|
On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 12:28 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 09:13 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote:
lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany. Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more" /facepalm No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant. Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS" Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you. By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training. Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union. Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
|
On December 28 2011 13:03 Kipsate wrote:
I am not 100% sure of this, but wasn't the reason that the Pearl Harbor attack ultimately failed is because an aircraft carrier(or more then one I forgot) was supposed to be docked at Pearl Harbor but was not?allowing the US to fight back?
Pearl Harbor was like a reaver drop that didn't do enough damage.
They got ZERO American carriers (they were not at the harbor during the fight).
They didn't touch fuel tanks.
They barely touched the harbor's repairing infrastructures or whatever they're called.
All of this pretty much enabled US navy to mobilize and hit back pretty much right away.
On top of that, the Japanese expected Americans to be scared after the attack and we know the opposite happened.
|
On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over.
60-80k tanks produced monthly? Where do you get those insane numbers from?
There were other important parts of the Lend-Lease program (as you can read here) besides those trucks btw.
While the Soviet Union certainly did most of the "work", the influence of the Western Allies on the war was not negligible.
|
On December 28 2011 13:10 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 12:28 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 09:13 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote:
lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany. Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more" /facepalm No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant. Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS" Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you. By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training. Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union. Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over. Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed"
American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
|
On December 28 2011 13:28 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over. 60-80k tanks produced monthly? Where do you get those insane numbers from? There were other important parts of the Lend-Lease program (as you can read here) besides those trucks btw. While the Soviet Union certainly did most of the "work", the influence of the Western Allies on the war was not negligible.
My numbers are correct if you check them up. They reached that number shortly after the reorganization of industries East of Moscow. I agree that the influence of the Western Allies was not negligible, but the question is was it absolutely critical. The person I was arguing against believed that the Soviet Union would have lost the war without Western help, in my opinion (which is shared by most after reading this thread) they would have won, maybe it would have taken an extra 6 months, maybe even an extra year but in the end, they would have won.
|
I love Company of Heroes. The game that got me into studying history about WWII easier. Still playing it lol, sometimes I think it's more fun than SC2 
|
On December 28 2011 13:31 Damiani wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 13:10 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 12:28 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 09:13 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote:
lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany. Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more" /facepalm No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant. Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS" Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you. By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training. Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union. Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over. Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed" American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.
|
On December 28 2011 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 13:31 Damiani wrote:On December 28 2011 13:10 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 12:28 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 09:13 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote:
lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany. Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more" /facepalm No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant. Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS" Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you. By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training. Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union. Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over. Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed" American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources. Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.
Seeing that they get exagerrated way too often since the end of the war maybe underplaying them for 10-20 years wouldn't be so bad :p
|
There's a twitter account that details WWII in real time. Started on September 1st, the soviets are currently invading the finns now, but check it out.
twitter.com/RealTimeWWII
|
On December 28 2011 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 13:31 Damiani wrote:On December 28 2011 13:10 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 12:28 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 09:13 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote:
lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany. Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more" /facepalm No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant. Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS" Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you. By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training. Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union. Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over. Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed" American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources. Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.
Agreeing and disagreeing at the same time, what a perfect argument.
|
On December 28 2011 13:49 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:31 Damiani wrote:On December 28 2011 13:10 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 12:28 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 09:13 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote:
lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany. Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more" /facepalm No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant. Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS" Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you. By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training. Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union. Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over. Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed" American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources. Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant. Agreeing with what someone says then proceed to contradict with thine own argument, the perfect way to come out looking smart
Saying the Americans/British/Canadians contributed greatly in their own way doesn't contradict the statement that Russia did most of the backwork.
*confused*
|
Really what is the purpose of this thread?
There are volumes and volumes of literature out there about EVERYTHING on WWII.
If this thread is meant to educate about the events of WWII, then just refer to books and other resources in the internet.
If this thread is meant to discuss WWII, what for? Everything has been discussed and this discussion is better brought to formal venues where facts can be discussed with more authority than what could be summoned here by internet philosophers.
|
On December 28 2011 13:47 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:31 Damiani wrote:On December 28 2011 13:10 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 12:28 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 09:13 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote:
lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany. Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more" /facepalm No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant. Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS" Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you. By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training. Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union. Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over. Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed" American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources. Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant. Seeing that they get exagerrated way too often since the end of the war maybe underplaying them for 10-20 years wouldn't be so bad :p
I don't disagree. I'm about to broadbrush history and I know history buffs hate it (but I like doing it);
Britain = Decaying empire expected to diminish air and naval influence of the nazi's but was left in the wind to meet its gruesome end as a dying empire.
Russia = Ruthless rising empire willing and expected to take the brunt of the land war which it paid for dearly (and was repaid dearly).
USA = Late to the dance opportunist (whether forced or not is up for debate) who played the pompous financial and production overlord as the war drew on.
|
On December 28 2011 13:53 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 13:47 SilentchiLL wrote:On December 28 2011 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:31 Damiani wrote:On December 28 2011 13:10 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 12:28 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 09:13 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote:
lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany. Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more" /facepalm No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant. Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS" Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you. By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training. Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union. Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over. Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed" American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources. Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant. Seeing that they get exagerrated way too often since the end of the war maybe underplaying them for 10-20 years wouldn't be so bad :p I don't disagree. I'm about to broadbrush history and I know history buffs hate it (but I like doing it); Britain = Decaying empire expected to diminish air and naval influence of the nazi's but was left in the wind to meet its gruesome end as a dying empire. Russia = Ruthless rising empire willing and expected to take the brunt of the land war which it paid for dearly (and was repaid dearly). USA = Late to the dance opportunist (whether forced or not is up for debate) who played the pompous financial and production overlord as the war drew on.
I'm afraid that if I go to bed now and come back in a few hours this thread will have some weird RP cybersex going on.
|
On December 28 2011 13:50 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 13:49 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:31 Damiani wrote:On December 28 2011 13:10 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 12:28 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 09:13 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote:
lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany. Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more" /facepalm No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant. Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS" Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you. By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training. Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union. Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over. Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed" American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources. Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant. Agreeing with what someone says then proceed to contradict with thine own argument, the perfect way to come out looking smart Saying the Americans/British/Canadians contributed greatly in their own way doesn't contradict the statement that Russia did most of the backwork. *confused*
I did not know "contributed greatly" = "would have lost without".
|
On December 28 2011 13:55 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 13:53 forgottendreams wrote:On December 28 2011 13:47 SilentchiLL wrote:On December 28 2011 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:31 Damiani wrote:On December 28 2011 13:10 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 12:28 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 09:13 Fruscainte wrote:
[quote]
Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more" /facepalm No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant. Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS" Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you. By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training. Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union. Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over. Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed" American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources. Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant. Seeing that they get exagerrated way too often since the end of the war maybe underplaying them for 10-20 years wouldn't be so bad :p I don't disagree. I'm about to broadbrush history and I know history buffs hate it (but I like doing it); Britain = Decaying empire expected to diminish air and naval influence of the nazi's but was left in the wind to meet its gruesome end as a dying empire. Russia = Ruthless rising empire willing and expected to take the brunt of the land war which it paid for dearly (and was repaid dearly). USA = Late to the dance opportunist (whether forced or not is up for debate) who played the pompous financial and production overlord as the war drew on. I'm afraid that if I go to bed now and come back in a few hours this thread will have some weird RP cybersex going on.
Thanks for turning me on.
|
On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
60-80k tanks a month is a an impossible production number. There were only ~85k T-34s built in it's 18 year production run, and ~55k of them during WW2. That works out to more like 1k a month, and there's no way they were producing 79k of their other light/heavy tanks a month to make up those numbers.
|
On December 28 2011 13:31 Damiani wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 13:10 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 12:28 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On December 28 2011 09:13 Fruscainte wrote:On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote:
lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany. Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more" /facepalm No matter how many times people say it. Some Americans are just too deeply brainwashed/ignorant. Do explain. Because you only make yourself out to be ignorant when you come in with a one liner going "THAT'S WRONG YOU'RE JUST AN IGNORANT AMERICAN LOL ALL AMERICANS ARE BRAINWASHED IDIOTS" Well it's hard to argue against someone who cannot properly read but for my own entertainment I will reason with you. By D-day (Africa and Italy only forced the Germans to allocate maybe 20 divisions) the Wehrmach was defeated. I'm sure the vast majority of the people in this thread agrees with this statement and if you do then my point is already proven. After Kursk in 1943 the Soviet Union had won the East, never once did Germany launch a major offensive after this (except Spring Awakening which failed horribly as expected). By D-Day time Russia had retaken the majority of lost territory and it was obvious that the war was going to end in Russia's favour. 500 fully strengthed divisions were destroyed in Russia as well as the entire airforce and most of the tankforce, the Western allies destroyed about 150 understrengthed divisions filled with new recruits given a few weeks training. Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union. Conclusion ---> Russia did all the work, Western allies did D-Day ONLY to make sure that all of Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union once the war was over. Your anti-american bias and pretentious attitude only makes any further discussion futile, at best, because at the end of the day, no matter what I think or say, to you, I'm a "brainwashed ignorant american" for thinking that both sides contributed and helped each other greatly. I don't underplay that Russia did take most of the brunt force, they were fucking badasses, but for me saying that both sides needed each other to have the success that they did doesn't make me an "ignorant american that is brainwashed" American history books teaches WW2 wrong. That is the truth. I truly believe american history are very bias towards their own country and make themselves sounds like world heroes. They take more credits then they should. Americans should try learning the history of WW2 from other countries and know / learn more about WW2. Everybody knows that the U.S entered ww2 when all other country is almost depleted in resources.
do you mean textbooks? because im sure you could find american historians who might agree with your point of views as well. to an extent all countries are biased towards their own countries success's regardless of how small or large they are, this is not limited to the United States. True the US didn't enter the war until nearly two years after it officially began but was Russia depleted of resources? no, was Great Britain? for the most part it was incapable of truly fielding the full strength of its military and navy as it was spread across the world, while yes France was occupied and i guess 'depleted in resources' as you say this was not true for most of the rest of the allies. I do agree that textbooks need to shed more light on the Eastern front as it played a very pivotal role but in the end as others have pointed out Germany defeated herself by overextending by trying to wage simultaneous military campaigns in Western and Eastern Europe as well as Africa.
edit: deleted replicate word
|
On December 28 2011 14:02 ZeroChrome wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
60-80k tanks a month is a an impossible production number. There were only ~85k T-34s built in it's 18 year production run, and ~55k of them during WW2. That works out to more like 1k a month, and there's no way they were producing 79k of their other light/heavy tanks a month to make up those numbers.
My mistake, it was 60-80k total T-34s during the war.
|
On December 28 2011 14:20 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 14:02 ZeroChrome wrote:On December 28 2011 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:
Now that we've established that, the only other influence the Western allies had was in resources. This consisted of some tens of thousands of jeeps, medium tanks and artillery (of far lower quality than those made in Russia) during the entire war compared to 60-80k tanks produced monthly in the Soviet Union.
60-80k tanks a month is a an impossible production number. There were only ~85k T-34s built in it's 18 year production run, and ~55k of them during WW2. That works out to more like 1k a month, and there's no way they were producing 79k of their other light/heavy tanks a month to make up those numbers. My mistake, it was 60-80k total T-34s during the war.
I was going to chew you out, but finally someone actually admits they're wrong. Well done good sir, even if i don't agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
