At 4/6/12 05:27 PM, risbolle wrote: do u rly think anyone cares about ur retard opinion

Re-post.....this time, use the English language.

While many millions of Russians were killed, they would not have won had the US not come. Although Germany was weakened, the Japanese were kicking ass in the Pacific.

Russinas suffered the most casualties of the war and you can argue that Stalingrad was a major turning point in the war. HOWEVER, to say the Russians were the sole reason of winning the war is lunicy.

At 4/6/12 01:18 PM, Ericho wrote:

And then he goes and causes the Cold War after already killing millions of his own.

Well, I guess he was right about something.

Anyway, I think it's best to say the USA, UK, and Russia were the most important Allied members. I'm guessing the UK because they were in the war for the longest. Russia and the USA joined in 1941.

Stalin also said something about the UK supplying the time, Russia supplying the blood, and the US supplying the money. Stalin was evil, not stupid.

At 4/9/12 08:32 PM, TucoM wrote: Stalin also said something about the UK supplying the time, Russia supplying the blood, and the US supplying the money. Stalin was evil, not stupid.

Um, I never said he was stupid, of course he wasn't. You seemed to miss the point of my post, but maybe I just missed the point of your post.

At 4/11/12 11:41 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 4/9/12 08:32 PM, TucoM wrote: Stalin also said something about the UK supplying the time, Russia supplying the blood, and the US supplying the money. Stalin was evil, not stupid.

Um, I never said he was stupid, of course he wasn't. You seemed to miss the point of my post, but maybe I just missed the point of your post.

I think my point was each of the 3 main allied nations brought something necessary to the table in that war.

Yeah definitely the government who sided with Hitler at first and almost lost Moscow.

Yeah they definitely could have won all by themselves...

It was a team effort. Russia and the US stayed out of it for as long as they could, so I don't particularly care to romanticise either.

Interesting factoid: The Germans built a copy of the T-34 tank, but it had inferior steel for the armor. How could the technically sophisticated Germans have inferior steel to the Russians you might think? Could it be....................plans for an American steel mill via Lend-Lease?

At 4/12/12 04:02 AM, TucoM wrote: Interesting factoid: The Germans built a copy of the T-34 tank, but it had inferior steel for the armor. How could the technically sophisticated Germans have inferior steel to the Russians you might think? Could it be....................plans for an American steel mill via Lend-Lease?

I'm interested, please expand on this.

At 4/12/12 12:36 PM, stinkychops wrote: I'm interested, please expand on this.

I read somewhere about the steel, I think it was in a book I read a few years ago. Here is a link about the German copy of the T-34 and how it evolved into the PZKW V Panther.

The T-34 evolved frome the Soviet BT series of tanks, which, in turn, evolved from the designs of J. Walter Christie.

Despite all of the hoopla about the T-34 (Usually from young Communists who know nothing of war), the Panther was superior to the T-34 in most ways except for its ease of manufacture (This made the T-34 a war-winner), ease of maintenance, and it's diesel engine.

I think Denmark won. They basically said, "whatever", and went on their way.

At 4/13/12 02:03 PM, Silverdust wrote: I think Denmark won. They basically said, "whatever", and went on their way.

Then why not say Antartica won? Or the moon won? Or that The US won WWI?

You can't win wars you're not in.

At 4/14/12 08:19 AM, stinkychops wrote:

At 4/13/12 02:03 PM, Silverdust wrote: I think Denmark won. They basically said, "whatever", and went on their way.

Then why not say Antartica won? Or the moon won? Or that The US won WWI?

You can't win wars you're not in.

Well, they were involved with the war unlike antartica or the moon, but chose nonviolent direct action. I think they handled it as best as they could by making it more of a pain in the ass to be occupied than fight against. The Nazis only understood combat; not so much diplomacy and peaceful resistance. I think they "most" won the war, from their perspective. Also, I personally cannot see a victory for a side with so many casualties and mistakes. WWII had too many moving parts for there to be a singular victor anyway (WWII was more like the time period where a ton of countries went to war). For example, I consider the US-Japanese conflicts separate from the European. With so many nations involved, I simply look at which one handled the situation best - and that would have to be Denmark.

Switzerland. Neutral, cunning and dirty money making during WW2. I think they didn't give a fuck on Jew slaughtering.

Of the three main ideological currents of the past few centuries, rightism was utterly defeated in WW2, leftism was weakened by the Cold War, and liberalism emerged victorious...

...so far.

At 4/14/12 01:12 PM, Silverdust wrote:

At 4/14/12 08:19 AM, stinkychops wrote:

At 4/13/12 02:03 PM, Silverdust wrote: I think Denmark won. They basically said, "whatever", and went on their way.

Then why not say Antartica won? Or the moon won? Or that The US won WWI?

You can't win wars you're not in.

snip

Except they sided and in some ways aided the Nazis... they recently apologised for this. They didn't win.

At 4/16/12 05:14 AM, stinkychops wrote: Except they sided and in some ways aided the Nazis... they recently apologised for this. They didn't win.

I know like those Nazi supporting Leftists like FDR and Clement Adillee. Whereas the far right supported....oh wait they said nothing about the Nazi's. The Left across the world rose up to unprecedented power post WWII Nationalist Socialist States (no not Nazi's, just states that were both nationalist and socialist) were rising across the world , social programs in Canada, Europe and the United States were expanding, Imperialism was fading away and Civil Rights were being gain by minorities. By the late 70's however they began to lose influence as worldwide Conservatives re surged with the Election of Reagan and Margret Thatcher, the establishment of an Islamic state of Iran in the Middle East thereby causing a resurgence of Islamists across the Middle East, a weakened economy in the US at least and into the 80's with the crumbling of Communism.

But no, the Nazi's were a product of many different ideologies and so in theory they would have been both left and right, but in practice they were largely right wing, as in general the left see's the problem's in the nation as a result of the system that needs changing while the right see's all the problem's as a result of the revisions to the system. Whenever a change occurs and it is successful the Right incorporate it into its ideology and the left press on with more reforms, but when it fails the Right fights to reject it and the Left backs off from more. The Nazi's though were focused on restoring Germany to it's old days and undoing many of the changes as well as reaffirming historic prejudices, they seeked it through a new system to mobilize the nation as one unit thus incorporating Nationalism into its idea's. This is why trying to place the Nazi's on the political spectrum is rather confusing.

At 9/24/07 10:59 PM, Elfer wrote:

Um actually I'm pretty sure it was the Russian invasion of Hiroshima that started bringing the war to a close.

Nobody wants to deal with fifty kilotons of Russian soldiers all up in their business.

Good god I hope you are trolling

Or retarded

in terms of importance
america>greeks>russian>british>canadians>new zealand>aboriginals>france

At 4/18/12 10:48 AM, xxdomoxxkunxx wrote:

At 9/24/07 10:59 PM, Elfer wrote:

Um actually I'm pretty sure it was the Russian invasion of Hiroshima that started bringing the war to a close.

Nobody wants to deal with fifty kilotons of Russian soldiers all up in their business.

Good god I hope you are trolling

Or retarded

Obvious troll is obvious.