At 9/27/07 06:53 AM, altanese-mistress wrote:
At 9/26/07 09:14 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Casualties inflicted isn't necessarily a large basis of argument because it doesn't take into account the whole spectrum of the war. Killing and getting killed =/= victory.So you honestly believe that killing a good chunk of the enemy forces even when you suffer more losses than all your allies combined means absolutly nothing?
I didn't say that, but do you honestly believe having more casualties and causing more casualties erases the fact that they were dependent on foreign aid and only fought in a single theater of whar?
I'm sure if it were America who had done that you'd argue with everyone that it's the most important factor to consider.
No I wouldn't, because I'm informed enough to know that amount of casualties you inflict or incur doesn't define a war, not least of which a world war.
one single area of one single theater of a world WarTHE most brutal and bloody theater
Due to the brutality and disregard for life on both the Russian and German sides. Maybe you should look at the amount of civilians the Russians killed, including their own people? Are you going to tally those to their score as well?
which took more lives than every single other theater combined and which held THE most costly battles in all of human history, par none.
Costly in terms of lives, which was only due to aggressiveness and brutality of the Germans, the incompetence and brutality of the Russians. Just because the Russians sacrificed millions of their own men as if they were cattle doesn't mean that the amount of casualties they suffered can be used as some proof of their contribution to victory.
... and they were dependent on aide from the US.The only source you've provided is Wikipedia, and I'd hardly call that a source.
HAHAH! Maybe you should learn to read? I provided other sources as well.
Mhhm.. and the US managed to roll all of those conquests back virtually single-handedly,Right, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the British colonial defenders or the native resistance
Both of which provided little compared to the US. The US almost single-handedly defeated the Japanese. The US was responsible for having crippled the Japanese Navy and Army, preventing them from supplying their forces, communicating with their forces, and organizing their forces. The US did the vast majority, the only place any major contribution was made by others was in the Philippines, and even then it was relatively small.
or the simple fact that Japan was using an ideology which called for more of their own dieing in attacks than their enemies
Haha kind of like the Russians? You know... the people who would send 100 men armed with 20 rifles to attack a machine gun position, killing all of their men, only to do it again several times until the Germans ran out of ammo from slaughtering so many Russians?
all while fighting simultaneously on the other side of the world and supplying the rest of the allies.
You have to consider that the furthest the war ever reached into the Americas was when a few Alutian Islands were breifly held by the Japanese, so America was never bothered by limited production while it's territory was held by enemies.
You have to consider that while the US managed to attack other countries all around the world, they couldn't do the same to the US. And you're pretending as if that is a detriment to the FACT that the US managed to fight two simultaneous, large-scale operations, all while supplying the allies at the same time?
omg u found it on teh intarwebz u must b rit lol i hop it iz wiki cuz it iz alwayz rit
And where are you finding your information? Because this whole time all you've managed to do is parade your vast ignorance and laughable ideas... all based on the whims of your imagination.
And you think your opinions are more valid than the actual databases I linked to that displayed OFFICIAL documents about the war?
Haha, that's because Russia was the only ally that had the goal of increasing its territoryThe main goal was to simply crush the Nazis.
Oh, so by oppressing people who weren't even German and taking over countries AFTER the Nazis already surrendered... that was meant to crush the Nazis? All the territory the Russians took from say... Poland... who weren't German, who fought against the Germans... that was to crush the Germans right?
Nice logic there.
Seriously, are you aware of how ridiculous your argument has become? You deny all the facts, and make the most absurd justifications for doing so.
Oh, and America didn't do that? No spheres of influence that were much better veiled than the Soviet ones?
The US didn't do that at all. In case you didn't know, EVERY SINGLE country the US remained in after WWII became prosperous. The US rebuilt both allied and former enemy alike, free of charge, and allowed them to have their own countries back, with their own governments.
The Soviets did the exact opposite, they crushed any form of democracy, took over the economies of countries that they supposedly liberated, and subjugated them to Soviet rule AGAINST their will.
And also allowed the Japanese to pretty much go unpunished
Um.. actually the funny thing about that is almost all of the Japanese officers that were responsible for atrocities either died in the war, or committed suicide to maintain their honor.
Plus, the Japanese didn't have such an organized, open, deliberate policy of committing atrocities like the Germans did with the Holocaust. It was easier to find those responsibile in Germany because their leadership planned it all as intentional policy. The atrocities by the Japanese were usually at lower levels among their military only.
by comparison the the Nuremburg trials and heavy restrictions of what could be considered Nazi media, leading to even modern day tension between Japan and the rest of East Asia because the Japanese are still allowed to have a culture based on Japanese ethnic superiority.
Wait... so you think the US should have deliberately destroyed Japanese culture? You think the US had the right to entirely whitewash Japan, just because the US was victorious?
Now I can see why you perform e-fellatio on the Soviet Union.
Yeah, I suppose the French would have been fine had America taken Brittany as payment for it's part in the war
See, that's where your logic fails, once again.if the US didn't have the mercy that it did, and instead acted like the Soviets... the US could have taken it regardless of what the French wanted. The US could have done this to all of western Europe, and most of Asia. In fact, the US emerged from WWII so powerful, and with the sole possessor of the nuclear bomb, the US could have done the same thing to the Soviets themselves if that was the goal.
But since the US wasn't like the Soviet Union, the US didn't use its power for conquest, but instead rebuilt the countries free of charge and allowed them to decide their destiny from that point forward. Look at France, Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan most notably... the most prosperous economies in the world... because the US rebuilt them, and instead of conquering them or collecting forced repayment, the US only officially asked for plots of land to bury dead American soldiers.
Territory gained is a significant factor to consider in any conventional war.
Not when the territory was taken from people who were basically defenseless, and weren't even an enemy. Not when Soviets couldn't have done it without aide they received, and all while the land being taken was located in a single front, of a single theatre... in midst of a war that stretched across the globe.