lol, just a question but did Canada do anything other than land on JunoCanadianloser wrote:
I'm Pretty sure that Canada basically did everything while the U.k.,U.s.a., and the russians sat on their asses drinking lemonade.
For those who didn't catch what I was saying:
/sarcastic
The attack on Pearl Harbour can not be justified either, butSuperslim wrote:
Forgot about pearl habour?Stormscythe wrote:
...They never had their mother land attacked by foreigners until 9/11/200...
a) I consider Pearl Harbour as nothing but a military base (compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki which I consider cities with normal people) and
b) there were 2.403 US Americans killed (in comparison to 70.000 (140.000) dead people in Hiroshima and 70.000 (140.000) victims in Nagasaki (which makes a total of 140k instant deaths and an all-over number of 280k deaths directly influenced by nuclear bombing, not to mention the people that still suffer).
From this point of view, the US of course won the war, since they had for sure the highest K/D ratio.
of course we did! We played hockey!Vilham wrote:
lol, just a question but did Canada do anything other than land on JunoCanadianloser wrote:
I'm Pretty sure that Canada basically did everything while the U.k.,U.s.a., and the russians sat on their asses drinking lemonade.
For those who didn't catch what I was saying:
/sarcastic
These were attacks on US soil by the nations that more or less populated the US.dubbs wrote:
Ever heard of the War of 1812 Storm? British army burnt the Washington, DC? These are attacks that took place on US soil.11sog_raider wrote:
u ever hear of pearl harbor over 3,000 dead on a american naval baseStormscythe wrote:
IMHO, the US deserve no credit for any war they've been waging. They never had their mother land attacked by foreigners until 9/11/2001 -
You could also count the pilgrims as European invaders on "US" soil, but that's somewhat ridiculous.
And in Pearl Harbour, the official number of killed people is below 3.000, as I stated before.
Of course you can't tolerate this, noone would have tolerated it. But the outcome, the outcome...
Well they made the final push to Berlin, the US was basically told to stay away & let the Russians have their revenge.
It was an allied effort though, without the mighty Russians as a distraction I doubt we could have ever gotten on land.
That & Hitler turned into a complete fucking idiot because of his fucked up diet.
So I guess the teacher is right because their arrival started the events which led them {Hitler & his wife}to suicide, then being burned in a shallow grave as the story goes...
It was an allied effort though, without the mighty Russians as a distraction I doubt we could have ever gotten on land.
That & Hitler turned into a complete fucking idiot because of his fucked up diet.
So I guess the teacher is right because their arrival started the events which led them {Hitler & his wife}to suicide, then being burned in a shallow grave as the story goes...
No but I also wouldn't have gunned down thousands of people coming out of church on December 7 .Mogura wrote:
would you surrender ?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Yes that was because Japan didn't surrender.Mogura wrote:
you dont need, but can be .... usefull.
usa showed that, hiroshima, nagasaki
Xbone Stormsurgezz
why not ?Kmarion wrote:
No but I also wouldn't have gunned down thousands of people coming out of church on December 7 .Mogura wrote:
would you surrender ?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Yes that was because Japan didn't surrender.
I understand what you're saying, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't see how living under Nazi rule would have been a significant improvement over the Communists. To be frank, living under either power would have sucked. I'm sorry for what your country has gone through, but I'm glad you're no longer under the rule of either group.venom6 wrote:
First of all im not jewish...im hungarian.And hey living in it and studying it is not the same thing.I was 2 when we had "system changing" and i know how it was when our country was under soviet communist invadion.Turquoise wrote:
Oh really? So, even though I've studied the Soviet Union for a few years, I can't comment on it? Look, I know you have the advantage because of where you live, but can you honestly say that you think the Nazies would be significantly better rulers than the Communists? I'm guessing you're not Jewish, are you?
My pearents,family friends and films and books told me how it was.
And if the nazis would win my country would be under german dictating.Maybe i need to speak german ? Who cares i can speak it and i dont mind.But when the iron curtain fall on our contry over 40 years the soviets destroyed and robbed our country.They fucked up everything and thats why my country is in a shit situation now because we had over 40 yrs of communism.
Hungary allways got the bad things...in the whole history..
1.We fight against Tatars
2.We fight and saved the whole europe from the Turky's when they wanted to attack western europe.And Hungary as a shield saved whole europe.
3.We fight against germans.
4.We lost the first WW.
5.We got Trianon after WW1
6.We lost in WW2
7.Soviet invadors for over 40 years
8.Post communist asshols are leading our country atm and they give a shit about democraty.
They sell everything, they close hospitals or big factorys and now they even wanna sell our LAND !!
So just read a bit aboult the communist shit in hungary...or ask me.
No other country in the world was so humiliate like Hungary..and yes we are still there...
sorry bout that.Mogura wrote:
1) Kurds in russia ?R0lyP0ly wrote:
more examples:Kmarion wrote:
Wrong and wrong.
1)RUssian Kurds
2)Holocaust victims (and, arguably, the survivors)
2)Holocaust is not the same, i dont say it was less horible, its even worst ( industrial extermination of humans), but its not the same thing.
cmong, recognise it, usa is the only one who ever nuked civilian population ( twice )
kurds in iraq . i had russia on my mind
carefu, canadianloser, this is carefully concealed flame-bait.Vilham wrote:
lol, just a question but did Canada do anything other than land on JunoCanadianloser wrote:
I'm Pretty sure that Canada basically did everything while the U.k.,U.s.a., and the russians sat on their asses drinking lemonade.
For those who didn't catch what I was saying:
/sarcastic
Where the hell is Canada's recognition?? we were in the war long before the Americans.
First off, statistics only show one side of the story (like everyone says about this website).
Quite frankly, I hate all of these people who say "we won the war because we had more troops".
One thing Ive always thought was that if you werent in it from the start, then you cannot claim to have "won it alone". Which cancels out everybody (of the allies) but the British, Belgians and French to name a select few.
Although, we cannot claim to have won the war alone. Nobody can ever claim that and nobody can say that they single handedly defeated Hitler.
Im sorry, but that is pathetic. The Americans, British, Canadians, Russians, French and many other countries were collectively known as "THE ALLIES".
Everybody contributed to the war, whether it was by a lot or by very little.
The British and Americans consistent bombing raids on German factories and cities hindered morale and destroyed factories.
The Battle of the Atlantic and Battle of Britain were won by British and American forces...not Russian. The German Navy and Air Forces were crippled by British and American forces.
Everybody played their role, whether it was special forces, medics, drivers, gunners, pilots, seacrew - everybody played their role. Even the French villagers who aided downed aircrew and helped smuggle them back to Britain and the Partisans that operated in Italy - all played a role.
Yes, the Russians won on the Eastern Front.
However, they played no role in Africa, in Italy, in France, in the UK and the English Channel, in Belgium, the Pacific, the Atlantic or anywhere else.
They had no Navy and had to compete against a very demoralised, degraded and small Luftwaffe in the air - which, lets face it, had a negligable effect on the shear number of Russian forces.
When DDay took place, Hitler had to bring a lot of his forces back from the Eastern Front to fight on the Western Front against the newly arrived British, American and Canadian forces.
And lets not forget that a lot of German casualties on the Eastern Front were due to the extreme cold, they were not all inflicted by Russian gunfire.
The seige of Leningrad is a prime example.
Despite all of the inter country thoughts, it was won collectively. All of the Allies played a role in the final victory over Nazi Germany and the Japanese (with Italy too, who folded early on), no matter what any fucked up Historian, Statstician or newpaper claims or thinks.
Quite frankly, I hate all of these people who say "we won the war because we had more troops".
One thing Ive always thought was that if you werent in it from the start, then you cannot claim to have "won it alone". Which cancels out everybody (of the allies) but the British, Belgians and French to name a select few.
Although, we cannot claim to have won the war alone. Nobody can ever claim that and nobody can say that they single handedly defeated Hitler.
Im sorry, but that is pathetic. The Americans, British, Canadians, Russians, French and many other countries were collectively known as "THE ALLIES".
Everybody contributed to the war, whether it was by a lot or by very little.
The British and Americans consistent bombing raids on German factories and cities hindered morale and destroyed factories.
The Battle of the Atlantic and Battle of Britain were won by British and American forces...not Russian. The German Navy and Air Forces were crippled by British and American forces.
Everybody played their role, whether it was special forces, medics, drivers, gunners, pilots, seacrew - everybody played their role. Even the French villagers who aided downed aircrew and helped smuggle them back to Britain and the Partisans that operated in Italy - all played a role.
Yes, the Russians won on the Eastern Front.
However, they played no role in Africa, in Italy, in France, in the UK and the English Channel, in Belgium, the Pacific, the Atlantic or anywhere else.
They had no Navy and had to compete against a very demoralised, degraded and small Luftwaffe in the air - which, lets face it, had a negligable effect on the shear number of Russian forces.
When DDay took place, Hitler had to bring a lot of his forces back from the Eastern Front to fight on the Western Front against the newly arrived British, American and Canadian forces.
And lets not forget that a lot of German casualties on the Eastern Front were due to the extreme cold, they were not all inflicted by Russian gunfire.
The seige of Leningrad is a prime example.
Despite all of the inter country thoughts, it was won collectively. All of the Allies played a role in the final victory over Nazi Germany and the Japanese (with Italy too, who folded early on), no matter what any fucked up Historian, Statstician or newpaper claims or thinks.
It's all right here..J3ST3R wrote:
Where the hell is Canada's recognition?? we were in the war long before the Americans.
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cf … /secondwar
I'm kidding, I stumbled upon that page.
In all actuality there were 45,000 Canadians who did not return home to their families.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-03 10:57:49)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
D-Day prevented the soviet union from taking europe.
Many of the nazi's big failures had already happened (Stalingrad, Kursk, prokova, ) nothing but soviet hardware was rolling westward (the T-34 tank alone numbered 57,000 by the end of the war in 45). along with the T-34, the large 'animal killers' (Anti-tanks that were effective at knocking out tigers, panthers, elephants, etc) SU-85, ISU-152's, SU-122, followed by mobile AA, self propelled arty etc all rolling westward.
Other than that D-Day was propoganda for us in the west, simply because most of western history books were written while the soviet union was around. Thus you grew up with those books to reference on.
The western allies at the apex of their action only saw 10% of the Nazi army (and that was the most ever) most of the time they were fighting against less than 5% of the werhmacht.
D-Day prevented all of Europe from falling into Soviet hands and that itself is a huge accomplishment (since the soviet union stuck around for 50 years, could have been more if all of europe was red).
Bombing of industries helped the advance on both sides but the germans were producing far too less hardware (although more complex) to keep up with the allies even before the bombing began. Simple numbers in resources (such as rubber and other exotic items in that era, even oil), hardware, and manpower overran the nazi's. The last hope of the nazi's was Kursk and many of their big guns, panther tanks and hero's perished there.
Many of the nazi's big failures had already happened (Stalingrad, Kursk, prokova, ) nothing but soviet hardware was rolling westward (the T-34 tank alone numbered 57,000 by the end of the war in 45). along with the T-34, the large 'animal killers' (Anti-tanks that were effective at knocking out tigers, panthers, elephants, etc) SU-85, ISU-152's, SU-122, followed by mobile AA, self propelled arty etc all rolling westward.
Other than that D-Day was propoganda for us in the west, simply because most of western history books were written while the soviet union was around. Thus you grew up with those books to reference on.
The western allies at the apex of their action only saw 10% of the Nazi army (and that was the most ever) most of the time they were fighting against less than 5% of the werhmacht.
D-Day prevented all of Europe from falling into Soviet hands and that itself is a huge accomplishment (since the soviet union stuck around for 50 years, could have been more if all of europe was red).
Bombing of industries helped the advance on both sides but the germans were producing far too less hardware (although more complex) to keep up with the allies even before the bombing began. Simple numbers in resources (such as rubber and other exotic items in that era, even oil), hardware, and manpower overran the nazi's. The last hope of the nazi's was Kursk and many of their big guns, panther tanks and hero's perished there.
Last edited by JaggedPanther (2006-12-03 12:58:13)
You know this is a 2 sided thing.History can be tached also in different ways.Somebody is saying this and somebody that.Nationalism ? Maybe...R0lyP0ly wrote:
I think that studying it is almost beneficial in this case, because s/he won't have a sense of nationalism slightly clouding his/er judgment, as everybody does when preaching about their country.
stalin wasnt even russian
In the 1st and 2nd point Plieam shows he clearly knows what he is talking about. Hitler disregarded the fierce Russian winters just like the french emperor Napoleon did a few hundred years ago.Vilham wrote:
lol rationing isnt starving to death... seriously don't try to talk about something you have no clue about. Nearly everyone will know someone be it their parents or friends who had the rationing and they sure as hell weren't starving to death.Pleiam wrote:
First of all, Hitler was defeated by his own ignorance. He didn't learn anything from Napoleons defeat from the Russian winter that wiped out most of his German troops.
2nd, Hitler might have won if he left alone the Brits, the Russians and the continent of Africa alone and staked his claim on western europe that he conquered. The Americans and Brits would have left him alone and Russia too until Htler figured out the Bomb, then everyones would have been screwed.
3rd, Russia was hardly armed with anything and in most cases didn't have enough rifles for each "soldier".
4th, The important thing to remember about the western allies, is that they were mainly seen as liberators of Europe and Africa.
Anyone who says the Brits won the war is hugely mistaken. More accurately, they survived the war. They were practically starving to death because of the u-boats blocking and intercepting their food shipments from the allies.
On the 3rd point i disagree, because the Russion T-34 tanks were numerous and in 1940 the best tank design in the world. The problem was not the equipment, but the fact Stalin has purged a lot of (experienced) officers and tank crews for political reasons. The german Panther (Pzkpw V) in 1943 was inspired by the T-34 design, with the turret placed more to the rear to avoid confusion with the T-34 on the battlefield.
Vilham, if you disagree with him on the subject of the statement on food shipments and rations, you could have quoted just that, you did not have to include point 1 till 4...
OMG read some history before talking BS.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
omg! where did u get your information from? there is so many bs in this thread but i will correct only one point:And remember that Hitler lost 1/4 of his forces of the Eastern front only in the battle of Stalingrad, approx. 850k.
in the battle of encirclement of stalingrad, 250.000 german soldiers had been encircled. 34.000 soldiers were flown out, 130.00 (by soviet allegation) went into war captivity.
and, the battle of stalingrad was NOT the decisive battle of ww2. nethertheless, it had huge psychological effects to both the axis and the allies.
Battle of Stalingrad Casualties:
Total casualties for both sides are estimated to be over two million. As a result of the battle, the Axis powers suffered roughly 850,000 casualties, 1/4 of their strength on the Eastern Front, as well as a huge amount of supplies and equipment.
Battle of Stalingrad Significance:
The Battle of Stalingrad was the most important turning point of World War II and is considered the bloodiest battle in human history, with more combined casualties suffered than any battle before or since.
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-12-03 13:47:40)
Well in the battle of Krusk the amount of men lost by Russia was the same for both UK/USA for the TOTAL war !!
well i dont care what nation did the most, im just happy that nazis were stoped. and so i thanx to EVERY man and woman who helped to win that damn war against nazi germany / imperial japan.
thanx to the sacrifice they donne we haave grovn in a free nations and that we have rights.
so just thanx them and dont forget what they ( all of them) did for us ( all world )
respect
thanx to the sacrifice they donne we haave grovn in a free nations and that we have rights.
so just thanx them and dont forget what they ( all of them) did for us ( all world )
respect
during the cold war the amount of troops and equipment, not to mention nuclear warheads, far out did the capabilities of the United States and allies. I guess they must have also won the cold war as well, comrade...
OMG, please this English guy is not saying UK and US did nothing to win the war. Did you even read the article? I don't pretend you to read the book, but at least read the article. The guy is just saying that soviets crashed Hitler forces from Russia to Berlin. What would have happened if Hitler would have sent all his forces to western Europe? That's the point. Stop with the "this guy is talking about numbers". Read the article. And prove me wrong. Prove that Europe wouldn't be talking German if Hitler would have focused in Western Europe.
who ya addressing?sergeriver wrote:
OMG, please this English guy is not saying UK and US did nothing to win the war. Did you even read the article? I don't pretend you to read the book, but at least read the article. The guy is just saying that soviets crashed Hitler forces from Russia to Berlin. What would have happened if Hitler would have sent all his forces to western Europe? That's the point. Stop with the "this guy is talking about numbers". Read the article. And prove me wrong. Prove that Europe wouldn't be talking German if Hitler would have focused in Western Europe.
It is unlikely any single ally could have beaten the Axis alone. Nothing any of us accomplished happened in a vacuum. Russians took massive casualties and that absorption of German munitions/casualties and TIME allowed the UK to stand-up longer and the USA to build up and deploy. The US massive aid/lend lease allowed for materiel attrition of all the allies until US Airpower was brought to bare to interdict the flow of new ordnance, repair parts, petroleum and other supplies. WWII is an example of a tremendous mosaic of teamwork and even partisan resistance movements thoughout Europe and Asia should not be held in small regard. If you take out any ally from the mix at the very least the war lasts many years and lives longer, if not ending as a truce.
I don't know why people need to claim a single national victory anyway. Stupid Humans. WWII is an example of dissimilar peoples setting aside differences to crush evil everywhere it raises its ugly head.
I don't know why people need to claim a single national victory anyway. Stupid Humans. WWII is an example of dissimilar peoples setting aside differences to crush evil everywhere it raises its ugly head.
Everyone who is saying that the perspective given by this English historian is BS, without even reading the article. The man is not just talking about numbers, he's talking about real facts. If you think about that, it makes sense. I mean, the soviets defeated Hitler back to Berlin taking 80% of all Nazis casualties during the WWII, and the things would have been different if Hitler wouldn't have fought the Russians.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
who ya addressing?sergeriver wrote:
OMG, please this English guy is not saying UK and US did nothing to win the war. Did you even read the article? I don't pretend you to read the book, but at least read the article. The guy is just saying that soviets crashed Hitler forces from Russia to Berlin. What would have happened if Hitler would have sent all his forces to western Europe? That's the point. Stop with the "this guy is talking about numbers". Read the article. And prove me wrong. Prove that Europe wouldn't be talking German if Hitler would have focused in Western Europe.