|
On December 12 2008 16:31 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2008 16:12 Kwark wrote:
And what about my argument that death count alone is not the only goal? A viable solution needs to create a stable peace as well. Which invalidates 3.
Furthermore the Cold War was the only time in human history two superpowers have coexisted and not gone to war until only one remained. It was simply not worth it in a nuclear world. Stalin was a fairly insane guy but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a clear message in the only language he understood. In 1945 the Soviet Union did not push their luck in Europe. Oh wait, but didn't you just argue about how you can justify nuking of japan with saved lives? and now you are adding more into your argument? Another viable solution needed? but didn't even say which viable solution. and in what way would that invalidate 3? 3 says peace treaty in theory cause no death. (the premise itself doesn't even mention japan) you say death should not be use to used to argue about rather or not nuking japan is justifiable. you see what you are saying here? by the way that viable solution you talked about is "The nuke" (factual evidence that it happened and created a stable peace)
You're talking to yourself here. Your so called 3rd option of peace treaty would never have been accepted by Japan and if it had it would have been so they could have time to rebuild and restart the war in the not too distant future.
The A-bomb was almost inevitably going to be used by someone at some point, and this bombing of Japan showed the world the power of it and as Kwark said this stopped the Cold War from turning in to a full blown, all out war.
On December 12 2008 17:02 scooby wrote:
i love how people focus only on the 2 atomic bombs and forget about fire bombing (which at the time was doing around the same amount of damage) was going on in all of the other cities. A lot of people also have to realize that even though u are a civilian your are still in effect aiding the military through arms/vehicle production, it is a harsh reality but in such a war in the end you really have to do what will let you win.
also Japan would NEVER surrender , unlike most other cultures Japan was unique in the sense , at least back then, that it was a society which did not tolerate defeat and saw it as an embarrassment. There was a reason why the Americans never killed the emperor because it was only he who could stop the war, unless he gave the order the Japanese would have fought to the last soul.
How do you think the American people would feel if they find out later that instead of losing thousands of their sons in battle that America could have ended the war with 1 to 2 bombs?
If you'd actually read a decent number of the posts in this thread you'll see that it was mentioned a couple of times at least -_-
You're right about Japan never surrendering, in fact their citizens were led to believe that allied soldiers would butcher men, women and children and were encouraged to take their own lives if they US troops were near or in their town. Many did kill themselves precisely because of this fear even after an official surrender by their government.
On December 12 2008 17:16 GinNtoniC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2008 17:02 scooby wrote:
How do you think the American people would feel if they find out later that instead of losing thousands of their sons in battle that America could have ended the war with 1 to 2 bombs? How do you think the Japanese felt about the Americans being too cowardly to finish the war by neutralizing the Japanese army and instead slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people in an attempt to scare the Japanese into submission? In the battle of Okinawa, almost TEN TIMES as many Japanese soliders were killed as there were american soldiers killed, so all the talk about americans losing so many soliders life in the war, was nothing compared to the casualties the Japanese suffered, even before the nuclear bombings. I'm glad the war ended when it did for the sake of the survivors, but ending it at the cost of a over a hundred thousand civilians' lives - that can never be justified.
It wasn't just used to save American lives, it saved many Japanese military AND civilian lives too because a x-month long land campaign on Japan would have involved heavy bombing of pretty much every town and city, not to mention the damage that would have been caused by tanks, artillery, suicide and probably "mercy killings" by the Japanese soldiers of civilians because they believed they would be butchered by American troops.
|
If the bombings somehow lead to the creation of Fallout 3, then yes, it was justified... yes.
|
Kwark
in an argument, all premise has to stand along. Take that premise 3 out of context see if it hold true.
Because if you do that and I ask you the question does a peace treaty demonstrate the motive for no more killing? and you have to answer with an Yes or no, you are not allow to clarify your answer to a specific case.
Do you see what i am trying to say here? You seen how lawers do this in the movies, this is what i was trying to get across but you are not seeing it. I have failed you in my last post because I did not construct my words in such a way that you can understand.
now your argument on why my 3rd premise being invalid is because in the special case of japan the peace treaty does not work, which I fucking agreed with you. But it does not removed the fact that you have answered "yes" to my question that validate the stand alone premise.
Oh by the way, when you use japan to even attempt to disapprove a peace treaty in motive wants no more death, you are demonstrating the fallacy of affirming the consequence and ignoratio elenchi and Denying the antecedent
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)
Let me explain if you don't understand,
when you say the propose peace treaty does not work on japan vs usa scenario(which i agree with), therefor ALL motives of a peace treaty is not aimed to stop more death,(my 3rd premise says only about peace treaty, and nothing of japan) you are generalizing and try to make a case against my premise base on one example out of all the other peace treaty signed in history. which does not even directly address to my promise. The easiest fallacy you have made trying to invalidate my 3rd premise is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
For those of you who doesn't know what we are talking about and want to learn how to talk someone into realizing they are a hypocrite here is the argument i made. feel free to discover yourselves by clicking this spoiler
+ Show Spoiler +
Here is my argument:
premises:
1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better)
2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade).
3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death.
4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice.
5) the choice made was "nuking of japan"
6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.
Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4.
By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #1, #2, #5 and #6)
After you said this
+ Show Spoiler +On December 12 2008 15:09 Kwark wrote:
Your entire argument relies upon premise 3 which, as cz and I keep pointing out, is invalid. Thus your entire argument is invalid. That you keep repeating the same argument over and over and calling us hypocrites doesn't make it valid. You can claim black is white til you're blue in the face but it's not.
and i totally destroyed your argument with all the fallacies you created, I guess you have nothing else? I think you are ready to submit to the fact that you are indeed a hypocrite, tried to deny that to yourself. but at the end the truth hurts does it?
Oh and this is not a trolling attempt, or I would have been banned by any of the admins who's been reading this. if i am really excessive trolling, and flaming massive people to be hypocrites they will know, I see them as equals in logic and they can distinguish me from a troll. My premises are valid and my argument is sound, and they who belief nuking of japan can be justify by the least number of casualties are hypocrite which I logically proved.
|
the following not an argument, it's merely my opinion, my belief,
I believe in a war you do whatever it takes to win, as soon as you enter a war, morality seize to exist. Therefor you don't justify your actions in war as righteous, you can only give a strategic reason of why that action must be done in order to win the war effectively, knowing it is not moral.
I am not a mother fucking hypocrite like many of you guys trying to justify an immoral act as righteous because it saved lives,
Nuking of japan is a valuable lesson for mankind, we paid many lives for this lesson so that people will remember never to repeat history (that's why we study history, so we don't do the same dumb shit we did in history). And if you are trying to justify nuking of Japan with the righteousness of "it saved people" you have wasted all those lives we paid for the lesson, because the next nuke will be also justifiable.
|
Despite people continuing to suggest that showing the destructive potential of the A-bomb prevented the Cold War from becoming a Hot War, there is no evidence, or even a likely speculative scenario for this. Stalin was notoriously risk-averse, and only displayed signs of aggression from a position of overwhelming strength. At no time between 45 and his death did he contemplate war with the West. Khruschev's famous denunciation of Stalin and initiation of Peaceful Coexistence defused the potential for a Hot War further, and even events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, as we now know, were not likely to have led to war. After Washington showed that they were serious about neutralizing Cuba, all Khruschev wanted was a dignified way out, and would have even taken an undignified path had he been so forced. As we know, Khruschev only consented to Soviet intervention in Hungary after he was assurred that the West would do nothing. Brezhnev too, was more interested in preventing the collapse of communism in the Eastern Bloc than he was about spreading communism abroad.
Russian foreign policy is traditionally characterized by external insecurity, and what has often been a policy of "defense in overwhelming military strength" has often been nervously regarded by outsiders as aggressive intention. Russia has not initiated any wars against major foreign powers since the 18th century, when her European conflicts were largely dictated by her alliance with Austria. On the other hand, the Russian interventions in the Napoleonic Wars, the Hungarian War of 1848-1849, her intervention in the Ukrainian Civil War, in Hungary in 56, Czechoslovakia in 68 and Afghanistan, can be properly termed wars of preserving the status quo.
Russian leaders have been traditionally more sensitive than outsiders about their Empire's internal weakness, and leading a cautious policy of realpolitik, should have been much easier to negotiate with than they actually were in the ideologically charged atmosphere of the Cold War.
Therefore saying using the Atomic bomb saved the human race from future use, as illogical as it sounds in theory, also bases itself on a deterministic view of geopolitical behaviour which is not suggested by available evidence.
Secondly, just to briefly point out, that although The Second World War, and every "war" since, have breached Just War Theory and the Geneva Conventions, it was not entirely bereft of moral or honourable conduct toward the enemy. Prisoners were occasionally shot outright, but more often, they were granted full rights of POWs. Similarly, there were often sinkings of merchant ships in the Atlantic, but more often than not, the crews were spared when not armed or part of a convoy.
|
|
|
izzycraft, mother cannot survive without the abortion
for USA it wasnt even about surviving. This is even dumber then "sandwich" analogy. Guess education is this bad in the US.
good post by Moltke, people need to separate hypothetical shit from actual happenings( nuking 220000 civilians) Its funny how its brought up that US had the "reports" that Japan would surrender, which was as good as any random guess. The amount of reports that US had and did not follow up with decisions is insane. You have to be a complete retard to even bring this up. They did this even though scientists told them not to. Thats just amusing. I dont understand 1 thing: if you justify nuking civilians for saving military lives, why not do it now. All the retarded argument that civilians will turn against invaders anyways is worthless, this always happens in occupied countries, unless its France/Canada( im taking an educated guess as good as a-bomb supporters) See how retarded this is? When i put "cz" against the wall and spit in his face asking same questions he started talking about "different wars, government" etc and derailed it afterwards. This cannot be justified and the situation is the same every time US invaded a country( islamic countries are just as religiously unconquerable if not worse)
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 13 2008 02:10 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Russian foreign policy is traditionally characterized by external insecurity, and what has often been a policy of "defense in overwhelming military strength" has often been nervously regarded by outsiders as aggressive intention. Russia has not initiated any wars against major foreign powers since the 18th century, when her European conflicts were largely dictated by her alliance with Austria. On the other hand, the Russian interventions in the Napoleonic Wars, the Hungarian War of 1848-1849, her intervention in the Ukrainian Civil War, in Hungary in 56, Czechoslovakia in 68 and Afghanistan, can be properly termed wars of preserving the status quo.
Thanks for sticking it to the Poles, if only implicitly. 
Secondly, just to briefly point out, that although The Second World War, and every "war" since, have breached Just War Theory and the Geneva Conventions, it was not entirely bereft of moral or honourable conduct toward the enemy. Prisoners were occasionally shot outright, but more often, they were granted full rights of POWs. Similarly, there were often sinkings of merchant ships in the Atlantic, but more often than not, the crews were spared when not armed or part of a convoy.
By WHICH side? I hope you aren't meaning to include the conduct of the Nazis in their aggression against Russia in this.
|
The USA bombed Japan to show the Russians that they had the atomic power. It is simple as that. It didn't have anything to do with winning against Japan and preventing the deaths of american soldiers. That argument is ilogical and based on falsehoods.
To understand what was going on you have to have a greater picture of the war. I think americans in general have no idea whatsover about the events that took place in the 1939-45 period, due to indocrinization of falsehoods that their midia does to them. Yes, americans, you have been fed lies all your childhood about the ww2.
Just watch an american movie about the war. It is always about the heros that are american soldiers, fighting estoically against the evil germans and winning the war with their blood, and etc..
That's the thin view of the events that I am referring to.
Now let's take a look at the wider events. You know when germany lost the war? not actually the last gunshot, but when it became a fact that germany couldn't win anymore and it was common knowledge that the nazis wouldn't be able to hold europe. It was on the battle of Stalingrad. The russians defeated germany, not the heroic efforts of the amercan soldiers. Also, it is often said that it was the russian winter that defeated the germans. Observer that they say the winter did it and not the russian army. Fact is, tough, that the battle of Stalingrad lasted for more then one season, thus it could not be the winter that defeated the germans, but the russian army.
Now, lets go forward. With the siege broken on the east front and the german army falling apart the russians started to press forward. What happens next? America joins the war on Europe openning a front on the west. Is it a coincidence? why didn't the americans attacked sooner, for example, during the siege on the east front? America only attack the french beaches because they knew germany was already defeated. It was common knowledge at the time. What happened was a race to capture the german cientists. America, Russia and England were not racing to defeat the nazis, everyone knew that the german army was already falling apart. What happend was that these 3 countries were racing each other to get to berlin and kidnap german cientists, which were the best on the world.
Thats the wider picture of the events. Know what comes next? the nuklear bombing. Those bombs were the way of the americans saying that "I won the race to get the cientists". Thanks to the german cientists that were kidnaped in germany, america was showing the russians that they had reached the atomic bomb first.
Now, the argument that says that the bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented the actual, fisical, terrestrial invasion of tokyo would make a lot of sense if there was not a battle of Tokyo. But, saddly, there WAS A BATTLE A THE BEACHES OF TOKYO AFTER THE NUKLEAR BOMBINGS. So, american soldiers actually went there and invaded that beach and the war was over only after the beach and the plains around the city were secured by the american army. Once more, the battle that the nuklear bombs were supposed to avoid, and which avoidance would (allegedly) justify their usage actaully took place. it happened. Japanese and americans shot each other around Tokyo.
The emperor of Japan didn't surrender after nagasaki or hiroshima were vaporized, it surrendered after the battle of Tokyo.
There are so many lies about the world war II fed to americans that 99% of their population don't even know how the war ended and that the bombs were not a war strategy decision but a self promotion twist.
What is even sadder is that the soviets already knew everything about the american bomb even before it was launched. It was a complete waste of human lives and a henious crime against humanity.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
|
I thoroughly enjoyed the paper on that link (http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/e-front.htm). It actually explains quite well why there is such a warped view of the World War II on the west. Damn that Cold War paranoia 
|
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote:
Now let's take a look at the wider events. You know when germany lost the war? not actually the last gunshot, but when it became a fact that germany couldn't win anymore and it was common knowledge that the nazis wouldn't be able to hold europe. It was on the battle of Stalingrad. The russians defeated germany, not the heroic efforts of the amercan soldiers. Also, it is often said that it was the russian winter that defeated the germans.
Stalingrad was a turning point on the Eastern front, but Germany was hardly defeated. It's fairly clear that the Soviets did the majority of the fighting, but it's pretty uncertain whether they could have won the war alone.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote:
Observer that they say the winter did it and not the russian army. Fact is, tough, that the battle of Stalingrad lasted for more then one season, thus it could not be the winter that defeated the germans, but the russian army.
Had the Russian winter not stopped the Germans in the winter of 1941, Moscow would most certainly have fallen, which would likely have brought an end to the war. There would have been no Stalingrad.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote:
Now, lets go forward. With the siege broken on the east front and the german army falling apart the russians started to press forward. What happens next? America joins the war on Europe openning a front on the west. Is it a coincidence? why didn't the americans attacked sooner, for example, during the siege on the east front? America only attack the french beaches because they knew germany was already defeated. It was common knowledge at the time.
No, it really wasn't.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote:
What happened was a race to capture the german cientists. America, Russia and England were not racing to defeat the nazis, everyone knew that the german army was already falling apart. What happend was that these 3 countries were racing each other to get to berlin and kidnap german cientists, which were the best on the world. Thats the wider picture of the events. Know what comes next? the nuklear bombing. Those bombs were the way of the americans saying that "I won the race to get the cientists". Thanks to the german cientists that were kidnaped in germany, america was showing the russians that they had reached the atomic bomb first.
While captured German scientists greatly contributed towards post-war nuclear efforts, I don't believe they made any significant contribution to the Manhattan project proper.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote:
Now, the argument that says that the bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented the actual, fisical, terrestrial invasion of tokyo would make a lot of sense if there was not a battle of Tokyo. But, saddly, there WAS A BATTLE A THE BEACHES OF TOKYO AFTER THE NUKLEAR BOMBINGS. So, american soldiers actually went there and invaded that beach and the war was over only after the beach and the plains around the city were secured by the american army. Once more, the battle that the nuklear bombs were supposed to avoid, and which avoidance would (allegedly) justify their usage actaully took place. it happened. Japanese and americans shot each other around Tokyo.
Citation?
|
On December 13 2008 05:24 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote:
Now, lets go forward. With the siege broken on the east front and the german army falling apart the russians started to press forward. What happens next? America joins the war on Europe openning a front on the west. Is it a coincidence? why didn't the americans attacked sooner, for example, during the siege on the east front? America only attack the french beaches because they knew germany was already defeated. It was common knowledge at the time. No, it really wasn't.
Maybe not to the media fed public, but to the decissionmakers it definitely was.
|
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote:
There are so many lies about the world war II fed to americans that 99% of their population don't even know how the war ended and that the bombs were not a war strategy decision but a self promotion twist.
so 99% of our population does not have the intelligence to think for themselves? They just take those lies for granted and never question anything under the text books they read? I call that Education failed
I always teach my students to challenge everything i teach, and everything they read in the text book with logic. Teaching students how to learn is more important than teaching content knowledge. Because if you give a guy a fish, it feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, it feeds him for a life time.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 13 2008 05:24 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote:
Now let's take a look at the wider events. You know when germany lost the war? not actually the last gunshot, but when it became a fact that germany couldn't win anymore and it was common knowledge that the nazis wouldn't be able to hold europe. It was on the battle of Stalingrad. The russians defeated germany, not the heroic efforts of the amercan soldiers. Also, it is often said that it was the russian winter that defeated the germans. Stalingrad was a turning point on the Eastern front, but Germany was hardly defeated. It's fairly clear that the Soviets did the majority of the fighting, but it's pretty uncertain whether they could have won the war alone.
Germany had virtually zero chance after Stalingrad. It was a turning point, if not the turning point, of THE WHOLE WAR, not just on the eastern front. The battle resulted in a million(!!!) Axis casualties, an entire German army eliminated, and a spectacular Soviet counteroffensive that liberated the entire territory that the Germans spent the year of 1942 conquering. In addition, greatly increased Soviet production from factories in the far east had just kicked in, which meant that the Red Army would henceforth have substantial superiority in tanks and artillery.
Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote:
Observer that they say the winter did it and not the russian army. Fact is, tough, that the battle of Stalingrad lasted for more then one season, thus it could not be the winter that defeated the germans, but the russian army. Had the Russian winter not stopped the Germans in the winter of 1941, Moscow would most certainly have fallen, which would likely have brought an end to the war. There would have been no Stalingrad.
That the Russian winter was somehow decisive in the failure of Typhoon is an absolute falsity. Don't believe the Cold War era documentaries which show the German army effortlessly advancing until the winter sets in, at which point they all start freezing to death. Russian troops are not immune to the winter, you know.
In truth, the German army was pushing ever more slowly against an ever stiffer resistance from late October and throughout the entire month of November. In early December, after the Germans have ground completely to a hault, the Red Army launched a strategic counterattack which resulted in the first ever strategic defeat of the Wehrmacht.
Btw if Stalin's overconfidence and inexperience hadn't lead him to insist on an all-out counteroffensive along the entire front, Germany's Army Group Center could have been practically annihilated right then, and the war would have been decided a year sooner.
Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote:
Now, lets go forward. With the siege broken on the east front and the german army falling apart the russians started to press forward. What happens next? America joins the war on Europe openning a front on the west. Is it a coincidence? why didn't the americans attacked sooner, for example, during the siege on the east front? America only attack the french beaches because they knew germany was already defeated. It was common knowledge at the time. No, it really wasn't.
By the time of D-Day (after Kursk and on the eve of Bagration), it is absolutely true that the ultimate outcome of the war had been decided.
|
D-Day happened because all of Europe would have been speaking Russian.
|
not one intelligent american would think that USA changed or made a serious impact on the outcome of WW2, only utterly retarded uneducated bunch, which constitutes the absolute majority. Just as pathetic as stating that usage of nuclear bombs was impossible to avoid/saved lives. It's a fact that 99.9% of americans( and, so it seems, canadians) have no fucking idea on what happened. Germans were stopped in USSR( don't use "Russia", its absurd) Americans were selling weapons to both sides raking in huge money until the turning point when it became clear which side had the upperhand. It was a cold, rational decision to send US troops to war in order to benefit while they could. Trust me, people that posted in this thread are least qualified to be considered "historically educated", they just bunch of bad students who fed themselves regular garbage from TV and popular literature/biased internet pages. US made no major impact on the outcome of WW2, in fact it benefit the most from it.
|
Impossible to justify killing, especially when it involves killing that many people. The real question is whether or not it was the right decision at the time, but that's impossible to determine, unless you want to put a value on human life based on their civilian status/nationality/etc..
Not really a debate I'd ever want to get into, but I can safely say that it was a tragedy that I wish had never happened.
|
it is never too late to stop being ignorant, I was once one of those American until I learn the meaning of metacognition, I really wish someone would have taught me that when I was in high school or even middle school. I hope this is a learning process for those who still don't have metacognition. Even if our efforts can get through to only one out of the many, i feel like i did not waste my time writing all these.
|
On December 13 2008 06:13 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 05:24 EmeraldSparks wrote:On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote:
Now let's take a look at the wider events. You know when germany lost the war? not actually the last gunshot, but when it became a fact that germany couldn't win anymore and it was common knowledge that the nazis wouldn't be able to hold europe. It was on the battle of Stalingrad. The russians defeated germany, not the heroic efforts of the amercan soldiers. Also, it is often said that it was the russian winter that defeated the germans. Stalingrad was a turning point on the Eastern front, but Germany was hardly defeated. It's fairly clear that the Soviets did the majority of the fighting, but it's pretty uncertain whether they could have won the war alone. Germany had virtually zero chance after Stalingrad. It was a turning point, if not the turning point, of THE WHOLE WAR, not just on the eastern front. The battle resulted in a million(!!!) Axis casualties, an entire German army eliminated, and a spectacular Soviet counteroffensive that liberated the entire territory that the Germans spent the year of 1942 conquering. In addition, greatly increased Soviet production from factories in the far east had just kicked in, which meant that the Red Army would henceforth have substantial superiority in tanks and artillery. Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote:
Observer that they say the winter did it and not the russian army. Fact is, tough, that the battle of Stalingrad lasted for more then one season, thus it could not be the winter that defeated the germans, but the russian army. Had the Russian winter not stopped the Germans in the winter of 1941, Moscow would most certainly have fallen, which would likely have brought an end to the war. There would have been no Stalingrad. That the Russian winter was somehow decisive in the failure of Typhoon is an absolute falsity. Don't believe the Cold War era documentaries which show the German army effortlessly advancing until the winter sets in, at which point they all start freezing to death. Russian troops are not immune to the winter, you know.
Errrhrmmm. Russian troops are resistant to winter, they had to build all their shit to withstand cold. Example: German tanks often froze up if their engines were left to run in the freezing lands, but if the engines were left on, it often consumed shitloads of fuel + it melted the ground below it sinking it into the ground. On the other hand, russians lived in the cold and built stuff to withstand those elements. Russians had better clothing to withstand the cold, the german army as a whole was not that well prepared for winter wars. The weather was a significant factor in Germany's loss, although weather can't do shit w/out a russian army to exploit it. Btw Russians, on the whole, only had superiority in tank #'s. as the panzer tank variant, the Panther, was a direct answer to Russia's T-34 and was in fact superior to the T-34.
@food, Cry! some more. I think we're all smart enough to realize when we use "russia" we mean USSR, suck it up if you don't like it. Though I will agree with you about the fact that USA did get jacked economically from going into war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
