| Users Online Now: 2,167 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,459,407 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,003,618 | Threads Today: 496 | Posts Today: 8,727 |
| 03:44 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,167 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,459,407 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,003,618 | Threads Today: 496 | Posts Today: 8,727 |
| 03:44 PM | ||
Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is a load of shite | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287  United States07/17/2017 01:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Germans came so very close to defeating the Soviets defended Stalingrad, Moscow, and Leningrad. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71044287 But in the end, the desperation and courage of the Russians -- knowing defeat would mean probable death, the destruction of their homeland, subjugation to an occupying foreign power, etc. -- prevailed. You might have forgotten that the US contributed much of the machinery that allowed the Soviet war machine to prevail, as did the Political Commissars penchant for shooting anyone who retreated towards them waiting in the rear, naturally. Absolutely. We did the same. The Russians sent men into battle with no weapons with the intent that they should somehow find and strip the dead of theirs. I don't beleive the US ever did anything close to that, or shot men wholesale for retreating. You can try to prove your claims but I suspect you'll change the subject, like a bitch. I was destroying your original post, which I did successfully. You said the Soviets shot deserters. I said we did, as well. Time for you to stop watching John Wayne movies. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75234699 United States07/17/2017 01:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75234699 You might have forgotten that the US contributed much of the machinery that allowed the Soviet war machine to prevail, as did the Political Commissars penchant for shooting anyone who retreated towards them waiting in the rear, naturally. Absolutely. We did the same. The Russians sent men into battle with no weapons with the intent that they should somehow find and strip the dead of theirs. I don't beleive the US ever did anything close to that, or shot men wholesale for retreating. You can try to prove your claims but I suspect you'll change the subject, like a bitch. I was destroying your original post, which I did successfully. You said the Soviets shot deserters. I said we did, as well. Time for you to stop watching John Wayne movies. No, I said Russians shot retreaters, not deserters. There's a difference to normal people, though not one you'd notice. In fact I can be fairly sure that you can get some ACCURATE accounts of it at family/tribal reunions. |
Educated Redneck  User ID: 69010652 United States07/17/2017 01:50 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Even though it's true that Germany was to lose in a war of attrition with the Soviets, they also sought to buy time in their measured retreat for the new technology they were developing -- the V-2 rocket, for example -- the most innovative advancement of the war; only second, of course, to the nuclear bombs. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71044287 One of Germany's biggest blunders, really Hitler's blunder is that he counted on these wonder weapons to make a difference when they wouldn't. The German High Command was under no such delusion knowing that troops win wars. The V-2 was an amazing piece of technology... but in the pre-computer days guidance systems were primitive and inaccurate and the payloads too small to do enough to change the course of the war. For example 11 V-2 rockets were launched at the Ludendorff Bridge, the only intact bridge over the Rhine on March 17, 1945. All missed the bridge killing 6 American GIs and a bunch of German civilians. Germany didn't have the resources to build a nuclear bomb and nothing else would make a difference. Hell, Germany didn't even have a plane capable of carrying the 2 monster atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan in 1945. They weren't monster in power but they were in weight. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 01:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well.... they were unable to gain the air superiority necessary for Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of the UK. So they failed. They were unable to bomb the UK into a peace treaty preventing them from securing the western front before turning east for the invasion of the Soviet Union preventing a 2 front war. So they failed. They lost almost 2,000 aircraft and more than 3,000 aircrew that were needed later in 1941 against the Soviet Union. They failed. You know for a fact that was their objective? Not to simply knock Britain out of the war long enough for Germany to turn back to the East and deal with the Soviet Union -- their primary existential rival? NOBODY goes to war to simply knock the wind out of someone because payback is a bitch. YOu make war to completely destroy the enemys will to fight. There is no other reason and no other success. Yes, Hitler failed and turned against the USSR, Hitlers ally by treaty in the invasion of Poland, which is a serious oversight on the part of all of you supposed experts. You're a fool if you think at anytime between 1933 and 1941, the leaders of Germany and the USSR did not think war between them was not only inevitable, but desirable. Hitler merely beat Stalin to the punch, as he and others felt correctly that the USSR was only getting stronger by the day, so if there was to be war between the two countries, the sooner the better for Germany. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 01:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Educated Redneck Well.... they were unable to gain the air superiority necessary for Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of the UK. So they failed. They were unable to bomb the UK into a peace treaty preventing them from securing the western front before turning east for the invasion of the Soviet Union preventing a 2 front war. So they failed. They lost almost 2,000 aircraft and more than 3,000 aircrew that were needed later in 1941 against the Soviet Union. They failed. You know for a fact that was their objective? Not to simply knock Britain out of the war long enough for Germany to turn back to the East and deal with the Soviet Union -- their primary existential rival? NOBODY goes to war to simply knock the wind out of someone because payback is a bitch. YOu make war to completely destroy the enemys will to fight. There is no other reason and no other success. Yes, Hitler failed and turned against the USSR, Hitlers ally by treaty in the invasion of Poland, which is a serious oversight on the part of all of you supposed experts. You're a fool if you think at anytime between 1933 and 1941, the leaders of Germany and the USSR did not think war between them was not only inevitable, but desirable. Hitler merely beat Stalin to the punch, as he and others felt correctly that the USSR was only getting stronger by the day, so if there was to be war between the two countries, the sooner the better for Germany. Part of the this assessment stemmed from the difficulty the Red Army had with tiny (population-wise) Finland in the battle for Karelia in 1939. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 01:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Russians sent men into battle with no weapons with the intent that they should somehow find and strip the dead of theirs. I don't beleive the US ever did anything close to that, or shot men wholesale for retreating. You can try to prove your claims but I suspect you'll change the subject, like a bitch. I was destroying your original post, which I did successfully. You said the Soviets shot deserters. I said we did, as well. Time for you to stop watching John Wayne movies. No, I said Russians shot retreaters, not deserters. There's a difference to normal people, though not one you'd notice. In fact I can be fairly sure that you can get some ACCURATE accounts of it at family/tribal reunions. Gettin' a little pissy, aren'tcha, Susie? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75234699 United States07/17/2017 01:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well.... they were unable to gain the air superiority necessary for Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of the UK. So they failed. They were unable to bomb the UK into a peace treaty preventing them from securing the western front before turning east for the invasion of the Soviet Union preventing a 2 front war. So they failed. They lost almost 2,000 aircraft and more than 3,000 aircrew that were needed later in 1941 against the Soviet Union. They failed. You know for a fact that was their objective? Not to simply knock Britain out of the war long enough for Germany to turn back to the East and deal with the Soviet Union -- their primary existential rival? Britain had been knocked out of the war after Dunkirk. They were totally unable to mount any type of invasion of Continental Europe and wouldn't for years. After Dunkirk Germany was free to turn East. But they didn't. They built barges and landing craft, massed divisions of troops on the coast and engaged in an air war that cost them large numbers of planes and personnel. And when they called off the attacks the British were stronger than when they started. Personally I don't see a scenario where Germany's year long air campaign against the UK isn't seen as a failure no mater what we consider to be the goal. wHATEVER the brits did after Dunkirk they did with American material. The Germans didn't expect the Americans to provide what they did and it killed them. The British had left the bulk of their heavy weapons in France and had no money to by more. They were done for until the US propped them back up thanks to the Japanese |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75234699 United States07/17/2017 01:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75234699 The Russians sent men into battle with no weapons with the intent that they should somehow find and strip the dead of theirs. I don't beleive the US ever did anything close to that, or shot men wholesale for retreating. You can try to prove your claims but I suspect you'll change the subject, like a bitch. I was destroying your original post, which I did successfully. You said the Soviets shot deserters. I said we did, as well. Time for you to stop watching John Wayne movies. No, I said Russians shot retreaters, not deserters. There's a difference to normal people, though not one you'd notice. In fact I can be fairly sure that you can get some ACCURATE accounts of it at family/tribal reunions. Gettin' a little pissy, aren'tcha, Susie? Nope I'm leaving being the lying little pussy all for yourself as it suits you so well. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 01:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Germans came so very close to defeating the Soviets defended Stalingrad, Moscow, and Leningrad. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71044287 But in the end, the desperation and courage of the Russians -- knowing defeat would mean probable death, the destruction of their homeland, subjugation to an occupying foreign power, etc. -- prevailed. You might have forgotten that the US contributed much of the machinery that allowed the Soviet war machine to prevail, as did the Political Commissars penchant for shooting anyone who retreated towards them waiting in the rear, naturally. Absolutely. We did the same. The Russians sent men into battle with no weapons with the intent that they should somehow find and strip the dead of theirs. I don't beleive the US ever did anything close to that, or shot men wholesale for retreating. You can try to prove your claims but I suspect you'll change the subject, like a bitch. The U.S. wasn't fighting an existential war, dipshit. Russia's very existence was at stake. Is it any wonder they went to greater extremes in the defense of their families' homeland? Please think before you post. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 01:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71044287 I was destroying your original post, which I did successfully. You said the Soviets shot deserters. I said we did, as well. Time for you to stop watching John Wayne movies. No, I said Russians shot retreaters, not deserters. There's a difference to normal people, though not one you'd notice. In fact I can be fairly sure that you can get some ACCURATE accounts of it at family/tribal reunions. Gettin' a little pissy, aren'tcha, Susie? Nope I'm leaving being the lying little pussy all for yourself as it suits you so well. Go read another Tom Clancy novel, Nancy. You've inhaled too much glue building your WW2 model war machinery. Open a window next time. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 69993567  Netherlands07/17/2017 01:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Truth is 90% never wanted to be there and were sent into an early grave for and by corporate shills, and now they prepare the next batch to die without questioning. I am not contesting the bravery of all those who died, but this above and beyond the call of duty shit only represent less than 1% of all those who've ever fought in any way ever. Pure propaganda to brainwash 18 years old into laying down their lives for the banks, they wont be heroes they will be scared shitless and dead. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 20750608 United States07/17/2017 02:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 02:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | All Hollywood WW2 movies are shite, they represent the Allied soldiers as the greatest thing since sliced bread, always patriotic and shit. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69993567 Truth is 90% never wanted to be there and were sent into an early grave for and by corporate shills, and now they prepare the next batch to die without questioning. I am not contesting the bravery of all those who died, but this above and beyond the call of duty shit only represent less than 1% of all those who've ever fought in any way ever. Pure propaganda to brainwash 18 years old into laying down their lives for the banks, they wont be heroes they will be scared shitless and dead. And it's always American and British. Very little effort is spent on telling the tale of the Eastern Front (Russians), where MOST of the men, machinery, battles, casualties, and deaths occurred in the European theater. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75222616 United States07/17/2017 02:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Hitler let the Allies go at Dunkirk because he actually admired the British. Explains Pat Buchanan in his excellent book Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War" : Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75235939 "To Hitler, Great Britain was Germany’s natural ally and the nation and empire he most admired. He did not covet British colonies. He did not want or seek a fleet to rival the Royal Navy. He did not wish to bring down the British Empire. He was prepared to appease Britain to make her a friend of Germany. Where the Kaiser had grudgingly agreed in 1913 to restrict the High Seas Fleet to 60 percent of the Royal Navy, Hitler in 1935 readily agreed to restrict his navy to 35 percent. What Hitler ever sought was an allied, friendly, or at least neutral Britain. Conversing in 1922 with a publisher friendly to the Nazi party, Hitler “ruled out the colonial rivalry with Britain that had caused conflict before the First World War.” Said Hitler, “Germany would have to adapt herself to a purely continental policy, avoiding harm to English interests.” “By late 1922,” Kershaw writes, “an alliance with Britain, whose world empire he admired, was in [Hitler’s] mind. This idea had sharpened in 1923 when the disagreements of the British and French over the Ruhr occupation became clear.” Having fought the “Tommies” on the Western Front, he admired their martial qualities. Nor was Churchill unaware of “Hitler’s notorious Anglomania and his almost servile admiration of British imperialism….” Sir Roy Denman came to the same conclusion: "Hitler…had no basic quarrel with Britain. Unlike William II, he had no wish from the outset to rival the British navy, nor covet the British Empire. His territorial aims were in Central and Eastern Europe and further east. He could never understand why the British constantly sought to interfere." After the British escape at Dunkirk, because of his own “stop order” to his armored units not to advance into the undefended city, Hitler told Martin Bormann he had purposely spared the British army so as not to create “an irreparable breach between the British and ourselves.” “The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to be shed,” Hitler told his friend Frau Troost. “Our two people belong together racially and traditionally—this is and always has been my aim even if our generals can’t grasp it.” On June 25, 1940, after the fall of France, Hitler telephoned Goebbels to lay out the terms of a deal with England. Britain’s empire was to be preserved, but Britain would return to Lord Salisbury’s policy of “splendid isolation” from the power politics of Europe. What Hitler was demanding after his triumph in the west in 1940 was restoration of what had been taken from Germany at Versailles. In his postwar book The Other Side of the Hill, Liddell Hart relates a conversation Hitler had at Charleville, after Dunkirk, with General von Rundstedt and two of his staff, Sodenstern and Blumentritt. The latter told Liddell Hart the conversation had come around to Great Britain: "He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world…. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church—saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere…. He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain, on a basis that she would regard compatible with her honour to accept." Because the Anglo-Saxons of Britain were Germanic, same race. Hitler knew some history. Angle-land became England. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 02:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Hitler let the Allies go at Dunkirk because he actually admired the British. Explains Pat Buchanan in his excellent book Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War" : Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75235939 "To Hitler, Great Britain was Germany’s natural ally and the nation and empire he most admired. He did not covet British colonies. He did not want or seek a fleet to rival the Royal Navy. He did not wish to bring down the British Empire. He was prepared to appease Britain to make her a friend of Germany. Where the Kaiser had grudgingly agreed in 1913 to restrict the High Seas Fleet to 60 percent of the Royal Navy, Hitler in 1935 readily agreed to restrict his navy to 35 percent. What Hitler ever sought was an allied, friendly, or at least neutral Britain. Conversing in 1922 with a publisher friendly to the Nazi party, Hitler “ruled out the colonial rivalry with Britain that had caused conflict before the First World War.” Said Hitler, “Germany would have to adapt herself to a purely continental policy, avoiding harm to English interests.” “By late 1922,” Kershaw writes, “an alliance with Britain, whose world empire he admired, was in [Hitler’s] mind. This idea had sharpened in 1923 when the disagreements of the British and French over the Ruhr occupation became clear.” Having fought the “Tommies” on the Western Front, he admired their martial qualities. Nor was Churchill unaware of “Hitler’s notorious Anglomania and his almost servile admiration of British imperialism….” Sir Roy Denman came to the same conclusion: "Hitler…had no basic quarrel with Britain. Unlike William II, he had no wish from the outset to rival the British navy, nor covet the British Empire. His territorial aims were in Central and Eastern Europe and further east. He could never understand why the British constantly sought to interfere." After the British escape at Dunkirk, because of his own “stop order” to his armored units not to advance into the undefended city, Hitler told Martin Bormann he had purposely spared the British army so as not to create “an irreparable breach between the British and ourselves.” “The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to be shed,” Hitler told his friend Frau Troost. “Our two people belong together racially and traditionally—this is and always has been my aim even if our generals can’t grasp it.” On June 25, 1940, after the fall of France, Hitler telephoned Goebbels to lay out the terms of a deal with England. Britain’s empire was to be preserved, but Britain would return to Lord Salisbury’s policy of “splendid isolation” from the power politics of Europe. What Hitler was demanding after his triumph in the west in 1940 was restoration of what had been taken from Germany at Versailles. In his postwar book The Other Side of the Hill, Liddell Hart relates a conversation Hitler had at Charleville, after Dunkirk, with General von Rundstedt and two of his staff, Sodenstern and Blumentritt. The latter told Liddell Hart the conversation had come around to Great Britain: "He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world…. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church—saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere…. He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain, on a basis that she would regard compatible with her honour to accept." Because the Anglo-Saxons of Britain were Germanic, same race. Hitler knew some history. Angle-land became England. ^This |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 02:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75234699 United States07/17/2017 02:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Even though it's true that Germany was to lose in a war of attrition with the Soviets, they also sought to buy time in their measured retreat for the new technology they were developing -- the V-2 rocket, for example -- the most innovative advancement of the war; only second, of course, to the nuclear bombs. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71044287 One of Germany's biggest blunders, really Hitler's blunder is that he counted on these wonder weapons to make a difference when they wouldn't. The German High Command was under no such delusion knowing that troops win wars. The V-2 was an amazing piece of technology... but in the pre-computer days guidance systems were primitive and inaccurate and the payloads too small to do enough to change the course of the war. For example 11 V-2 rockets were launched at the Ludendorff Bridge, the only intact bridge over the Rhine on March 17, 1945. All missed the bridge killing 6 American GIs and a bunch of German civilians. Germany didn't have the resources to build a nuclear bomb and nothing else would make a difference. Hell, Germany didn't even have a plane capable of carrying the 2 monster atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan in 1945. They weren't monster in power but they were in weight. Hitler lost when he couldn't jump the channel. The rest was a waste of time and only served to decimate the German populace. Hitler ended up being responsible for the needless destruction of Europe. Why? Because his bullshit fake national socialism was just the same as the Communist international socialism. It's goal was just the exact same invade, enslave and loot that the Communists had invented. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 69993567 Netherlands07/17/2017 02:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | All Hollywood WW2 movies are shite, they represent the Allied soldiers as the greatest thing since sliced bread, always patriotic and shit. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69993567 Truth is 90% never wanted to be there and were sent into an early grave for and by corporate shills, and now they prepare the next batch to die without questioning. I am not contesting the bravery of all those who died, but this above and beyond the call of duty shit only represent less than 1% of all those who've ever fought in any way ever. Pure propaganda to brainwash 18 years old into laying down their lives for the banks, they wont be heroes they will be scared shitless and dead. And it's always American and British. Very little effort is spent on telling the tale of the Eastern Front (Russians), where MOST of the men, machinery, battles, casualties, and deaths occurred in the European theater. Dont forget the part where America won a whole world war by itself twice! How? By joining when the enmy has already lost, kicking them when they are down and claiming victory. Ww1 was already won when the Americans arrived and WW2 the Russians were already rolling towards Berlin and all of the sudden Europe is important enough.. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75222616 United States07/17/2017 02:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Always remember: The conquerors write the history books; and in these books, the conquerors' cause is always right and the conquered cause is always wrong. No history writers of the victorious ever said: We the evil won a triumph over the vanquished good. Then future generations are continually conditioned to believe their own countries indoctrination, without question. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75234699 United States07/17/2017 02:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75234699 No, I said Russians shot retreaters, not deserters. There's a difference to normal people, though not one you'd notice. In fact I can be fairly sure that you can get some ACCURATE accounts of it at family/tribal reunions. Gettin' a little pissy, aren'tcha, Susie? Nope I'm leaving being the lying little pussy all for yourself as it suits you so well. Go read another Tom Clancy novel, Nancy. You've inhaled too much glue building your WW2 model war machinery. Open a window next time. Riiight, see you back to work again next sunday, after sundown of course? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75222616 United States07/17/2017 02:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | All Hollywood WW2 movies are shite, they represent the Allied soldiers as the greatest thing since sliced bread, always patriotic and shit. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69993567 Truth is 90% never wanted to be there and were sent into an early grave for and by corporate shills, and now they prepare the next batch to die without questioning. I am not contesting the bravery of all those who died, but this above and beyond the call of duty shit only represent less than 1% of all those who've ever fought in any way ever. Pure propaganda to brainwash 18 years old into laying down their lives for the banks, they wont be heroes they will be scared shitless and dead. And it's always American and British. Very little effort is spent on telling the tale of the Eastern Front (Russians), where MOST of the men, machinery, battles, casualties, and deaths occurred in the European theater. Dont forget the part where America won a whole world war by itself twice! How? By joining when the enmy has already lost, kicking them when they are down and claiming victory. Ww1 was already won when the Americans arrived and WW2 the Russians were already rolling towards Berlin and all of the sudden Europe is important enough.. WW1? Britain was on the ropes. Germany was winning WW1 at the time; and not one enemy soldier set foot on German soil prior to America entering in the war. America was fighting Germany in North Africa, and up through Italy. The Russians were hurting bad, but America began the Lend Lease program and flooded Russia with war supplies. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 02:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Even though it's true that Germany was to lose in a war of attrition with the Soviets, they also sought to buy time in their measured retreat for the new technology they were developing -- the V-2 rocket, for example -- the most innovative advancement of the war; only second, of course, to the nuclear bombs. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71044287 One of Germany's biggest blunders, really Hitler's blunder is that he counted on these wonder weapons to make a difference when they wouldn't. The German High Command was under no such delusion knowing that troops win wars. The V-2 was an amazing piece of technology... but in the pre-computer days guidance systems were primitive and inaccurate and the payloads too small to do enough to change the course of the war. For example 11 V-2 rockets were launched at the Ludendorff Bridge, the only intact bridge over the Rhine on March 17, 1945. All missed the bridge killing 6 American GIs and a bunch of German civilians. Germany didn't have the resources to build a nuclear bomb and nothing else would make a difference. Hell, Germany didn't even have a plane capable of carrying the 2 monster atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan in 1945. They weren't monster in power but they were in weight. Hitler lost when he couldn't jump the channel. The rest was a waste of time and only served to decimate the German populace. Hitler ended up being responsible for the needless destruction of Europe. Why? Because his bullshit fake national socialism was just the same as the Communist international socialism. It's goal was just the exact same invade, enslave and loot that the Communists had invented. I would disagree with the last part. Hitler turned the German economy around and increased the German standard of living to the best in the world. That's why Germans loved him. I don't think you'd find many Germans who felt they were "slaves". The USSR, on the other hand...where to begin with the horrors perpetrated by the communist leadership upon its own citizens. Just ask the Ukrainians. And the Soviet standard of living was little better than peasants. Huge difference between the two countries. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 02:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | All Hollywood WW2 movies are shite, they represent the Allied soldiers as the greatest thing since sliced bread, always patriotic and shit. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69993567 Truth is 90% never wanted to be there and were sent into an early grave for and by corporate shills, and now they prepare the next batch to die without questioning. I am not contesting the bravery of all those who died, but this above and beyond the call of duty shit only represent less than 1% of all those who've ever fought in any way ever. Pure propaganda to brainwash 18 years old into laying down their lives for the banks, they wont be heroes they will be scared shitless and dead. And it's always American and British. Very little effort is spent on telling the tale of the Eastern Front (Russians), where MOST of the men, machinery, battles, casualties, and deaths occurred in the European theater. Dont forget the part where America won a whole world war by itself twice! How? By joining when the enmy has already lost, kicking them when they are down and claiming victory. Ww1 was already won when the Americans arrived and WW2 the Russians were already rolling towards Berlin and all of the sudden Europe is important enough.. WW1? Britain was on the ropes. Germany was winning WW1 at the time; and not one enemy soldier set foot on German soil prior to America entering in the war. Even AFTER the U.S. entered WW1, no enemy soldier ever set foot on German soil. Yet Germany unconditionally surrendered. Only time in history this occurred. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 02:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nope I'm leaving being the lying little pussy all for yourself as it suits you so well. Go read another Tom Clancy novel, Nancy. You've inhaled too much glue building your WW2 model war machinery. Open a window next time. Riiight, see you back to work again next sunday, after sundown of course? Whatever that means. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 02:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Always remember: Quoting: History Lion The conquerors write the history books; and in these books, the conquerors' cause is always right and the conquered cause is always wrong. No history writers of the victorious ever said: We the evil won a triumph over the vanquished good. Then future generations are continually conditioned to believe their own countries indoctrination, without question. ^This x 100! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 02:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | All Hollywood WW2 movies are shite, they represent the Allied soldiers as the greatest thing since sliced bread, always patriotic and shit. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69993567 Truth is 90% never wanted to be there and were sent into an early grave for and by corporate shills, and now they prepare the next batch to die without questioning. I am not contesting the bravery of all those who died, but this above and beyond the call of duty shit only represent less than 1% of all those who've ever fought in any way ever. Pure propaganda to brainwash 18 years old into laying down their lives for the banks, they wont be heroes they will be scared shitless and dead. And it's always American and British. Very little effort is spent on telling the tale of the Eastern Front (Russians), where MOST of the men, machinery, battles, casualties, and deaths occurred in the European theater. Dont forget the part where America won a whole world war by itself twice! How? By joining when the enmy has already lost, kicking them when they are down and claiming victory. Ww1 was already won when the Americans arrived and WW2 the Russians were already rolling towards Berlin and all of the sudden Europe is important enough.. You're exactly right. True. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 02:29 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nope I'm leaving being the lying little pussy all for yourself as it suits you so well. Go read another Tom Clancy novel, Nancy. You've inhaled too much glue building your WW2 model war machinery. Open a window next time. Riiight, see you back to work again next sunday, after sundown of course? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75222616 United States07/17/2017 02:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71044287 And it's always American and British. Very little effort is spent on telling the tale of the Eastern Front (Russians), where MOST of the men, machinery, battles, casualties, and deaths occurred in the European theater. Dont forget the part where America won a whole world war by itself twice! How? By joining when the enmy has already lost, kicking them when they are down and claiming victory. Ww1 was already won when the Americans arrived and WW2 the Russians were already rolling towards Berlin and all of the sudden Europe is important enough.. WW1? Britain was on the ropes. Germany was winning WW1 at the time; and not one enemy soldier set foot on German soil prior to America entering in the war. Even AFTER the U.S. entered WW1, no enemy soldier ever set foot on German soil. Yet Germany unconditionally surrendered. Only time in history this occurred. Good point, but it was called an Armistice by the New "Weimar Republic". Here is a Letter from WW1, by a soldier that was no less aware of media influence, than we are today. I wonder who owned the newspapers back then? Same people as today? "I have no idea what we are still fighting for anyway, maybe because the newspapers portray everything about the war in a false light which has nothing to do with the reality.....There could be no greater misery in the enemy country and at home. The people who still support the war haven't got a clue about anything...If I stay alive, I will make these things public...We all want peace...What is the point of conquering half of the world, when we have to sacrifice all our strength?..You out there, just champion peace! … We give away all our worldly possessions and even our freedom. Our only goal is to be with our wife and children again," Anonymous Bavarian soldier, 17 October 1914 |
| Educated Redneck User ID: 69010652 United States07/17/2017 02:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Personally I don't see a scenario where Germany's year long air campaign against the UK isn't seen as a failure no mater what we consider to be the goal. Quoting: Educated Redneck wHATEVER the brits did after Dunkirk they did with American material. That doesn't even make sense and it is wrong. We are talking about the German failure in the Battle of Britain. You questioned what their goals were and why it was a failure yet no matter how we look at it British material built British planes that resisted the Luftwaffe and Germany turned back East a year later having lost 2,000 aircraft and gained nothing. As I said, a failure. The Germans didn't expect the Americans to provide what they did and it killed them. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75234699 Wrong again. We Americans tend to think we marched in and saved the day, but in WWII by the time of D-Day in mid 1944 when the Americans and British finally landed on Continental Europe the war was pretty much over. All the big battles of WWII had already occurred on the eastern front and Germany was in full retreat. Prior to that we provided air attacks and defeated Germany in North Africa and Italy... but these were minor compared to what was happening on the eastern front. What "killed them" was having an idiot for a leader who opened up a 2 front war. The British had left the bulk of their heavy weapons in France and had no money to by more. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75234699 They were done for until the US propped them back up thanks to the Japanese Don't forget to thank Uncle Adolf for being a dummkopf. The idea of the US being involved in the war in Europe still wasn't popular here in the US and the people wanted revenge on Japan. But on December 11, 1941 Adolf Hitler declared war on the US. He didn't have to, the Tripartite Pact only said Germany would come to the aid of Japan if Japan were attacked. The US would have eventually become involved but it would have been later. But nobody ever said Adolf Hitler was a smart guy. And really you keep asking how Germany failed in the Battle of Britain when as you point out the British left their heavy weapons at Dunkirk.... so the year of the Battle of Britain/Blitz really couldn't gain much for Germany and could lose a large number of planes and pilots which did happen. So again, is there any way in which the Battle of Britain wasn't a failure? No matter what the objective? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71044287 United States07/17/2017 02:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Educated Redneck, I recall you poo-pooing Holocaust deniers in previous threads. Here's a question... Why -- in Winston Churchill's 6-volume history of World War 2 written between 1948 and 1953 -- were German death camps never mentioned? Surely something as grotesquely barbaric, politically earth-shattering, the purported attempted extermination of God's chosen people from whom our own religion -- Christianity -- was born.... Surely that would warrant 1 page. Maybe 2? At least a paragraph, no? |
