World War 2

by **Riot** on Sun Sep 12, 2004 5:24 pm

A little agrument has broken out. This guys thinks Russia could have won WW2 without the help of the US and that Russia was beating Germany without the US's help. I don't think they could have contained Germany and US and Britian both helped stretch them across both borders.

Also, Stalingrad was captured by the Germans which is a couple hunderd miles away from Moscow. I believe that is correct.

During the battle at Normandy (d-day) America pulled a TON of germany's resources to the West during that battle making it easier for the Russians on the other side to attack and progress. US won the battle of normandy despite the overwhelming loss of life and odds.

Who had greater impact in WW2? Could Russia do it alone? Did US win it for them? Please post why.

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Sun Sep 12, 2004 6:09 pm

I took Modern History my final two years of High School and it was one of my favourite subjects, but I'm a little rusty on some of the details. From what I remember, neither could really claim to be the sole reason for victory in Europe. The US certainly had a huge hand in the victory in the Pacific and their fresh troops and resources gave Britain and France a boost, but the alliance with Russia saw Germany fighting a war on two fronts, a concept that had been their downfall in the First World War.

I know that's pretty vague, but my knowledge of some of the finer points of WW2 has collected more dust than I thought. :oops:

by **streakshooter** on Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:06 pm

i give credit where it is due.

Despite playing the 2 major fronts - Pacific and Europe - the Americans were still able to pack enough punch to go side by side with the Allies in pummelling the Axis Powers.

Without the US war machine, the playing field was almost equal considering the Asian armies were vastly unprepared and the European countries were taken swiftly by the German blitzkrieg.

Adding the Americans into the equation tilted everything to the Allies' favor.

The Russians were a factor coz the Nazis were never able to control them hence they have an almost intact war machine. But despite this, they participated only in the Euro side (they had no business in the Pacific front anyway) and can be considered a contributing factor to the victory in WW2 in the same way as Britain is treated.

by **magius** on Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:30 pm

The russians because if the russians hadnt changed sides the us would've never been able to beat both russia and germany unfied. Stupid hitler. Anyway, honsetly, I wouldnt put any one in front of the other because they needed em all to win. America chickened out until they got hit, all the while profitting BIG TIME from it (world war 2 was one of the best thing that happened to america economically-- hell, britain only finished paying off their debt to the us financially in like 97 or soimething), and then joined, which i think is pretty lame. But russia only helped cuz germans turned on them, so they werent noble either or anything. And britain had to cuz they were next up. Anyway, they werent fighting for fucking democracy or freedom, they were just saving their necks, not a bad thing by the way, no need to sweety pie it up, theirs as much blood on american and british hands as there is on germans and japs. If i know anything, I know one thing: Victor writes history in their image. Who knows, maybe God (if he exists) is really satan victorious. :twisted:

Truth is the stupidest word ever created, it should just be banned and stuffed up a donkeys cock.

by **Matthew** on Sun Sep 12, 2004 9:36 pm

Magius, when you lost the bet to the laker fans, they said you along with limp were dickheads. I stood up for both of you, but seriously you have some major issues.

by **Rens** on Sun Sep 12, 2004 9:48 pm

The Russians didn't really switch sides since the Nazis hated communism.

I don't think either was more important, the most important thing was that the Germans were attacked on two fronts. Had it been only one at a time, they would've been able to defend themselves a lot more adequate.

by **Matthew** on Sun Sep 12, 2004 10:07 pm

I don't think either was more important, the most important thing was that the Germans were attacked on two fronts.

Ok, i dont know much about history, but I think Germans invaded russia and germany right? So how was germany "attacked" on two fronts when they did the invading?

by **hmm** on Sun Sep 12, 2004 10:29 pm

....................................

by **Rens** on Sun Sep 12, 2004 10:29 pm

Germany didn't have to invade Germany

j/k

Germany did invade multiple countries, including France and Russia, but they were struck back at two fronts. I think that's a better way to say it. The East and the West both pressed back around the same time, which put the Germans in a position in which they couldn't effectively defend themselves.

Website · by **Carlos Boozer** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:15 am

Riot are you nuts? Why are you making such idiotic threads? First of all WTC now this.Man :lol:

by **Riot** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:48 am

Why are these nuts? It's the real world...get use to it. It's reality.

by **Tuomas** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:09 am

riot, youre started posting huh? 10 posts per day is pretty much

by **Old School Fool** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:57 am

Carlos Boozer wrote:Riot are you nuts? Why are you making such idiotic threads? First of all WTC now this.Man

Are you dissing the 9/11 Attacks?

If so please shut the fuck up.

by **Riot** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:43 am

Tuomas wrote:riot, youre started posting huh? 10 posts per day is pretty much

If you call this spamming go to hell.

by **Old School Fool** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:46 am

Let's try not to get argumentive here.

I don't want to see World War 3 on here. :lol:

by **Riot** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:52 am

You're right.... :cry:

War is not an answer...unless there is oil, er..WMD, involved.

Website · by **Carlos Boozer** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:54 am

If you call this spamming go to hell

One of the funniest thing i´ve ever heard :lol:

There is no such thing like hell BOZO!!! :lol:

by **Riot** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:05 am

Stop it.

by **magius** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:41 am

TheCambyManVol3 wrote:Magius, when you lost the bet to the laker fans, they said you along with limp were dickheads. I stood up for both of you, but seriously you have some major issues.

its just my opinion, if you can't handle it grow a dick.

by **Matthew** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:50 am

Whoa dick jokes, how original. If you can't handle criticisim, "grow a dick"

by **magius** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 11:53 am

whoa, sarcasm!! good for you.

intelligent criticsm is followed by reasons for the criticsm, not just a your wrong i'm right. And since I don't believe in unintelligent criticsm (aka spam), I don't consider your poor excuse for a sentence as criticsm, but just a plain waste of space.

Above, I told you how i think you're wrong, I told you why, so.....

if you cant handle criticsm, "grow a dick".

by **Riot** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:30 pm

Get back on topic guys, please.

by **Matthew** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:38 pm

I can handle criticism (y)

But you were wrong by saying: " not just a your wrong i'm right" becuase I never said I was right. It was just your post in this thread, along with previous threads that you have displayed such a mentality. But seeing you want me to draw this out and out show where your were wrong, I will.

The russians because if the russians hadnt changed sides the us would've never been able to beat both russia and germany unfied.

Russia was never aligned with Germany. There was somewhat of a truce, but no alignment. Of course this went down the drain when Hitler invaded russia..

America chickened out until they got hit

Hmm, wouldnt chickening out be them not retaliating when they were attacked? You criticise america for trying to help a situation in iraq that doesnt have much to do with them, but when they do stand back and let countries goto war, you criticise them as well? You can't have it both ways... and it goes to show your contradictions.

all the while profitting BIG TIME from it (world war 2 was one of the best thing that happened to america economically-- hell, britain only finished paying off their debt to the us financially in like 97 or soimething)

How dare they! They made money! What Bastards! It's not like I make money or anything, so i can criticise them! Oh wait, i do, just like nearly everybody...

But russia only helped cuz germans turned on them, so they werent noble either or anything.

Who said communist Russia was ever noble?

And britain had to cuz they were next up. Anyway, they werent fighting for fucking democracy or freedom, they were just saving their necks, not a bad thing by the way, no need to sweety pie it up, theirs as much blood on american and british hands as there is on germans and japs.

Er, so you say America are chickens for not getting involed in a war, then you further criticise them for when they do enter the war? And you wonder I said your way of thinking is fucked up? You contradict yourself in your own post.

If i know anything

According to you, Kobe only trains hard for his public relations image :lol:

Who knows, maybe God (if he exists) is really satan victorious. Truth is the stupidest word ever created, it should just be banned and stuffed up a donkeys cock.

And you honestly expect people to take you seriously? Yes this world should be "banned" and "stuffed up a donkeys cock". like i said before, you have some major issues.

by **Rens** on Mon Sep 13, 2004 8:13 pm

So, in the end, I'm right.

by **magius** on Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:24 am

Russia was never aligned with Germany. There was somewhat of a truce, but no alignment. Of course this went down the drain when Hitler invaded russia..

did i say Russia was aligned with Germany?

The russians because if the russians hadnt changed sides

if for some reason you dont understand what that sentence means, let me revise in your terms: one of the main reasons world war 2 was won was because Germany broke "the truce" and Russia retaliated..... aka changed sides, or moved from nuetral if that will make you happier. Russia's "nuetrality" if thats what you want to call it helped Germany far more than it helped the Allies, thus I would put Russia on Germany's side.

Hmm, wouldnt chickening out be them not retaliating when they were attacked? You criticise america for trying to help a situation in iraq that doesnt have much to do with them, but when they do stand back and let countries goto war, you criticise them as well? You can't have it both ways... and it goes to show your contradictions.

First of all, I said America should've stopped at Afghanistan. Second of all, i am not contradicting myself, the Allies and the Germans were at war that would've had tremendous impact throughout the world and like you said America stood back until it directly effected them........

now, please remind me again as to whom Iraq was at war with.

correction number two: the reason they (america) even went to Iraq, wrong or right, was in no way selfless, they would've never have done what they did if not for this little thing called 9/11 you see....... war on terrorism blah blah blah. America didnt go to Iraq to "help a situation that had nothing to do with them". They chickened out until they got hit.... just like in world war 2.

How dare they! They made money! What Bastards! It's not like I make money or anything, so i can criticise them! Oh wait, i do, just like nearly everybody...

I didnt say they were bastards for making money, its just that people tend to forget that probably a big reason america is where they are at now is because they profitted a lot from both world wars. America only became the biggest manufacturer internationally during/after World War 1. They didnt participate in world war 2 until they got hit, but before they got hit what do you think they were doing? Making lots and lots of money.

I dont think its a crime that they did this, but please dont portray them as the selfless noble knights in shining armor who swept in to save the day out of the very goodness of their hearts

Who said communist Russia was ever noble?

Thats the point. None of the allies were noble or had noble intentions, they were just out to save their necks. And theres nothing wrong with that.

Er, so you say America are chickens for not getting involed in a war, then you further criticise them for when they do enter the war? And you wonder I said your way of thinking is fucked up? You contradict yourself in your own post.

You throw contradict around left and right like its your big magic wand, when in the examples you put out I clearly did no such thing.... its just a case of you not reading what is clearly written and quoting me while leaving out important phrases that relate to the sentences quoted. I said americans are chickens because they didnt get involved until it directly affected them. Am i criticizing them for killing in the war once they entered? No, I said they have as much blood on their hands as does the enemy, you may have put a negative spin on it, but theres nothing really criticizing the americans in it because its probably right. A negative spin would be: those assholes killed a lot of people. I just put it out there that americans were probably the cause of just as much deaths as the "bad guys"

According to you, Kobe only trains hard for his public relations [/image

I never said that. Read the paragraph again and learn to read objectively please.

And you honestly expect people to take you seriously? Yes this world should be "banned" and "stuffed up a donkeys cock". like i said before, you have some major issue

you got it the other way around. Why should people take you seriously when you can't even read and quote correctly. Find where I said "this world should be banned" and quote it. I said the word truth should be banned, and if you know anything about philosophy than you would agree, it didnt even have anything really to do with what i was talking about I kinda diverted but oh well.

World War 2

Who was the main factor in winning WW2?

World War 2

Who is online