-
Comment -
Hey guys I am german and I am a nice person, ,my best friends are from the UK and USA , my girlfriend is welsh but its s ad that many people hates us , of course there are some assholes here but i think every country have good and bad people, I have done nothing and peace is the most important thing, think about that not all germans are bad and NazisComment -
Hahaha
. Dude ironically you are right!!! Have you ever heard battle of Stalingrad . Or battle of Kursk ? Not to mention other major fights
Battle of Kursk(biggest tank battle of World War Two and in the history of man kind)
Germans
Strength 780,900 men[3]
2,928 tanks[4]
9,966 guns and mortars[5]
2,110 aircraft[6][nb 3]
Russians
1,910,361 soldiers[7]
5,128 tanks[7]
25,013 guns and mortars[5]
2,792 aircraft[8][n
And just to let you know Germans at the end of the war (before battle of Berlin)didn't even try to stop coalition troops. They were afraid Soviets will occupy Germany and that will be the end of their existence .And it was Russians that raised a flag on top of the Reichstag. Soviets would of done it without you .
Comment -
Regardless, if it wasn't for the Americans, Europe would be speaking Russian or Japanese right now which are just as hard to master as Nazi. I'd like to see your precious tight Euro shirts stop Communist Russia or kamikaze pilots.Comment -
Roxxyfish . I know what you are saying ! I am a Russian that leave in Canada .
I have many friends including Americans . And i keep telling them that in our history books we refer to your country, period of 1939 - 1945 as a "Nazi Germany" and "Hitlers Germany" ONLY . We don't say Germans attack USSR nor any other country .
And as you know there is no hatred between us . I keep bringing 2 of our countrys as an example . Even with a millions of life's lost .
PS. Russians kept German prisoners of war till 1953 in work kamps .
Compare to US
Since October 7, 2001, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. As of June 2010, 181 detainees remain at Guantanamo.
Three have been convicted of various charges
President Roosevelt, "and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. You either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a manner so they can't go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past."
Roosevelt and Churchill initially favored simply shooting most of Germany's military and political leaders outright as they were found or surrendered. (This is what happened to Italy's Duce, Benito Mussolini, who was simply murdered, along with his entourage.) It was Stalin who, mindful of his success in destroying rivals with the help of elaborate show trials, insisted that the German leaders be put on trial. Roosevelt and Churchill fell in line. Considering the adulation accorded the Nuremberg Tribunal by many in the United States and Britain today, it is strange (Irving notes) that it might never have come into being if the Soviet dictator had not insisted on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials (go to origin )
US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, joked that perhaps 49,000 would do. Churchill denounced the idea of "the cold blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country." However, he also stated that war criminals must pay for their crimes and that in accordance with the Moscow Document which he himself had written, they should be tried at the places where the crimes were committed. Churchill was vigorously opposed to executions "for political purposes."[1][2] According to the minutes of a Roosevelt-Stalin meeting during the Yalta Conference, in February 4, 1945, at the Livadia Palace, President Roosevelt "said that he had been very much struck by the extent of German destruction in the Crimea and therefore he was more bloodthirsty in regard to the Germans than he had been a year ago, and he hoped that Marshal Stalin would again propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German Army."[3]
Not to mention bombing of Dresden .
I forgot who was it . But i can find . One of the top CIA (if i am not mistaken 1956) says " we will use a media in the way that people will not be able to make there own decisions ". It's been documented
GL.Comment -
haha, niceComment -
England Vs Nazi germany. Easy pick. 1-0. Go England!
Comment -
lolComment -
lol that is an epic post by dolphinspurs, please explain how europe would of ever been speaking japanese?
Comment -
what does this have to do with what i said?
no doubt the russians held their own, but stalin demanded and essentially begged for a second front.
the nazi war machine was focused on them, pounding them into submission. they kept up because they had a large populace of which to draw soldiers from. remember they were very ill-equipped (and vastly outmatched technologically against the germans), some troops didn't even get weapons.
the second front eased pressure off the eastern front and stretched the war machine over entire continent. that's not even mentioning the slack the germans had to pick up in africa for the failing italians who couldn't win a battle.
But i agree with the statement that the stupidest move hitler made throughout their entire campaign was opening up an eastern front with the Russians. he stretched his forces too thin and attempted to conquer a country that had an almost seemingly limitless supply of two important resources: people and oil.
plus, add on that it was a personal struggle for the russians, they were literally fighting for their survival. the germans sought to exterminate the slavs because of their twisted doctrine on expanding the living space for the aryan race. And culturally, russians never forget, and they hold grudges with the best of them, so that driving will propelled them to overcome the seizure of major russian cities, with the help of a second front in western europe and an assault through the african continent into southern europe.Comment -
funny postComment -
The fact is, Tachi was dismissing your claim. If the majority of America's 400,000 deaths took place in Japan, then what kind of significant contribution did they make in Europe? The right answer is not the one that you're reading in your "history" book.what does this have to do with what i said? no doubt the russians held their own, but stalin demanded and essentially begged for a second front. the nazi war machine was focused on them, pounding them into submission. they kept up because they had a large populace of which to draw soldiers from. remember they were very ill-equipped (and vastly outmatched technologically against the germans), some troops didn't even get weapons. the second front eased pressure off the eastern front and stretched the war machine over entire continent. that's not even mentioning the slack the germans had to pick up in africa for the failing italians who couldn't win a battle. But i agree with the statement that the stupidest move hitler made throughout their entire campaign was opening up an eastern front with the Russians. he stretched his forces too thin and attempted to conquer a country that had an almost seemingly limitless supply of two important resources: people and oil. plus, add on that it was a personal struggle for the russians, they were literally fighting for their survival. the germans sought to exterminate the slavs because of their twisted doctrine on expanding the living space for the aryan race. And culturally, russians never forget, and they hold grudges with the best of them, so that driving will propelled them to overcome the seizure of major russian cities, with the help of a second front in western europe and an assault through the african continent into southern europe.Comment -
yeah whatever source he got that from is incorrect, about 70% of U.S. deaths occurred in the european theatre. More casualties (injuries, pows) occurred in the pacific theatre but not more deaths.
so a second front wasn't significant?
the russians were just gonna march right to berlin by themselves?
and the nazis didn't vastly outmatch the russians in everything except for numbers and will?Comment -
more WC/WWII parallels:
The Italians are unable to win a battle and the Japanese come up with a sneak attack that surprises nearly everyone.[quote=jjgold;5683305]I win again like usual
[/quote]
[quote=Whippit;7921056]miami won't lose a single eastern conference game through end of season[/quote]Comment -
He claims he got that from Wikipedia, which is pretty legit to me. Everything on there has to be verified and sourced, I'll take Wiki's word for it.
A second front was significant, but not nearly as significant as you think it was. The fact is, the Germans would have been defeated without the help of the Americans, it just would have taken longer. The Allies were still receiving supplies from countries where the war hadn't touched, which was duplicating the contribution of the Americans.
You can say what you want, but no player can jump into the match in the 50th minute and win Player of the Game.Comment -
Unfortunately The Axis Powers got two of three in round of 16: Nazi Germany and Japs.
The Allies got 5 teams: USA, England, Holland, Brazil and Mexico(from wikipedia Allies of WWII).
Hopefully good guys win in the end. I'm rooting for England to take out the Nazis. Go England!Attached FilesComment -
-
You guys have to come up with something very creative when Argentina and Brazil meet in the final.
Comment -
Lighten up folks!
Comment -
-
interesting thread
Comment -
i looked at wiki, didn't find any stats like that. i use books for numbers such as those.
I do agree that more than likely the russians would be able to push back the german assault and win WWII with the help of the current allies at the time, before america's entry (not sure how you know that for a fact, but i'm digressing). But how many more russians would have died? keep in mind that 20 million+ died in a little over 3 year occupation. at what cost were the russians going to pay without a second front?
Stalin was a brutal man to his people, but he wasn't an idiot, he understood the necessity of a second front to help relieve the stranglehold upon russia's major cities.
And i never once said the americans won the war for the allies. maybe i wasn't making myself clear earlier, but i was trying to debunk the statement that more americans were killed in the pacific theatre then the european theatre. i also was arguing that a second front was significant. the second front wasn't an american effort, it was an allied effort, meaning british, as well as french soldiers who made it out of france prior to it collapse partook in the invasion.
You are caught up in this who won the war for the allies debate. they won in a collaborative effort. I know some americans will take credit for "winning the war" for the world but i don't. It was an allied effort, spearheaded on two fronts (three if you count the campaign from northern africa). The americans helped the russians, as did the russians help the americans.Comment
