. I haven't seen anything here to give USSR sole credit for defeating germany. Not even main credit. The Allies were so integrated in all echeleons of warfighting capacity how can we divide it up and say "the bullet is more important than the rifle"? <-- and all that that question leaves out.
I think I would argue against anyone trying to place their nation first in the "who won WWII" race.
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-12-07 23:01:49)
the way i understand it, Hitler made the age old mistake of invading Russia. The devourer of man and material. He couldn't deal with the press from both fronts.
1. agreedOpsChief wrote:
item 1. Had the weather held and the Axis Southern Front succeded, the USSR would have lost its oil feed.lowing wrote:
1.So we agree if NOT for the weather Germany would probably have defeated the Soviets in Staligrad.
2. The Lufwaffe was all but whipped out, even if the planes were there, there were hardly any experienced pilots left to fly them. The allies had COMPLETE Air Superiority.
3. Germany wanted to surrender months earlier, his own people tried to assinate him months before they actually surrendered. Once Germany was finished, the US COULD have EASILY taken out the Soviets. WHich was exactly your question. Bottom line. THe US would have won a war against the Soviets in the summer of 45. and NOT ONE soldier would have had to enter Moscow to do it. JUST LIKE JAPAN.
4. AGAIN, You might have an argument for the Soviets mainly defeating Germany. BUt your article doen't say that. It says the Soviets mainly won the WAR. THAT isn't true.
The plan was to move South and link up with Rommel in the oil fields of Iran/Iraq. It may have taken a year to dry up strategic oil reserves but USSR is toast without the weather and the mistakes that attempted to correct for it.
item 2. Complete.
Item 3. lowing I have to say that isn't probable. Even if the US used the atom bomb on the Soviets they probably would have sucked it up, burned the rest of western USSR and fell back to rebuild. No sir we ran a simluation that indicated a closer date of 1948 including the use of Nukes in late '46. Remember we had only two ready models at the end of '45 and used them both on Japan. Patton was right we could have taken the USSR then. UK/US controlled ALL the oil and most every other natural resource going to the USSR so they would be nearly tankless, no airpower, no sea power. But a US attack into Poland and beyond would not have begun until spring '46 due to consolidating western europe. Long range bombing of factories would have begun almost immediately. Well you know the drill...
item 4. I haven't seen anything here to give USSR sole credit for defeating germany. Not even main credit. The Allies were so integrated in all echeleons of warfighting capacity how can we divide it up and say "the bullet is more important than the rifle"? <-- and all that that question leaves out.
I think I would argue against anyone trying to place their nation first in the "who won WWII" race.
2. agreed
3. agreed, but the spirit of my answer is, the US WOULD have defeated the Soviets in such a scenario
4. agreed but the argument was that the Soviets won the war mainly. This is what I dispute
LAWLTechworld wrote:
We (UK) won
A lot of wars are grouped together that way. Take the 30 years war, most of Europe was involved, but they did not all fight each other, and they did so in seperate phases corresponding to geographic locations. Get real, Japan never fought anyone but the US.lowing wrote:
I think history sees it a little differently.........They call it, WORLD WAR 2..NOw, how did the Soviets contribute the MOST in winning ALL of WORLD WAR 2?jonsimon wrote:
WWII is really two wars, the Pacific and the Eurpean halves. Russia invaded germany, and won that war.lowing wrote:
From the article
"Both the British and the American public have long been told that “we won the war” .
Ok, I have explaine my opinion how there is no way the Soviets did more than any other nation to win the WHOLE WAR. So, other than just saying so, why don't you explain how the Soviets won the war for us. Please if you can, be a little more specific than just stating they defeated Germany, we have been over that.
Remember the WHOLE WAR, not just Germany.
The US bombed Japan, and won that war.
What about China?jonsimon wrote:
A lot of wars are grouped together that way. Take the 30 years war, most of Europe was involved, but they did not all fight each other, and they did so in seperate phases corresponding to geographic locations. Get real, Japan never fought anyone but the US.lowing wrote:
I think history sees it a little differently.........They call it, WORLD WAR 2..NOw, how did the Soviets contribute the MOST in winning ALL of WORLD WAR 2?jonsimon wrote:
WWII is really two wars, the Pacific and the Eurpean halves. Russia invaded germany, and won that war.
The US bombed Japan, and won that war.
The British fought them a bit, but not very much.
Then I wonder how the Japanese obtained all of those British and Australian POW'sjonsimon wrote:
A lot of wars are grouped together that way. Take the 30 years war, most of Europe was involved, but they did not all fight each other, and they did so in seperate phases corresponding to geographic locations. Get real, Japan never fought anyone but the US.lowing wrote:
I think history sees it a little differently.........They call it, WORLD WAR 2..NOw, how did the Soviets contribute the MOST in winning ALL of WORLD WAR 2?jonsimon wrote:
WWII is really two wars, the Pacific and the Eurpean halves. Russia invaded germany, and won that war.
The US bombed Japan, and won that war.
and ya still didn't answer my question....HOW did the Soviets contribute the MOST to winning ALL of WW2?? I mean ALL of it, not just Germany?
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-08 14:54:48)
This guy Davies never said all the war, but the Nazis. He said that Hitler was defeated mostly by Russia.lowing wrote:
Then I wonder how the Japanese obtained all of those British and Australian POW'sjonsimon wrote:
A lot of wars are grouped together that way. Take the 30 years war, most of Europe was involved, but they did not all fight each other, and they did so in seperate phases corresponding to geographic locations. Get real, Japan never fought anyone but the US.lowing wrote:
I think history sees it a little differently.........They call it, WORLD WAR 2..NOw, how did the Soviets contribute the MOST in winning ALL of WORLD WAR 2?
and ya still didn't answer my question....HOW did the Soviets contribute the MOST to winning ALL of WW2?? I mean ALL of it, not just Germany?
In your posted paragraph ALONE, it says that the British and Americans Think THEY won the war and that they need to re-think that notion............So tell me what am I supposed to think?sergeriver wrote:
This guy Davies never said all the war, but the Nazis. He said that Hitler was defeated mostly by Russia.lowing wrote:
Then I wonder how the Japanese obtained all of those British and Australian POW'sjonsimon wrote:
A lot of wars are grouped together that way. Take the 30 years war, most of Europe was involved, but they did not all fight each other, and they did so in seperate phases corresponding to geographic locations. Get real, Japan never fought anyone but the US.
and ya still didn't answer my question....HOW did the Soviets contribute the MOST to winning ALL of WW2?? I mean ALL of it, not just Germany?
All of WWII or just the Nazis, Russia or the whole Soviet Union, either way and in any combination lowing is correct it didn't happen.lowing wrote:
In your posted paragraph ALONE, it says that the British and Americans Think THEY won the war and that they need to re-think that notion............So tell me what am I supposed to think?sergeriver wrote:
This guy Davies never said all the war, but the Nazis. He said that Hitler was defeated mostly by Russia.lowing wrote:
Then I wonder how the Japanese obtained all of those British and Australian POW's
and ya still didn't answer my question....HOW did the Soviets contribute the MOST to winning ALL of WW2?? I mean ALL of it, not just Germany?
I am an American and I don't and have never thought "WE" won WWII all by ourselves - what is Davies' source for speaking for ALL UK/AMERICANS that we ALL think this fallacy. He doesn't cite it in the article so there is revealed fallacy #3 from the article.
Where do you get this shit? I mean seriously....Bertster7 wrote:
No, the US were looking for a reason to join in.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
The U.S. had been helping the whole time in terms of supplies. In terms of troops, I don't know. I guess the U.S. was hoping to not have to go there.silentsin wrote:
well i'll just bring this up, and i don't know if anyone's said it yet (because i'm not reading 14 pages). but was Britain not asking the US when we were gonna help?
Public opinion in the US was totally against them entering the war. So the government allowed the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbour to suceed. Not conspiracy theory, fact (since '94 when the offical documents were released anyway).
Well, regarding that comment I think it's true. You'll see, many Americans and some Brits think they won the war alone, and a few people give the deserved credit to Russia. So, what's wrong with that statement made by a British?lowing wrote:
In your posted paragraph ALONE, it says that the British and Americans Think THEY won the war and that they need to re-think that notion............So tell me what am I supposed to think?sergeriver wrote:
This guy Davies never said all the war, but the Nazis. He said that Hitler was defeated mostly by Russia.lowing wrote:
Then I wonder how the Japanese obtained all of those British and Australian POW's
and ya still didn't answer my question....HOW did the Soviets contribute the MOST to winning ALL of WW2?? I mean ALL of it, not just Germany?
The Russians did win the war, or atleast bring it to an end sooner (against the german threat)
Well gee, talk about flip flopping..........You went from RUSSIA won the war!!! all the way to, they just help defeat the Germans sooner. All in one sentence.........You are prime for the John Kerry, speech writer position.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
The Russians did win the war, or atleast bring it to an end sooner (against the german threat)
Not that much a shit. US was planning to join the war not before 1943, but the bombing of Pearl Harbor made public opinion change and most people agreed after that with US taking part. I saw in a documentary that US had the information before dec 7th, but they did nothing to prevent it.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Where do you get this shit? I mean seriously....Bertster7 wrote:
No, the US were looking for a reason to join in.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
The U.S. had been helping the whole time in terms of supplies. In terms of troops, I don't know. I guess the U.S. was hoping to not have to go there.
Public opinion in the US was totally against them entering the war. So the government allowed the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbour to suceed. Not conspiracy theory, fact (since '94 when the offical documents were released anyway).
It has to be remarked that the attack might have been no surprise as vital intelligence information about the imminent attack was not passed to the Navy commander Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Army commander Walter Short.
Serge, this guy says that RUSSIA was the main reason for winning WW2. That is bullshit. WW2 was more than just Germany. and Germany's defeat was a combined effort hands down.sergeriver wrote:
Well, regarding that comment I think it's true. You'll see, many Americans and some Brits think they won the war alone, and a few people give the deserved credit to Russia. So, what's wrong with that statement made by a British?lowing wrote:
In your posted paragraph ALONE, it says that the British and Americans Think THEY won the war and that they need to re-think that notion............So tell me what am I supposed to think?sergeriver wrote:
This guy Davies never said all the war, but the Nazis. He said that Hitler was defeated mostly by Russia.
SO other than battling Germans, what else did Russia do that significantly contributed to WINNING THE WHOLE WAR?
Ah you mean like, "calm down you twat" to "calm down you little twat".lowing wrote:
Well gee, talk about flip flopping..........You went from RUSSIA won the war!!! all the way to, they just help defeat the Germans sooner. All in one sentence.........You are prime for the John Kerry, speech writer position.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
The Russians did win the war, or atleast bring it to an end sooner (against the german threat)
Gotcha
kthxbibi
As soon as YOU figure out what you are talking about, post it, then I will try and re-read it.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
Ah you mean like, "calm down you twat" to "calm down you little twat".lowing wrote:
Well gee, talk about flip flopping..........You went from RUSSIA won the war!!! all the way to, they just help defeat the Germans sooner. All in one sentence.........You are prime for the John Kerry, speech writer position.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
The Russians did win the war, or atleast bring it to an end sooner (against the german threat)
Gotcha
kthxbibi
=Karma-Kills= wrote:
kthxbibi
Lowing your the only one argueing your case, most people have grown bored of your stubbeness and have left this thread as no matter how many times they put forward the points made be most leading military historians you just won't accept what people who have spent their lives in this field have said.
"How we didn't win the war . . . but the Russians did"............<---------the title of the article..........and it is bullshit.Vilham wrote:
Lowing your the only one argueing your case, most people have grown bored of your stubbeness and have left this thread as no matter how many times they put forward the points made be most leading military historians you just won't accept what people who have spent their lives in this field have said.
There could be made an argument that said without the JEEP or the DUCK, or the MUSTANG, the war would have been lost. Give credit where credit is due I agree, but to state the Soviets WON the WAR for the ALLIES is bullshit. If you are tired of posting in this thread move the on.
Im simply pointing out your a fool. Most people have realised that and have moved on as I am after this post, you are arguing against a the majority of military historians view. As to the title... the author didn't write it did he so if the title is misleading as to what his book says who gives a fly fuck. Stop and think for one second would you please, you are arguing about something that the author didn't write and claiming he did. One word. Fool.lowing wrote:
"How we didn't win the war . . . but the Russians did"............<---------the title of the article..........and it is bullshit.Vilham wrote:
Lowing your the only one argueing your case, most people have grown bored of your stubbeness and have left this thread as no matter how many times they put forward the points made be most leading military historians you just won't accept what people who have spent their lives in this field have said.
There could be made an argument that said without the JEEP or the DUCK, or the MUSTANG, the war would have been lost. Give credit where credit is due I agree, but to state the Soviets WON the WAR for the ALLIES is bullshit. If you are tired of posting in this thread move the on.