George Soros and Bush

Ratty said:
Again, silly prejudice caused by stupid movies like "Pearl Harbor". If you honestly believe that Japanese people are inherently violent expansionists, either you don't know a thing about Japanese history or you are a racist. Namely, throughout its history, Japan was so closed to the world that they didn't even start trading with foreign countries until late 19th century. I don't think they even waged any wars outside their territory until 1904, when they attacked the Soviets. After WWI Japan was ruled by a violent militarist regime that had strong expansionist tendencies, and that's why they joined the Axis and started attacking their neighbours. Expansionism and imperialism were official policies of their government at that time, and that doesn't make them any different from most other countries of that era, not even from USA (The States were de iure isolationist, but de facto they sought to spread their territory and influence whenever they had a chance). Claiming that Japanese have "violent personality" is equivalent to calling all Muslims terrorists and all Americans idiots. Just because a regime or a group demonstrates those "qualities", it doesn't mean they apply to an entire nation.
Click to expand...

I said they had a "conqueror" personality, not necessarily a violent one. I am familiar with Japanese history and culture, and I will tell you that the Japanese at the time were extremely nationalistic, and expansionist (thanks in most part to the manipulation of the Black Dragons).

Don't try and call me a racist for stating historical fact. American and Japanese cultures were increadibly different from each other at the time. (Hell, they still are)
 
Well yeah, the Soviets liberated Eastern Europe from the nazis, but then turned that liberated land under their communist thumbs. Wasn't there a few people slaughtered in Poland? And didn't they also attack Poland right when the Nazis did? So I wouldn't call it liberating. They just took back all their land and felt they needed some more. They didn't give a damn about helping. Now, you said USSR liberated Europe, you basically cut out the U.S. and Britian's role in Western Europe. While the Nazis were still fighting the Soviets on Russian soil, we fought in Africa, then invaded France and drew a hell of a lot of diversion from the Eastern front. We also supplied the Soviets with tanks, airplanes, and a few ships. So in turn, they just took their land back, and advanced into Nazi Germany and communized the balkans.
 
The point, King, was that without the Soviet front, the Western Allies might not have been able to liberate western Europe. Maybe not even North Africa or Sicily.
 
Yeah, I realize that, but I guess forgot to mention it, sorry. But the way he said it, he sounded like the Soviets did it all on their own, which sounds like something that Stalin would have you believe. And I wouldn't try and have you believe that we did it on our own as well, we had some needed help.
 
Well, concerning Eastern Europe, the Soviets did do it mostly on their own. For the Soviets it was a long, grueling process of changing strategies (and staff) and tactics. It wasn't until the victory at Stalingrad that the Russians learned how to beat the Germans. And with the T-34 tank, the Russians enjoyed sweeping victories against German armor.

Western assistance was miniscule at best if you don't count the Western front. In any case, neither side could have won without the other. If Germany succesfully invaded England then they could free up the Italian and Atlantic Wall based divisions for the fight in the East.
 
King said:
And I wouldn't try and have you believe that we did it on our own as well, we had some needed help.
Click to expand...

No, you were "some help".

The Russians could always use "some help". The US and Britain were this "some help". Did the Russians need the US? Nope. Did the US need the Russians? Yip.
 
Honestly Kharn? Without US intervention the Allies wouldn't have had the manpower to take back Northern Africa. With the British restrained to the Isles and Egypt, the Germans would've had enough men to seize the Volga and take Moscow.
 
I was talking about invasions. Britain holding on to its own country is not a part of an invasion.

And seriously, Russia would've won on the long run. It might've taken longer, and have been tougher, but Russia could've won without the US.

Same goes for the US without Russia, though, in the strictest sense.

"Could've, should've, but didn't"

This is all irrelevant discussion, what is relevant is simlpy that Russia did more than the US to liberate Europe, hence deserves the stamp "liberator of Europe"

*stamps Russia*
 
Kharn said:
This is all irrelevant discussion, what is relevant is simlpy that Russia did more than the US to liberate Europe, hence deserves the stamp "liberator of Europe"

*stamps Russia*
Click to expand...

Heh. Some hero.
 
This is all irrelevant discussion, what is relevant is simlpy that Russia did more than the US to liberate Europe, hence deserves the stamp "liberator of Europe"
Click to expand...
Not really. It was a puzzle, an elaborate network of interworking forces. For instance, if Italy had not fucked up so badly in the Balkans thanks to Greece, Operation Barbarossa would have started several months earlier, basically meaning that by the time winter came the Soviets would have taken a good 2 more years to beat back the Germans. Therby one could just as much call Italy or Greece "liberator of Europe".
The same could be said for the British. If the British had not been involved in Africa, then the Germans would have marched right into Saudi Arabia, and think about stopping them with that kind of Oil...
Also, do not forget that America also faught off the Japanese, who, dispite not being quite so evil as the Germans, where certainly in many areas the harder fight.
 
I thought I said "did more to liberate" not "where most important in" or anything of the like.

Hmm, well, my bad.
 
Well, actually, the Russians did more to liberate, since they sacrificed more. But do you honestly think they gave a damn about Europe? They just wanted to appease their English speaking friends. So I wouldn't call them liberators, they weren't. They were for the most part not liberators, but just really, really, pissed off Commies. Not a good thing to have on your ass. They expanded their borders before the war they had with Germany remember? Into Poland and whatnot. And when did Poland become a state (country)/free again? Was is after the commies fell, or before? And Kharn, I'm guessing your stamping the Russians liberators is just humor, not serious. But you wouldn't be stamping them if there was a war between the two superpowers (US and Russia). Since they would basically have control of most of the world before the war got well on its way.

Edit: The Russians would have to eventually deal with Japan without the U.S. Plus the entire Western Front of Germans would head east and wup some commie ass. The Russians would have lost the battle of Stalingrad if the Germans could have held on for another month or recieved reinforcements. Like from Africa, but those needed troops were fighting America and Britian.
 
I hate to add to this, but I have to agree, saying the Russians liberated Eastern Europe is a little off. True they got rid of the Nazis but they also imposed a series of puppet communist dictatorships and would militarily intervene when these puppets occassionally stepped out of line. Not exactly liberation.

Also I would tend to agree with the argument that the Russians carried the brunt of the fighting in the Second World War. Just by the commitment of the Germans to the Eastern Front, one can see that the Germans were more concerned with the Russians than the West.

That said, one can't discount the US economic power on the war, the fact that the US was fighting on two fronts, and winning, the campaigns in Italy which drew off forces that might have gone East, as well as the campaigns in Africa. While I think the Brits would have won in North Africa even without the US, the reason why it was US troops in Operation Torch was because the Brits weren't sure if the French would shoot at them or not. Then you have the air campaign, battle of the atlantic, including the losses of the England to Russia convoys, it all starts to pile up.

However, I do think that the invasion of the allies on the western front, both Italy and France, did have the effect of keeping those areas out of the hands of the Russians, and it was probably a mistake not to keep going West, although I doubt the Soviets would have tolerated an undivided Germany.
 
Bradylama said:
Ratty said:
Again, silly prejudice caused by stupid movies like "Pearl Harbor". If you honestly believe that Japanese people are inherently violent expansionists, either you don't know a thing about Japanese history or you are a racist. Namely, throughout its history, Japan was so closed to the world that they didn't even start trading with foreign countries until late 19th century. I don't think they even waged any wars outside their territory until 1904, when they attacked the Soviets. After WWI Japan was ruled by a violent militarist regime that had strong expansionist tendencies, and that's why they joined the Axis and started attacking their neighbours. Expansionism and imperialism were official policies of their government at that time, and that doesn't make them any different from most other countries of that era, not even from USA (The States were de iure isolationist, but de facto they sought to spread their territory and influence whenever they had a chance). Claiming that Japanese have "violent personality" is equivalent to calling all Muslims terrorists and all Americans idiots. Just because a regime or a group demonstrates those "qualities", it doesn't mean they apply to an entire nation.
Click to expand...

I said they had a "conqueror" personality, not necessarily a violent one. I am familiar with Japanese history and culture, and I will tell you that the Japanese at the time were extremely nationalistic, and expansionist (thanks in most part to the manipulation of the Black Dragons).

Don't try and call me a racist for stating historical fact. American and Japanese cultures were increadibly different from each other at the time. (Hell, they still are)
Click to expand...
A-HA! I wrote that Japanese waged war on Soviets in 1904, but at that time there was no Soviet Union, so they actually attacked imperial Russia, and you didn't even notice! This shows your lacking knowledge of history! :P J/K
 
Yes and germany would offcourse be able to invade GB rigth?
NO because they did not and never managed to get aerial and naval supperiority in and around GB. And without any of that they would lose.
 
King said:
Well, actually, the Russians did more to liberate, since they sacrificed more. .
Click to expand...

It might be possible that I was being sarcastic. Maybe?

As for the Russian liberation hardly being "liberation". Maybe. Eastern Europe needed direly to be liberated from Russia afterwards, but that's not to downgrade on what the Russians did.

This is kind of pointless, so if you don't mind...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top