Muhammed, Aallah, Mufti etc SERVES YOU RIGHT!!
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
Prev: Incredibley stupid asking price for a 1st model Commy
Next: "KANGAROO TURD AUSTRALIA" YOU ARE REALLY PLAGUING aus.politics !
From: Clocky on 11 Apr 2010 11:38 Noddy wrote: > "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message > news:4bc120e7$0$27868$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > >> The Canadians and English liberated the Netherlands. > > Which they never would have had a hope in hell of doing without > American involvement. > I'm not saying that, I was just clarifying. >> Yes the allies including the Americans contributed to the victory >> but 93% of all German casualties were sustained on the Russian front. > > The Germans lost more men on the Eastern front simply because they > *had* more men on the Eastern front, but that doesn't mean the > opposition they faced in that quarter was superior in skill. The > Russians won in the East by sheer weight of numbers, but for every > dead German there was 10 dead Russians. > Sure, but at the end of the day they prevailed. The German commanders themselves said that they vastly underestimated the stubborn resistance of the Russians and that cost them the war, greatly helped from the arms support the Russians got from the US ofcourse. > Perhaps you're forgetting that the war in Europe was fought on two > fronts, the East *and* the West, and the US played a vital role on > *both* fronts. Yep, and I'm not saying they didn't play an important role but it wasn't just them that won the war despite what they would have the world believe. The US never declared war on Germany, they didn't enter the war in Europe until Hitler declared war on the US just after the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japs. It's still a topic of debate whether the US would have entered Europe at all if Hitler hadn't declared war on them, they certainly didn't volunteer their services.
From: Clocky on 11 Apr 2010 11:41 Noddy wrote: > "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message > news:4bc08d31$0$8841$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > >> They certainly didn't win it on their own but if they weren't >> involved Holland would probably be still be run by the Germans and >> I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy about that. > > The US largely defeated Japan on their own, and with around 10% of > their military strength. ....and two atomic bombs which were rather decisive ;-) More people would have died had they not used them, I'm pretty sure of that.
From: Noddy on 11 Apr 2010 18:19 "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message news:4bc1e0f7$0$27783$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > There were very few enemies in Dresden. That's the point. Dresden was a target of no military value but it was bombed to the bejesus anyway killing 100,000 civilians. There was *some* level of regret by the Allies where in the aftermath they declared it a case of "severe over bombing", but by and large most people on our side couldn't have cared less. The attitude in those days was that if you couldn't knock off the German worker in the factory and shut down war production then you got him in his bed, and if the old lady next door copped it as well then bad luck. Today it's a completely different story. People don't want military conflicts, but if they have to occur they want them carried out with surgical precision so innocents aren't hurt. Weapons technology has improved dramatically since WWII, but we're a *long* way from fighting battles where the risk to civilians is zero. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 11 Apr 2010 18:21 "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message news:4bc1e1c6$0$27830$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > The media is completely and utterly controlled by the propaganda machine > and what leaks out is just the tip of the iceberg. > That has always been true, but these days of media control and > manipulation what you and I see is often nothing like what is actually > happening. Which of course works both ways. The media can hide stuff from people, but can also make mountains out of molehills just as effectively. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 11 Apr 2010 19:10
"Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message news:4bc1eda7$0$27844$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > ...and two atomic bombs which were rather decisive ;-) They certainly were, although it's interesting to note that carpet bombing of Japan's cities with regular high explosive and incendary bombs killed more people that both atomic bombs combined. > More people would have died had they not used them, I'm pretty sure of > that. There certainly would have been enormous casualties if Operation Olympic, the invasion of the Japanese home islands, went ahead as planned. The atomic bombs served a few purposes, both politically and militarily. Firstly, from a military standpoint, dropping the bombs was largely unnecessary as Japan was already at the end of it's tether, however it was "new technology" and doing so provided the opportunity to observe the weapons being used in a "real world" environment. Secondly, the Americans were *very* keen to get the war in the Pacific wound up before the Russians got involved. The Soviets had promised to enter the war against Japan three months after the end of hostilities in Europe, and the Americans desperately wanted Japan defeated before they did so they could control Japan's post war development on their own. Thirdly, America wanted to hold pride of place at any international conference tables with this devastating atomic weapon hanging on their hips, as they believed doing so would command a fair degree of respect from other people. The Russians in particular. -- Regards, Noddy. |