Discussion:
bomber crash in Aurora
(too old to reply)
max
2011-06-13 16:27:20 UTC
Permalink
B17 Liberty Belle crashed this morning after takeoff from Aurora
Municipal. No injuries, no fatalities, 7 souls. Very good
piloting, and a testament to the superb Boeing engineering of the 1930s.
Pilot set it down in a bean field, engine out from the early reports.

Bird is almost 100% burned up at this point, probably just the radial
engines left.

Another sad passing, they aren't making any of those magnificent
4-engine radial engined Leviathans any more. They fly over my house
at 500' for a few days every year, echoing over the river valley and i
love the listening.
max
2011-06-13 16:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by max
B17 Liberty Belle crashed this morning after takeoff from Aurora
Municipal. No injuries, no fatalities, 7 souls. Very good
piloting, and a testament to the superb Boeing engineering of the 1930s.
Pilot set it down in a bean field, engine out from the early reports.
Bird is almost 100% burned up at this point, probably just the radial
engines left.
Another sad passing, they aren't making any of those magnificent
4-engine radial engined Leviathans any more. They fly over my house
at 500' for a few days every year, echoing over the river valley and i
love the listening.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Belle_(B-17)>
Brent
2011-06-13 16:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by max
B17 Liberty Belle crashed this morning after takeoff from Aurora
Municipal. No injuries, no fatalities, 7 souls. Very good
piloting, and a testament to the superb Boeing engineering of the 1930s.
Pilot set it down in a bean field, engine out from the early reports.
Bird is almost 100% burned up at this point, probably just the radial
engines left.
Another sad passing, they aren't making any of those magnificent
4-engine radial engined Leviathans any more. They fly over my house
at 500' for a few days every year, echoing over the river valley and i
love the listening.
found a pic... that is as sad seeing the photos of the Kee Bird
(B-29) burning.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/B-17-Bomber-Crashes-in-Suburbs-123748444.html#comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kee_Bird
spamtrap1888
2011-06-13 17:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Post by max
B17 Liberty Belle crashed this morning after takeoff from Aurora
Municipal.    No injuries, no fatalities,  7 souls.   Very good
piloting, and a testament to the superb Boeing engineering of the 1930s.
Pilot set it down in a bean field, engine out from the early reports.
Bird is almost 100% burned up at this point, probably just the radial
engines left.
Another sad passing, they aren't making any of those magnificent
4-engine radial engined Leviathans any more.    They fly over my house
at 500' for a few days every year, echoing over the river valley and i
love the listening.
found a pic... that is as sad seeing the photos of the Kee Bird
(B-29) burning.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/B-17-Bomber-Crashes-in-Suburbs-1...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kee_Bird
If youse guys ever go to Mesa for Flubs spring training, there's a
branch of the Commemorative (nee Confederate) Air Force there, with
the "Sentimental Journey" B-17. When I was there, a dozen years ago,
they were just starting to restore jet aircraft.

http://www.azcaf.org/pages/touring.html

http://www.azcaf.org/pages/touring.html
Mark Anderson
2011-06-13 18:57:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
found a pic... that is as sad seeing the photos of the Kee Bird
(B-29) burning.
Brent waxing reminiscent over the passing of an instrument used to
invoke government oppression and rob the wealth of its citizens.
Classic!
Cydrome Leader
2011-06-13 19:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Anderson
Post by Brent
found a pic... that is as sad seeing the photos of the Kee Bird
(B-29) burning.
Brent waxing reminiscent over the passing of an instrument used to
invoke government oppression and rob the wealth of its citizens.
Classic!
Ha!
core
2011-06-13 22:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Anderson
Post by Brent
found a pic... that is as sad seeing the photos of the Kee Bird
(B-29) burning.
Brent waxing reminiscent over the passing of an instrument used to
invoke government oppression and rob the wealth of its citizens.
Classic!
Shove it up your ass Anderson
Brent
2011-06-13 23:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Post by Mark Anderson
Post by Brent
found a pic... that is as sad seeing the photos of the Kee Bird
(B-29) burning.
Brent waxing reminiscent over the passing of an instrument used to
invoke government oppression and rob the wealth of its citizens.
Classic!
Shove it up your ass Anderson
I forgot to mention, most of these planes that survived the war were
never used in combat. B-17s at the end of the war were delievered brand
new directly to the scrap sale.

The Kee Bird was a reconnaissance plane, delievered near the end of war
and parked until assigned to reconnaissance duty and never dropped any
bombs. The Liberty Bell also never saw combat. It was one of those new
B-17s that went directly to the scrap sale.
Adam H. Kerman
2011-06-14 01:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
I forgot to mention, most of these planes that survived the war were
never used in combat. . . .
That goes without saying. War tends to break shit.
Mr. Kenji
2011-06-14 02:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Brent
I forgot to mention, most of these planes that survived the war were
never used in combat. . . .
That goes without saying. War tends to break shit.
you are a Usenet drone
spamtrap1888
2011-06-14 13:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Post by core
Post by Mark Anderson
Post by Brent
found a pic... that is as sad seeing the photos of the Kee Bird
(B-29) burning.
Brent waxing reminiscent over the passing of an instrument used to
invoke government oppression and rob the wealth of its citizens.  
Classic!
Shove it up your ass Anderson
I forgot to mention, most of these planes that survived the war were
never used in combat. B-17s at the end of the war were delievered brand
new directly to the scrap sale.
The Kee Bird was a reconnaissance plane, delievered near the end of war
and parked until assigned to reconnaissance duty and never dropped any
bombs. The Liberty Bell also never saw combat. It was one of those new
B-17s that went directly to the scrap sale.
Fascinating. The B-17 in Arizona likewise, apparently, never dropped a
bomb in anger. Converted to a photo recon plane, and then civilianized
to fight forest fires in California, remilitarizing the plane took
immense effort, including rehabbing a B-17 shell atop a gas station in
Milwaukie, Oregon, in exchange for its top turret.

http://azcaf.org/pages/sentjourn.html
Brent
2011-06-13 23:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Anderson
Post by Brent
found a pic... that is as sad seeing the photos of the Kee Bird
(B-29) burning.
Brent waxing reminiscent over the passing of an instrument used to
invoke government oppression and rob the wealth of its citizens.
Classic!
Anderson is essentially using a gun control argument, that it is the
machine, the tool, that is evil, not the people who use it. This is not
unusual for someone who, in his heart loves the state. The same logic
could be used for things as mundane as hammers, garden tools, and
toilets.

It is indeed sad that so much of the finest engineering of mankind has
been squandered on war but that does not make the machines inherently
evil. It does not make aircraft such as these any less works of
art. Today these still flying 1930s and 1940s aircraft are privately
owned having been sold off by the government long ago. They will never
be used by a government to hurt anyone again.
core
2011-06-14 02:43:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:47:46 +0000 (UTC), Brent
Post by Brent
Post by Mark Anderson
Post by Brent
found a pic... that is as sad seeing the photos of the Kee Bird
(B-29) burning.
Brent waxing reminiscent over the passing of an instrument used to
invoke government oppression and rob the wealth of its citizens.
Classic!
Anderson is essentially using a gun control argument, that it is the
machine, the tool, that is evil, not the people who use it. This is not
unusual for someone who, in his heart loves the state. The same logic
could be used for things as mundane as hammers, garden tools, and
toilets.
It is indeed sad that so much of the finest engineering of mankind has
been squandered on war but that does not make the machines inherently
evil. It does not make aircraft such as these any less works of
art. Today these still flying 1930s and 1940s aircraft are privately
owned having been sold off by the government long ago. They will never
be used by a government to hurt anyone again.
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Adam H. Kerman
2011-06-14 03:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!

Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.

What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.

We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
Brent
2011-06-14 04:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
first sensible thing I've seen from you in quite some time...

"War is a Racket"
core
2011-06-14 13:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Geoff Gass
2011-06-14 13:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
he said WWI, not WWII
core
2011-06-14 21:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Gass
Post by core
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
he said WWI, not WWII
Yep. Off the subject, which was WWII.
Adam H. Kerman
2011-06-18 05:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Post by Geoff Gass
Post by core
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck
themselves instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much
their fault as it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
he said WWI, not WWII
Yep. Off the subject, which was WWII.
You're better than this.
smr
2011-06-14 14:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?

All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.

The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
--
smr
spamtrap1888
2011-06-14 16:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ?  Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
smr
2011-06-14 17:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by core
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
You're a fucking retard, Dix. Never change, you decrepit piece of horrid
shit.
--
smr
spamtrap1888
2011-06-14 18:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ?  Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
You're a fucking retard, Dix. Never change, you decrepit piece of horrid
shit.
If you believe in giving grades based on effort, not results, I can't
persuade you otherwise.
smr
2011-06-14 19:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by core
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
You're a fucking retard, Dix. Never change, you decrepit piece of horrid
shit.
If you believe in giving grades based on effort, not results, I can't
persuade you otherwise.
Wars are won when you crush the opposing army and induce the government
to surrender. I realize you're of the Greatest Generation's age and
therefore have had your cock gargled by Tom Brokaw and his ilk for so
long that you fucktasters think you're responsible for inventing gravity
at this point, but, seriously... the Western Front, much less the
Italian or African fronts = sideshows. Nobody with a lick of goddamned
understanding of World War II argues otherwise.
--
smr
spamtrap1888
2011-06-14 21:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ?  Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
You're a fucking retard, Dix. Never change, you decrepit piece of horrid
shit.
If you believe in giving grades based on effort, not results, I can't
persuade you otherwise.
Wars are won when you crush the opposing army and induce the government
to surrender. I realize you're of the Greatest Generation's age and
therefore have had your cock gargled by Tom Brokaw and his ilk for so
long that you fucktasters think you're responsible for inventing gravity
at this point, but, seriously... the Western Front, much less the
Italian or African fronts = sideshows. Nobody with a lick of goddamned
understanding of World War II argues otherwise.
My mother's relatives who proudly showed me their scars had all been
wounded by Americans. After being hit by a .50 caliber round, my
cousin Leo was impressed that an American would donate his own blood
to try to keep him alive. He claimed that he had never been the same
person since, after having a black man's blood flowing in his veins.

In contrast, my mom's uncle survived four years on the Eastern Front,
without a scratch on him. After the ceasefire, he started walking
home, and would have made it, too, until Czech partisans picked him up
in Bratislava and turned him over to the Soviets. They sent him and
other captured soldiers to a GUPVI forced labor camp in Kazakhstan,
where he survived the next three years. So from my family's
experience, Soviets are good at running slave labor camps, but not
such good marksmen.

GUPVI, from wikip:
The Main Administration for Affairs of Prisoners of War and Internees
(Russian: Главное управление по делам военнопленных и интернированных
НКВД/МВД СССР, ГУПВИ, GUPVI) was a department of NKVD (later MVD) in
charge of handling of foreign civilian internees and POW in the Soviet
Union during and in the aftermath of the World War II (1939-1953).

It was established within NKVD under the name "Administration for
Affairs of Prisoners of War and Internees (UPVI) in September 1939
after the Soviet invasion of Poland. The qualifier "main" was added in
January 1945.

The legal foundation was the Sovnarkom Decree of July 1, 1941
"Regulations about Prisoners of War" ("Положение о военнопленных"),
which was updated by the September 29, 1945 "Regulations about the
Labor Use of Prisoners of War" (Положение о трудовом использовании
военнопленных).[1]

In many ways the GUPVI system was similar to GULAG.[2] Its major
function was the organization of foreign forced labor in the Soviet
Union. The top management of GUPVI came from GULAG system. The major
noted distinction from GULAG was the absence of convicted criminals in
the GUPVI camps. Otherwise the conditions in both camp systems were
similar: hard labor, poor nutrition and living conditions, high
mortality rate.[3]
smr
2011-06-14 21:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by core
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
You're a fucking retard, Dix. Never change, you decrepit piece of horrid
shit.
If you believe in giving grades based on effort, not results, I can't
persuade you otherwise.
Wars are won when you crush the opposing army and induce the government
to surrender. I realize you're of the Greatest Generation's age and
therefore have had your cock gargled by Tom Brokaw and his ilk for so
long that you fucktasters think you're responsible for inventing gravity
at this point, but, seriously... the Western Front, much less the
Italian or African fronts = sideshows. Nobody with a lick of goddamned
understanding of World War II argues otherwise.
My mother's relatives who proudly showed me their scars had all been
wounded by Americans. After being hit by a .50 caliber round, my
cousin Leo was impressed that an American would donate his own blood
to try to keep him alive. He claimed that he had never been the same
person since, after having a black man's blood flowing in his veins.
In contrast, my mom's uncle survived four years on the Eastern Front,
without a scratch on him. After the ceasefire, he started walking
home, and would have made it, too, until Czech partisans picked him up
in Bratislava and turned him over to the Soviets. They sent him and
other captured soldiers to a GUPVI forced labor camp in Kazakhstan,
where he survived the next three years. So from my family's
experience, Soviets are good at running slave labor camps, but not
such good marksmen.
What is the point of all this drivel? The original argument had fuckall
to do with the relative merits of Western Democracy vs. Stalinist
Communism. I responded, simply, to core's moronic assertion that, had
the United States not gotten involved in the European Theater of World
War II, that we'd all be speaking German right now and would have the
Gestapo ripping our assholes out of our eye sockets if we didn't display
enough posters of the Fuhrer... or something. People his age get
reflexively defensive if someone fails to show enough appreciation of
the fact that WWII was a) A Good War and b) won solely through good ol'
American force of arms.

a), of course, is debatable. b) is horseshit.

Your points regarding your family's personal experience with the Western
Allies vs. the Soviets is, like all anecdotes, fucking goddamned
irrelevant to the argument at hand.
--
smr
Jean
2011-06-14 22:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:59:52 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of
Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the
Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck
themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what
part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
You're a fucking retard, Dix. Never change, you decrepit piece of horrid
shit.
If you believe in giving grades based on effort, not results, I can't
persuade you otherwise.
Wars are won when you crush the opposing army and induce the government
to surrender. I realize you're of the Greatest Generation's age and
therefore have had your cock gargled by Tom Brokaw and his ilk for so
long that you fucktasters think you're responsible for inventing gravity
at this point, but, seriously... the Western Front, much less the
Italian or African fronts = sideshows. Nobody with a lick of goddamned
understanding of World War II argues otherwise.
My mother's relatives who proudly showed me their scars had all been
wounded by Americans. After being hit by a .50 caliber round, my
cousin Leo was impressed that an American would donate his own blood
to try to keep him alive. He claimed that he had never been the same
person since, after having a black man's blood flowing in his veins.
In contrast, my mom's uncle survived four years on the Eastern Front,
without a scratch on him. After the ceasefire, he started walking
home, and would have made it, too, until Czech partisans picked him up
in Bratislava and turned him over to the Soviets. They sent him and
other captured soldiers to a GUPVI forced labor camp in Kazakhstan,
where he survived the next three years. So from my family's
experience, Soviets are good at running slave labor camps, but not
such good marksmen.
What is the point of all this drivel? The original argument had fuckall
to do with the relative merits of Western Democracy vs. Stalinist
Communism. I responded, simply, to core's moronic assertion that, had
the United States not gotten involved in the European Theater of World
War II, that we'd all be speaking German right now and would have the
Gestapo ripping our assholes out of our eye sockets if we didn't display
enough posters of the Fuhrer... or something. People his age get
reflexively defensive if someone fails to show enough appreciation of
the fact that WWII was a) A Good War and b) won solely through good ol'
American force of arms.
a), of course, is debatable. b) is horseshit.
Your points regarding your family's personal experience with the Western
Allies vs. the Soviets is, like all anecdotes, fucking goddamned
irrelevant to the argument at hand.
The original post was about a crash of a 67 year old plane.
--
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/02/16/you-might-be-a-teabagger-if%E2%80%A6/
Fighting Segregation 50 years http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/
WWJD? http://www.journalscape.com/Matthew/2011-05-08-15:01/
Elections http://www.miseryindex.us/URbymonth.asp
Cydrome Leader
2011-06-14 17:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? ?Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
How do you get "liberated" into soviet communist bullshit?
spamtrap1888
2011-06-14 18:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cydrome Leader
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? ?Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
How do you get "liberated" into soviet communist bullshit?
Western democracy was a side show compared to Stalinism -- didn't we
just learn that from smr?
smr
2011-06-14 19:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by Cydrome Leader
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? ?Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
How do you get "liberated" into soviet communist bullshit?
Western democracy was a side show compared to Stalinism -- didn't we
just learn that from smr?
Today's Thread is Called "Why Can't Dix Read".

I said no such thing and you know it, you lying bag of atrophied shit.
--
smr
spamtrap1888
2011-06-14 20:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by Cydrome Leader
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? ?Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
How do you get "liberated" into soviet communist bullshit?
Western democracy was a side show compared to Stalinism -- didn't we
just learn that from smr?
Today's Thread is Called "Why Can't Dix Read".
I said no such thing and you know it, you lying bag of atrophied shit.
We coulda stayed home and just let the Commies work their magic --
isn't that what you said?
smr
2011-06-14 20:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by Cydrome Leader
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? ?Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
How do you get "liberated" into soviet communist bullshit?
Western democracy was a side show compared to Stalinism -- didn't we
just learn that from smr?
Today's Thread is Called "Why Can't Dix Read".
I said no such thing and you know it, you lying bag of atrophied shit.
We coulda stayed home and just let the Commies work their magic --
isn't that what you said?
To accomplish the military defeat of the Third Reich? Yep.
--
smr
barbie gee
2011-06-14 21:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cydrome Leader
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? ?Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
How do you get "liberated" into soviet communist bullshit?
Unless he was being sarcastic and we didn't notice it, the use of the term
"liberated" really is fairly provacative, all things considered. And, any
Pole, or "American of Polish descent" would definitely take exception to
the term "liberation" being used in even a vaguely positive way, I'm
thinking.
Brent
2011-06-14 21:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by barbie gee
Post by Cydrome Leader
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? ?Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
How do you get "liberated" into soviet communist bullshit?
Unless he was being sarcastic and we didn't notice it, the use of the term
"liberated" really is fairly provacative, all things considered. And, any
Pole, or "American of Polish descent" would definitely take exception to
the term "liberation" being used in even a vaguely positive way, I'm
thinking.
It's a good use considering how the US federal government has been
"libertating" nations into "democracy" lately.
spamtrap1888
2011-06-14 22:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by barbie gee
Post by Cydrome Leader
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? ?Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
Yes, the Western Allies merely swept over France, Belgium, Nederland,
Italy, and two-thirds of Germany and Austria, while the Soviets
liberated Poland, Czechoslovakia, and one-third of Germany and
Austria. Obviously the ratio of accomplishment was 10:90, not 67:33.
How do you get "liberated" into soviet communist bullshit?
Unless he was being sarcastic and we didn't notice it, the use of the term
"liberated" really is fairly provacative, all things considered.  And, any
Pole, or "American of Polish descent" would definitely take exception to
the term "liberation" being used in even a vaguely positive way, I'm
thinking.
Is smr trying to hide his polak roots by exalting the power of the
Russian Bear?
smr
2011-06-14 22:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by spamtrap1888
Is smr trying to hide his polak roots by exalting the power of the
Russian Bear?
Why would I try to DENY the power of the Russian bear, given that quite
a few members of my family sat under its thumb for fifty fucking years,
you nitwit?

Are you denying that the Red Army was a formidable fighting force in
1945? You're a grade A fucking moron if you think that.

For all that... half the family stayed there, helped run the place after
the war and fell out of touch with the Mexican-then-American branch 'til
the late 90's anyways.

What's your next target-shifting, irrelevant move of the argument to
some other topic you'll miserably fail to make a point at or defend at
any level?
--
smr
core
2011-06-14 21:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by core
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
Huh? The bombing of London was a myth?

Had Germany won the war, it wouldn't have taken long before they were here.
Post by smr
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The soviets didn't have the engineering talent the germans had. It's a tossup
whether they could have beaten down the germans, given the resource advantage
they would have gained, winning.

Thankfully, we'll never know.
Post by smr
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
I dont' think so.
Brent
2011-06-14 21:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Had Germany won the war, it wouldn't have taken long before they were here.
Aproximately never since Hitler didn't really have any plans beyond
bettering Napoleon Bonaparte in ruling europe.
spamtrap1888
2011-06-14 22:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ?  Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
Huh? The bombing of London was a myth?
Had Germany won the war, it wouldn't have taken long before they were here.
Post by smr
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The soviets didn't have the engineering talent the germans had. It's a tossup
whether they could have beaten down the germans, given the resource advantage
they would have gained, winning.
What the Soviets had was several US built and equipped automotive
factories. GAZ and ZIS (later ZIL) copies of the US Army's 2-1/2 ton
truck and the Studebaker 6x6 remained in production until the late
1960s.
Post by core
Thankfully, we'll never know.
Post by smr
The entire effort of the Western Allies in WWII was a sideshow; the
Russkies get about 90% of the credit for winning that one.
I dont' think so.
Why does smr dig this revisionist thinking? Polaks traditionally were
suspicious of Russian bullshit.
smr
2011-06-14 22:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by spamtrap1888
What the Soviets had was several US built and equipped automotive
factories. GAZ and ZIS (later ZIL) copies of the US Army's 2-1/2 ton
truck and the Studebaker 6x6 remained in production until the late
1960s.
Our aid to the Russians helped them massively, sure. But... having
trucks doesn't stop an invading army. Having millions of troops to die
after being driven to the front in those trucks, does. The German
military suffered ~2.8 million KIA in WWII; 2.5 million of those
occurred on the Eastern Front.

Wanna give America and Britain all the credit for beating Germany in
light of that? If you do, you're a jingoistic, flag-huping,
overly-patriotic fool and should be ignored as such.
Post by spamtrap1888
Why does smr dig this revisionist thinking? Polaks traditionally were
suspicious of Russian bullshit.
That the Soviet Union carried the majority burden of militarily
defeating the Soviet Union is simply acknowledging historical reality,
shithead. They lost 8-10 million soldiers fighting the Germans, not even
counting the civvies. The United States lost 291k dead in ALL theaters
throughout the war.

The Soviets brought a lot of that shit on themselves, but they also paid
the price for it at a much higher rate than the Western Allies.
--
smr
spamtrap1888
2011-06-14 23:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by spamtrap1888
What the Soviets had was several US built and equipped automotive
factories. GAZ and ZIS (later ZIL) copies of the US Army's 2-1/2 ton
truck and the Studebaker 6x6 remained in production until the late
1960s.
Our aid to the Russians helped them massively, sure. But... having
trucks doesn't stop an invading army. Having millions of troops to die
after being driven to the front in those trucks, does. The German
military suffered ~2.8 million KIA in WWII; 2.5 million of those
occurred on the Eastern Front.
Try 4.5 million German KIA. If 2.5 million died on the Eastern Front,
that's 55% of the total.
Post by smr
Wanna give America and Britain all the credit for beating Germany in
light of that? If you do, you're a jingoistic, flag-huping,
overly-patriotic fool and should be ignored as such.
It's the 10%/90% ratio you proudly proclaimed. Reducing the western
Allies' effort to a side show.
Post by smr
Post by spamtrap1888
Why does smr dig this revisionist thinking? Polaks traditionally were
suspicious of Russian bullshit.
That the Soviet Union carried the majority burden of militarily
defeating the Soviet Union is simply acknowledging historical reality,
shithead. They lost 8-10 million soldiers fighting the Germans, not even
counting the civvies. The United States lost 291k dead in ALL theaters
throughout the war.
Taking massive casualties -- 4 Soviets for every German -- is not a
sign of military skill. The US didn't take casualties like that
outside of the Civil War, which -- guess what -- occurred on our soil.
Post by smr
The Soviets brought a lot of that shit on themselves, but they also paid
the price for it at a much higher rate than the Western Allies.
Sucks when you try to bring a feudal society into the Industrial Age.
smr
2011-06-15 00:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by spamtrap1888
Try 4.5 million German KIA. If 2.5 million died on the Eastern Front,
that's 55% of the total.
Where are you getting that asinine figure from? I'm checking the various
resources I have at hand and the HIGHEST estimate I can get is 4ish, and
that's including military personnel dying due to disease AND the
estimated 1 million MIA.

I'm going with the conservative estimates, based on registered KIAs.
Post by spamtrap1888
It's the 10%/90% ratio you proudly proclaimed. Reducing the western
Allies' effort to a side show.
There's no ratio I can find from any source that would count put it less
than 75% of German dead occurring on the Eastern front, and most put it
higher. So I tossed in a few percent just to piss you off.

Not to even mention that your average Eastern Front troop was WAY the
fuck better trained and had much more experience than the schlubs they
had parked and waiting for the Allies.

The cream AND the bulk of the German military died at Soviet hands,
period. And western intervention did little to change that. So the war
ends in '46 or '47 with a completely Communist Europe instead of divided
up in '45. Either way, Germany loses.
Post by spamtrap1888
Taking massive casualties -- 4 Soviets for every German -- is not a
sign of military skill. The US didn't take casualties like that
outside of the Civil War, which -- guess what -- occurred on our soil.
It's not a sign of military skill, but it IS a sign of who did the most
damage and took the most damage. Neither the Red nor the US armies were
particularly skillful, particularly in the early goings... find me a
credible military historian ANYWHERE who would argue that, man for man,
the Germans weren't head and shoulders above all other armies.

Which would tie into my point that neither military skill nor
engineering excellence mattered overmuch in the end result of WWII;
sheer logistical weight did, and the US and USSR were king shits of
that. We displayed most of our skills in that regard in the Pacific.
Post by spamtrap1888
Sucks when you try to bring a feudal society into the Industrial Age.
WWII was much more the fault of the United States, Great Britain and
France than it was of the Soviet Union.
--
smr
Mr. Kenji
2011-06-15 01:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
I can find from any source that would count put it less
than 75% of German
oh boy!

military!
Adam H. Kerman
2011-06-18 05:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
That the Soviet Union carried the majority burden of militarily
defeating the Soviet Union is simply acknowledging historical reality,
shithead. They lost 8-10 million soldiers fighting the Germans, not even
counting the civvies. . . .
. . . which still made it safer to be a soldier fighting on the front
lines than to be a civilian waiting for Stalin's next purge.
smr
2011-06-18 18:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by smr
That the Soviet Union carried the majority burden of militarily
defeating the Soviet Union is simply acknowledging historical reality,
shithead. They lost 8-10 million soldiers fighting the Germans, not even
counting the civvies. . . .
. . . which still made it safer to be a soldier fighting on the front
lines than to be a civilian waiting for Stalin's next purge.
Gotta love a guy who orders a census taken, and when the results show
that Russia's missing some 8 million people, has the census destroyed
and the census-takers shot.
--
smr
barbie gee
2011-06-19 03:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by smr
That the Soviet Union carried the majority burden of militarily
defeating the Soviet Union is simply acknowledging historical reality,
shithead. They lost 8-10 million soldiers fighting the Germans, not even
counting the civvies. . . .
. . . which still made it safer to be a soldier fighting on the front
lines than to be a civilian waiting for Stalin's next purge.
Gotta love a guy who orders a census taken, and when the results show
that Russia's missing some 8 million people, has the census destroyed
and the census-takers shot.
oh yeah, that Stalin sure was a character, huh?
smr
2011-06-19 18:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by barbie gee
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by smr
That the Soviet Union carried the majority burden of militarily
defeating the Soviet Union is simply acknowledging historical reality,
shithead. They lost 8-10 million soldiers fighting the Germans, not even
counting the civvies. . . .
. . . which still made it safer to be a soldier fighting on the front
lines than to be a civilian waiting for Stalin's next purge.
Gotta love a guy who orders a census taken, and when the results show
that Russia's missing some 8 million people, has the census destroyed
and the census-takers shot.
oh yeah, that Stalin sure was a character, huh?
I've probably read more words on him than on any other human being. He's
fucking fascinating.
--
smr
Adam H. Kerman
2011-06-19 19:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by barbie gee
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by smr
That the Soviet Union carried the majority burden of militarily
defeating the Soviet Union is simply acknowledging historical reality,
shithead. They lost 8-10 million soldiers fighting the Germans,
not even counting the civvies. . . .
. . . which still made it safer to be a soldier fighting on the front
lines than to be a civilian waiting for Stalin's next purge.
Gotta love a guy who orders a census taken, and when the results show
that Russia's missing some 8 million people, has the census destroyed
and the census-takers shot.
oh yeah, that Stalin sure was a character, huh?
I've probably read more words on him than on any other human being. He's
fucking fascinating.
Take all the evil perpetrated by humanity up to the point at which he
took power, double it, and he still killed more people.
smr
2011-06-19 19:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by smr
Post by barbie gee
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by smr
That the Soviet Union carried the majority burden of militarily
defeating the Soviet Union is simply acknowledging historical reality,
shithead. They lost 8-10 million soldiers fighting the Germans,
not even counting the civvies. . . .
. . . which still made it safer to be a soldier fighting on the front
lines than to be a civilian waiting for Stalin's next purge.
Gotta love a guy who orders a census taken, and when the results show
that Russia's missing some 8 million people, has the census destroyed
and the census-takers shot.
oh yeah, that Stalin sure was a character, huh?
I've probably read more words on him than on any other human being. He's
fucking fascinating.
Take all the evil perpetrated by humanity up to the point at which he
took power, double it, and he still killed more people.
I think that's a bit much. The Thirty Year's War would argue with you on
that. Shit, for sheer numbers, he's not even the class leader, Mao is.
--
smr
Adam H. Kerman
2011-06-19 21:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by smr
Post by barbie gee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by smr
That the Soviet Union carried the majority burden of militarily
defeating the Soviet Union is simply acknowledging historical reality,
shithead. They lost 8-10 million soldiers fighting the Germans,
not even counting the civvies. . . .
. . . which still made it safer to be a soldier fighting on the front
lines than to be a civilian waiting for Stalin's next purge.
Gotta love a guy who orders a census taken, and when the results sow
that Russia's missing some 8 million people, has the census destroyed
and the census-takers shot.
oh yeah, that Stalin sure was a character, huh?
I've probably read more words on him than on any other human being. He's
fucking fascinating.
Take all the evil perpetrated by humanity up to the point at which he
took power, double it, and he still killed more people.
I think that's a bit much. The Thirty Year's War would argue with you on
that. Shit, for sheer numbers, he's not even the class leader, Mao is.
With the example of the Thirty Years' War, I have no idea why Europe
fears Islamic terrorism. Europe would be much safer without Christians
slaughtering each other for religious reasons.

With a quick on line search, I find a lot of sources citing
7 1/2 million, with a source as low as 3 or 4 million. I don't buy the
high source of 11 1/2 million.

What source do you know of that's anywhere close to Mao or Stalin type
genocide?

I found some sources with Mao up to 20 million starving to death. There
are others that have Mao up to 40. I was thinking 10, but I do know
historians have learned a lot more about the disastrous period in
recent years.

Sources for Stalin still have a wide range. I kind of thought everyone
had settled on 60, but it seems not.

10s of millions here, 10s of millions there, pretty soon, you're talking
about a real genocide.
smr
2011-06-20 16:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
With the example of the Thirty Years' War, I have no idea why Europe
fears Islamic terrorism. Europe would be much safer without Christians
slaughtering each other for religious reasons.
Well, you're missing the, to me, rather obvious point that Christians
have essentially stopped slaughtering each other for quite some time
now, at least over actual religious reasons.

Europe is essentially post-Christian at this point, and I wish they'd
let their disdain for their own historical faith extend to disdain for
the faith of the very foreign tribes that are settling throughout her
lands intent on fucking shit up greatly.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
With a quick on line search, I find a lot of sources citing
7 1/2 million, with a source as low as 3 or 4 million. I don't buy the
high source of 11 1/2 million.
Hm; misread the math on my end. Still... shattering event for all of
Europe, not just Russia.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What source do you know of that's anywhere close to Mao or Stalin type
genocide?
I found some sources with Mao up to 20 million starving to death. There
are others that have Mao up to 40. I was thinking 10, but I do know
historians have learned a lot more about the disastrous period in
recent years.
Sources for Stalin still have a wide range. I kind of thought everyone
had settled on 60, but it seems not.
10s of millions here, 10s of millions there, pretty soon, you're talking
about a real genocide.
The latest and, to my reading, least-biased sources put Mao up around 35
and Stalin around 20ish, though I guess it's a horse race. I lean
towards Mao winning just because of the much more abysmal
records-keeping and the absolutely larger pile of victims he had to work
with. I'm sure an awful lot of peasantry went to their demise without
being noted anywhere, whereas the Soviets kept a lot of awfully-detailed
records (it's just finding them that's the problem at this point).
--
smr
Adam H. Kerman
2011-06-20 16:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
With the example of the Thirty Years' War, I have no idea why Europe
fears Islamic terrorism. Europe would be much safer without Christians
slaughtering each other for religious reasons.
Well, you're missing the, to me, rather obvious point that Christians
have essentially stopped slaughtering each other for quite some time
now, at least over actual religious reasons.
Europe is essentially post-Christian at this point, and I wish they'd
let their disdain for their own historical faith extend to disdain for
the faith of the very foreign tribes that are settling throughout her
lands intent on fucking shit up greatly.
Europeans of late stopped slaughtering each other for being the wrong
kind of Christian, perhaps, but they were slaughtering each other until
recently. Then, Europe couldn't be too quiet, so they decided to encourage
the breakup of Yugoslavia to replay WWI.
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
With a quick on line search, I find a lot of sources citing
7 1/2 million, with a source as low as 3 or 4 million. I don't buy the
high source of 11 1/2 million.
Hm; misread the math on my end. Still... shattering event for all of
Europe, not just Russia.
I didn't check what share of population that represented, but it would
have been frighteningly high.
smr
2011-06-20 16:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Europeans of late stopped slaughtering each other for being the wrong
kind of Christian, perhaps, but they were slaughtering each other until
recently. Then, Europe couldn't be too quiet, so they decided to encourage
the breakup of Yugoslavia to replay WWI.
Best description of the Yugo Civil Wars I heard was "guys with the same
ancestry for millennia slaughtering their neighbors for not going to
church to not worship the same God they didn't believe in".
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I didn't check what share of population that represented, but it would
have been frighteningly high.
Europe as a whole lost 15% population due to that war, with "Germany"
(at the time meaning everything from Denmark down to the Italian border
west into Flanders and Alsace and east to the Vistula" proper losing
like 30%.

Largest war-only death cycle Europe ever suffered. Black Death and the
Fall of Rome (which didn't really happen due to war) are still the
leading % decrease record holders.
--
smr
Brent
2011-06-14 23:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by spamtrap1888
What the Soviets had was several US built and equipped automotive
factories. GAZ and ZIS (later ZIL) copies of the US Army's 2-1/2 ton
truck and the Studebaker 6x6 remained in production until the late
1960s.
The soviets did keep a couple B-29s that landed in their territory. The
result was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4 Although the
war was over before they were ready.
smr
2011-06-14 22:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Huh? The bombing of London was a myth?
You were talking about "us speaking German". To do that, at some point,
the British Isles are getting invaded. I don't recall those German
bombers dropping troops, they lost the Battle of Britain, and by no
means had the navy to clear out the Royal Navy from the Channel.

WWII also proved quite heartily that no level of bombing short of
nuclear can induce a nation to surrender without the credible threat of
boots on the ground as well. Germany bombed the piss out of London, as
you note, and, if anything, it simply made the English resolve stronger.
We scorched every fuckin' inch of Japan to the ground and it wasn't
until we started igniting goddamned suns over their cities and proved
that we could take any island we wanted with actual soldiers (not to
mention a coup attempt that almost succeeded in keeping them in the war)
that they saw reason and gave up (note: massive Soviet invasion of
Manchuria and South Sakhalin also helped here, but I'm still giving the
US 97% of the credit for Japan's defeat).

Fuck, Germany was a pile of ash long before either the Red Army or the
Western armies were within their pre-war borders; we still had to grind
our way across the entire fucking country before they surrendered.

So... tell me again how England's surrender (of just the Home Islands,
mind you, since London falling would still mean fuckall to Ottawa or
Melbourne or Christchurch...) occurs, given this.
Post by core
Had Germany won the war, it wouldn't have taken long before they were here.
The Germany that had no bombers capable of reaching American shores at
any point during the war, nor a carrier to get fighters close enough?
That Germany was going to invade us shortly after knocking Britain out?

I know your entire sense of self-worth is wrapped up in America having
"helped Britain smash the Krauts", but a) that's not true and b) we lost
the fucking peace entirely and immediately anyway at Yalta so who gives
a fuck anyways?
Post by core
The soviets didn't have the engineering talent the germans had. It's a tossup
whether they could have beaten down the germans, given the resource advantage
they would have gained, winning.
But... they did have the production talent. Which the Germans did not.
Remember how much good their awesomely engineered Me-262 fighter jets
and unstoppable King Tiger tanks did them?

None. Stalin was on to something when he remarked that "Quantity has a
quality all its own". Hell, if Engineering mattered that much, WE
would've lost the war because the Sherman was a complete piece of shit
until the last variants near the end of the war, but being able to toss
100 fully-fueled pieces of shit at the one Tiger the Germans could get
to a battlefield and provide with a quarter tank of petrol did the trick.
Post by core
I dont' think so.
Not the first time you'd be wrong around here.
--
smr
Brent
2011-06-14 23:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
But... they did have the production talent. Which the Germans did not.
Remember how much good their awesomely engineered Me-262 fighter jets
and unstoppable King Tiger tanks did them?
None. Stalin was on to something when he remarked that "Quantity has a
quality all its own". Hell, if Engineering mattered that much, WE
would've lost the war because the Sherman was a complete piece of shit
until the last variants near the end of the war, but being able to toss
100 fully-fueled pieces of shit at the one Tiger the Germans could get
to a battlefield and provide with a quarter tank of petrol did the trick.
Germany's problem was that it's factories were bombed. The Russians
actually moved entire factories east as the Nazis advanced as I recall.
Soviet and US war production was simply outside the range of Nazi
Germany's bombers. They could never win. Defeat (sooner or later) was
certain on this fact alone.
smr
2011-06-15 00:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Post by smr
But... they did have the production talent. Which the Germans did not.
Remember how much good their awesomely engineered Me-262 fighter jets
and unstoppable King Tiger tanks did them?
None. Stalin was on to something when he remarked that "Quantity has a
quality all its own". Hell, if Engineering mattered that much, WE
would've lost the war because the Sherman was a complete piece of shit
until the last variants near the end of the war, but being able to toss
100 fully-fueled pieces of shit at the one Tiger the Germans could get
to a battlefield and provide with a quarter tank of petrol did the trick.
Germany's problem was that it's factories were bombed. The Russians
actually moved entire factories east as the Nazis advanced as I recall.
Soviet and US war production was simply outside the range of Nazi
Germany's bombers. They could never win. Defeat (sooner or later) was
certain on this fact alone.
Wrong as usual, Brent. German armament production _peaked_ in late 1944
during the height of the bombing campaign and did not tail off until
their actual territory was threatened by land armies.

They made more tanks, artillery, rifles of all sorts and planes in 1944
than in any year prior to that.

The precision needed to thoroughly wreck even a large factory compound
on the ground from the air simply did not exist at any point during
World War II. The Soviets moved their shit East because they couldn't
hold the _land_ that those factories were built on, not because the
Germans were degrading them from the skies.

The Soviets holding onto the Caucasian oil fields and then taking the
Romanian sources was the single largest impact on their war effort from
a resources standpoint and that, too, did not really tell until late in
'44 and then into '45.

They had all the equipment in the world until the very end, they just
couldn't fuel it much past fall/winter '44.

Try again, scout.
--
smr
Brent
2011-06-15 02:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
But... they did have the production talent. Which the Germans did not.
Remember how much good their awesomely engineered Me-262 fighter jets
and unstoppable King Tiger tanks did them?
None. Stalin was on to something when he remarked that "Quantity has a
quality all its own". Hell, if Engineering mattered that much, WE
would've lost the war because the Sherman was a complete piece of shit
until the last variants near the end of the war, but being able to toss
100 fully-fueled pieces of shit at the one Tiger the Germans could get
to a battlefield and provide with a quarter tank of petrol did the trick.
Germany's problem was that it's factories were bombed. The Russians
actually moved entire factories east as the Nazis advanced as I recall.
Soviet and US war production was simply outside the range of Nazi
Germany's bombers. They could never win. Defeat (sooner or later) was
certain on this fact alone.
Wrong as usual, Brent. German armament production _peaked_ in late 1944
during the height of the bombing campaign and did not tail off until
their actual territory was threatened by land armies.
How Aiden like of you. I write one thing and then you come back and say
I'm wrong about something entirely different that you imagined I made a
claim about. I didn't state a damn thing about a "production peak". I
stated their problem was factories getting bombed while factories in
the USA (and some in the soviet union were not). Are you going to claim
that their factories weren't getting bombed or that the factories in the
USA were? Because that's the only way I'm "wrong" here. To be "wrong" it
actually has to be something I WROTE. Not something you imagined I
wrote.
Post by smr
They made more tanks, artillery, rifles of all sorts and planes in 1944
than in any year prior to that.
Which doesn't mean jack shit when their factories are being bombed while
the USA is hitting new production peaks itself which are way higher.
You're telling me I am wrong when I compare Germany to the USA and
your so called "proof" is comparing Germany to Germany. Production in
Germany was going to be outdone by production in the USA. Name one US
production set back due to the bombing of an industrial city. Just one.
Post by smr
The precision needed to thoroughly wreck even a large factory compound
on the ground from the air simply did not exist at any point during
World War II.
Bullshit. Conventional bombing ruined entire cities. Have you ever been
to German city that was bombed flat? It's very odd to be in a very old
city and notice there practically isn't anything standing older than the
late 1940s.
Post by smr
The Soviets moved their shit East because they couldn't
hold the _land_ that those factories were built on, not because the
Germans were degrading them from the skies.
Again, how Aiden of you. I write "The Russians actually moved entire
factories east as the Nazis advanced" and then you write the above,
which means the exact same thing, but somehow I'm wrong.
Post by smr
The Soviets holding onto the Caucasian oil fields and then taking the
Romanian sources was the single largest impact on their war effort from
a resources standpoint and that, too, did not really tell until late in
'44 and then into '45.
They had all the equipment in the world until the very end, they just
couldn't fuel it much past fall/winter '44.
Try again, scout.
Aiden, they were not matching US production, not by any means and the
complexity/quality of the tanks, planes, etc was barely a contributing
factor. Their production facilities were being bombed. They were short
of energy, materials, etc and so forth. New factories were being built
UNDERGROUND. Don't you think that's just a wee bit slow and expensive
compared to what could be done in say detroit? Ever hear of Nordhausen
or Ebensee or Mühldorf? Don't go telling me factories being bombed was
a non-issue. That's the point of much of the bombing.
smr
2011-06-15 14:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Brent wrote:

*snip Brent being his usual bitch of a self*

Whatever, Brent. Sure, the bombing of Germany's factories is what won
the war. Okay.
--
smr
Brent
2011-06-15 20:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
*snip Brent being his usual bitch of a self*
Whatever, Brent. Sure, the bombing of Germany's factories is what won
the war. Okay.
Going Aiden again here Shawn, trying to pin an argument on me that I
did not make. Although it should be rather obvious that bombing the
ability to make military equipment is part of winning a war, as usual
you like others in this froup want to debate the sky being blue.
smr
2011-06-15 21:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Post by smr
*snip Brent being his usual bitch of a self*
Whatever, Brent. Sure, the bombing of Germany's factories is what won
the war. Okay.
Going Aiden again here Shawn, trying to pin an argument on me that I
did not make. Although it should be rather obvious that bombing the
ability to make military equipment is part of winning a war, as usual
you like others in this froup want to debate the sky being blue.
Except that our bombing did not negatively impact their ability to make
military equipment, unless making MORE of it than they were before the
bombing is what you mean by "impact".

Nimrod.
--
smr
Brent
2011-06-15 23:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
*snip Brent being his usual bitch of a self*
Whatever, Brent. Sure, the bombing of Germany's factories is what won
the war. Okay.
Going Aiden again here Shawn, trying to pin an argument on me that I
did not make. Although it should be rather obvious that bombing the
ability to make military equipment is part of winning a war, as usual
you like others in this froup want to debate the sky being blue.
Except that our bombing did not negatively impact their ability to make
military equipment, unless making MORE of it than they were before the
bombing is what you mean by "impact".
Nice use of government style metrics there.

1 Factory - 1 bombed factory + 1 new factory = 1 factory.

1 factory + 1 new factory = 2 factories.

Your version is cash for clunkers government style measurement where the
lost capital and capacity that comes from it isn't accounted for.

Just because more stuff was made after bombing began is not a metric
that measures the effectiveness of the bombing because the diversion of
resources into creating capacity to make war materials was neither zero
or static.

Let's say there was a widget plant. It's kinda old and makes 2,000
widgets a day. The need for widgets had been around 1.5K a day but the
war needs are getting greater each day and the stockpile keeps getting
smaller. The factory is bombed and is immediately replaced with a new
plant where construction was just finishing up. The new factory makes
4,000 widgets a day. Production has doubled... but the war machine
is now up to a need of 5,000 widgets a day at this point in the war.
That's what the new factory was going to make possible. Only 4,000 are
being made. Someone is going to be short. Not only that but the widget
use is going to rise to 6,000 a day... the intended oversupply was
going to be banked to upgrade the old the old factory to 4K a day....
Sure there's more stuff coming out, but it doesn't meet the needs.

The metric that there was 'more' doesn't mean much when 'more' did not
meet the need.
smr
2011-06-16 16:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
The metric that there was 'more' doesn't mean much when 'more' did not
meet the need
I already said, "Fine! Bombing the factories won the war!" so why the
fuck are you going on and on, you laborious asshole?
--
smr
Brent
2011-06-16 18:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by Brent
The metric that there was 'more' doesn't mean much when 'more' did not
meet the need
I already said, "Fine! Bombing the factories won the war!" so why the
fuck are you going on and on, you laborious asshole?
Because you've become an adienite asshole hanging arguments on me that I
did not make, asshole.
smr
2011-06-16 18:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
The metric that there was 'more' doesn't mean much when 'more' did not
meet the need
I already said, "Fine! Bombing the factories won the war!" so why the
fuck are you going on and on, you laborious asshole?
Because you've become an adienite asshole hanging arguments on me that I
did not make, asshole.
Whatever, Blennie, I don't give a steamy shit. You go on thinking that
bombing the factories won the war, I'm totally fine with that.
--
smr
Brent
2011-06-16 19:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
The metric that there was 'more' doesn't mean much when 'more' did not
meet the need
I already said, "Fine! Bombing the factories won the war!" so why the
fuck are you going on and on, you laborious asshole?
Because you've become an adienite asshole hanging arguments on me that I
did not make, asshole.
Whatever, Blennie, I don't give a steamy shit. You go on thinking that
bombing the factories won the war, I'm totally fine with that.
Why don't you just admit you fucked up logically instead of doubling
down on this Aidenite bullshit?
smr
2011-06-16 20:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
The metric that there was 'more' doesn't mean much when 'more' did not
meet the need
I already said, "Fine! Bombing the factories won the war!" so why the
fuck are you going on and on, you laborious asshole?
Because you've become an adienite asshole hanging arguments on me that I
did not make, asshole.
Whatever, Blennie, I don't give a steamy shit. You go on thinking that
bombing the factories won the war, I'm totally fine with that.
Why don't you just admit you fucked up logically instead of doubling
down on this Aidenite bullshit?
Fuck you, Blennie. I didn't fuck up one iota; _I_ think you're an idiot for
pinning Germany's defeat on the fucking factories, but if _you_ wish to
continue thinking that, I'm totally okay with it.
--
smr
Brent
2011-06-16 22:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
The metric that there was 'more' doesn't mean much when 'more' did not
meet the need
I already said, "Fine! Bombing the factories won the war!" so why the
fuck are you going on and on, you laborious asshole?
Because you've become an adienite asshole hanging arguments on me that I
did not make, asshole.
Whatever, Blennie, I don't give a steamy shit. You go on thinking that
bombing the factories won the war, I'm totally fine with that.
Why don't you just admit you fucked up logically instead of doubling
down on this Aidenite bullshit?
Fuck you, Blennie. I didn't fuck up one iota; _I_ think you're an idiot for
pinning Germany's defeat on the fucking factories, but if _you_ wish to
continue thinking that, I'm totally okay with it.
1) I didn't. You use Aidenlogic to turn a contributing factor into a
sole cause so you can easily 'win'. If you think so, quote it. The
closest I got to that was stating that the growing production gap meant
that eventual defeat was certain. Which is far far far away from
'bombing factories' alone 'won the war'.

2) You used government reasoning that because production went up
destroying capital equipment had no ill effect. If you really believe
that logic, take a sledge hammer to your car until it only has value as
scrap and buy a new better car. See, your condition improved and car
production went up!
smr
2011-06-16 23:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
The metric that there was 'more' doesn't mean much when 'more' did not
meet the need
I already said, "Fine! Bombing the factories won the war!" so why the
fuck are you going on and on, you laborious asshole?
Because you've become an adienite asshole hanging arguments on me that I
did not make, asshole.
Whatever, Blennie, I don't give a steamy shit. You go on thinking that
bombing the factories won the war, I'm totally fine with that.
Why don't you just admit you fucked up logically instead of doubling
down on this Aidenite bullshit?
Fuck you, Blennie. I didn't fuck up one iota; _I_ think you're an idiot for
pinning Germany's defeat on the fucking factories, but if _you_ wish to
continue thinking that, I'm totally okay with it.
1) I didn't. You use Aidenlogic to turn a contributing factor into a
sole cause so you can easily 'win'. If you think so, quote it. The
closest I got to that was stating that the growing production gap meant
that eventual defeat was certain. Which is far far far away from
'bombing factories' alone 'won the war'.
2) You used government reasoning that because production went up
destroying capital equipment had no ill effect. If you really believe
that logic, take a sledge hammer to your car until it only has value as
scrap and buy a new better car. See, your condition improved and car
production went up!
I get it, Blennie. You think bombing the factories won the war. Good deal,
run with that, I don't give a red-headed step fuck if you do.
--
smr
Brent
2011-06-16 23:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
The metric that there was 'more' doesn't mean much when 'more' did not
meet the need
I already said, "Fine! Bombing the factories won the war!" so why the
fuck are you going on and on, you laborious asshole?
Because you've become an adienite asshole hanging arguments on me that I
did not make, asshole.
Whatever, Blennie, I don't give a steamy shit. You go on thinking that
bombing the factories won the war, I'm totally fine with that.
Why don't you just admit you fucked up logically instead of doubling
down on this Aidenite bullshit?
Fuck you, Blennie. I didn't fuck up one iota; _I_ think you're an idiot for
pinning Germany's defeat on the fucking factories, but if _you_ wish to
continue thinking that, I'm totally okay with it.
1) I didn't. You use Aidenlogic to turn a contributing factor into a
sole cause so you can easily 'win'. If you think so, quote it. The
closest I got to that was stating that the growing production gap meant
that eventual defeat was certain. Which is far far far away from
'bombing factories' alone 'won the war'.
2) You used government reasoning that because production went up
destroying capital equipment had no ill effect. If you really believe
that logic, take a sledge hammer to your car until it only has value as
scrap and buy a new better car. See, your condition improved and car
production went up!
I get it, Blennie. You think bombing the factories won the war. Good deal,
run with that, I don't give a red-headed step fuck if you do.
Buh-by Aiden jr.
Geoff Gass
2011-06-17 00:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
The metric that there was 'more' doesn't mean much when 'more' did not
meet the need
I already said, "Fine! Bombing the factories won the war!" so why the
fuck are you going on and on, you laborious asshole?
Because you've become an adienite asshole hanging arguments on me that I
did not make, asshole.
Whatever, Blennie, I don't give a steamy shit. You go on thinking that
bombing the factories won the war, I'm totally fine with that.
Why don't you just admit you fucked up logically instead of doubling
down on this Aidenite bullshit?
Fuck you, Blennie. I didn't fuck up one iota; _I_ think you're an idiot for
pinning Germany's defeat on the fucking factories, but if _you_ wish to
continue thinking that, I'm totally okay with it.
1) I didn't. You use Aidenlogic to turn a contributing factor into a
sole cause so you can easily 'win'. If you think so, quote it. The
closest I got to that was stating that the growing production gap meant
that eventual defeat was certain. Which is far far far away from
'bombing factories' alone 'won the war'.
2) You used government reasoning that because production went up
destroying capital equipment had no ill effect. If you really believe
that logic, take a sledge hammer to your car until it only has value as
scrap and buy a new better car. See, your condition improved and car
production went up!
I get it, Blennie. You think bombing the factories won the war. Good deal,
run with that, I don't give a red-headed step fuck if you do.
Buh-by Aiden jr.
odds that blennie is actually done with this thread? 1.85e^3482023:1
Adam H. Kerman
2011-06-18 05:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Gass
Post by Brent
Post by smr
I get it, Blennie. You think bombing the factories won the war. Good deal,
run with that, I don't give a red-headed step fuck if you do.
Buh-by Aiden jr.
odds that blennie is actually done with this thread? 1.85e^3482023:1
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Geoff Gass
2011-06-18 13:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Geoff Gass
Post by Brent
Post by smr
I get it, Blennie. You think bombing the factories won the war. Good deal,
run with that, I don't give a red-headed step fuck if you do.
Buh-by Aiden jr.
odds that blennie is actually done with this thread? 1.85e^3482023:1
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
blennie has been trying to appear at the betting window in disguise ever
since this line was set.
smr
2011-06-17 01:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
Post by Brent
The metric that there was 'more' doesn't mean much when 'more' did not
meet the need
I already said, "Fine! Bombing the factories won the war!" so why the
fuck are you going on and on, you laborious asshole?
Because you've become an adienite asshole hanging arguments on me that I
did not make, asshole.
Whatever, Blennie, I don't give a steamy shit. You go on thinking that
bombing the factories won the war, I'm totally fine with that.
Why don't you just admit you fucked up logically instead of doubling
down on this Aidenite bullshit?
Fuck you, Blennie. I didn't fuck up one iota; _I_ think you're an idiot for
pinning Germany's defeat on the fucking factories, but if _you_ wish to
continue thinking that, I'm totally okay with it.
1) I didn't. You use Aidenlogic to turn a contributing factor into a
sole cause so you can easily 'win'. If you think so, quote it. The
closest I got to that was stating that the growing production gap meant
that eventual defeat was certain. Which is far far far away from
'bombing factories' alone 'won the war'.
2) You used government reasoning that because production went up
destroying capital equipment had no ill effect. If you really believe
that logic, take a sledge hammer to your car until it only has value as
scrap and buy a new better car. See, your condition improved and car
production went up!
I get it, Blennie. You think bombing the factories won the war. Good deal,
run with that, I don't give a red-headed step fuck if you do.
Buh-by Aiden jr.
Cool, I have to go bomb some factories in Afghanistan and end that war
anyways.
--
smr
kenji
2011-06-16 04:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by Brent
Post by smr
*snip Brent being his usual bitch of a self*
Whatever, Brent. Sure, the bombing of Germany's factories is what won
the war. Okay.
Going Aiden again here Shawn, trying to pin an argument on me that I
did not make. Although it should be rather obvious that bombing the
ability to make military equipment is part of winning a war, as usual
you like others in this froup want to debate the sky being blue.
Except that our bombing did not negatively impact their ability to make
military equipment, unless making MORE of it than they were before the
bombing is what you mean by "impact".
Nimrod.
oh, more military stuff

nice, and more nice.
Cydrome Leader
2011-06-15 06:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by core
Huh? The bombing of London was a myth?
You were talking about "us speaking German". To do that, at some point,
the British Isles are getting invaded. I don't recall those German
bombers dropping troops, they lost the Battle of Britain, and by no
means had the navy to clear out the Royal Navy from the Channel.
WWII also proved quite heartily that no level of bombing short of
nuclear can induce a nation to surrender without the credible threat of
boots on the ground as well. Germany bombed the piss out of London, as
you note, and, if anything, it simply made the English resolve stronger.
We scorched every fuckin' inch of Japan to the ground and it wasn't
until we started igniting goddamned suns over their cities and proved
that we could take any island we wanted with actual soldiers (not to
mention a coup attempt that almost succeeded in keeping them in the war)
that they saw reason and gave up (note: massive Soviet invasion of
Manchuria and South Sakhalin also helped here, but I'm still giving the
US 97% of the credit for Japan's defeat).
Fuck, Germany was a pile of ash long before either the Red Army or the
Western armies were within their pre-war borders; we still had to grind
our way across the entire fucking country before they surrendered.
So... tell me again how England's surrender (of just the Home Islands,
mind you, since London falling would still mean fuckall to Ottawa or
Melbourne or Christchurch...) occurs, given this.
Post by core
Had Germany won the war, it wouldn't have taken long before they were here.
The Germany that had no bombers capable of reaching American shores at
any point during the war, nor a carrier to get fighters close enough?
That Germany was going to invade us shortly after knocking Britain out?
I know your entire sense of self-worth is wrapped up in America having
"helped Britain smash the Krauts", but a) that's not true and b) we lost
the fucking peace entirely and immediately anyway at Yalta so who gives
a fuck anyways?
Post by core
The soviets didn't have the engineering talent the germans had. It's a tossup
whether they could have beaten down the germans, given the resource advantage
they would have gained, winning.
But... they did have the production talent. Which the Germans did not.
Remember how much good their awesomely engineered Me-262 fighter jets
and unstoppable King Tiger tanks did them?
None. Stalin was on to something when he remarked that "Quantity has a
quality all its own". Hell, if Engineering mattered that much, WE
would've lost the war because the Sherman was a complete piece of shit
until the last variants near the end of the war, but being able to toss
100 fully-fueled pieces of shit at the one Tiger the Germans could get
to a battlefield and provide with a quarter tank of petrol did the trick.
"tank of petrol". Where the fuck are you copy and pasting this stuff from?
smr
2011-06-15 14:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cydrome Leader
"tank of petrol". Where the fuck are you copy and pasting this stuff from?
I'm not copying and pasting from anywhere, that's Dix's thing. My
apologies for using a term that tweaked your rabid provincialism.
--
smr
Cydrome Leader
2011-06-16 17:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
Post by Cydrome Leader
"tank of petrol". Where the fuck are you copy and pasting this stuff from?
I'm not copying and pasting from anywhere, that's Dix's thing. My
apologies for using a term that tweaked your rabid provincialism.
Ok Mr. Time Life WWII VHS collector.
core
2011-06-16 00:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by smr
But... they did have the production talent. Which the Germans did not.
Remember how much good their awesomely engineered Me-262 fighter jets
and unstoppable King Tiger tanks did them?
The Me-262 was never a real factor in the war. For one thing, the engines only
lasted about 25 hours before total replacement. They only became operational
at all late in the war and by then it was too late.
Post by smr
None. Stalin was on to something when he remarked that "Quantity has a
quality all its own". Hell, if Engineering mattered that much, WE
would've lost the war because the Sherman was a complete piece of shit
until the last variants near the end of the war, but being able to toss
100 fully-fueled pieces of shit at the one Tiger the Germans could get
to a battlefield and provide with a quarter tank of petrol did the trick.
Yep
Post by smr
Post by core
I dont' think so.
Not the first time you'd be wrong around here.
Yeah.. you know all about being wrong, don't you.
smr
2011-06-16 16:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
The Me-262 was never a real factor in the war. For one thing, the engines only
lasted about 25 hours before total replacement. They only became operational
at all late in the war and by then it was too late.
I believe that was my point; the Me-262 was an incredible engineering
feat for the time, and accomplished precisely jack shit for the German
war effort. They'd have been much better off spending those resources
elsewhere.
Post by core
Post by smr
None. Stalin was on to something when he remarked that "Quantity has a
quality all its own". Hell, if Engineering mattered that much, WE
would've lost the war because the Sherman was a complete piece of shit
until the last variants near the end of the war, but being able to toss
100 fully-fueled pieces of shit at the one Tiger the Germans could get
to a battlefield and provide with a quarter tank of petrol did the trick.
Yep
Post by smr
Post by core
I dont' think so.
Not the first time you'd be wrong around here.
Yeah.. you know all about being wrong, don't you.
So sorry I don't automatically drop to my knees and go on full auto-suck
when someone in an American uniform walks by.
--
smr
Geoff Gass
2011-06-15 04:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Post by smr
Post by core
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
Huh? The bombing of London was a myth?
Had Germany won the war, it wouldn't have taken long before they were here.
with what navy? sorry, but the thought of the nazis invading the US (and
I'm not talking about some bullshit couple guys as "invading", I'm well
aware of the couple subversion missions, etc) is laughable.
rikkitikki
2011-06-15 20:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Hide quoted text -
<SNIP> to all yer nipping at each others' heads on WW II.

My dad was a Master Sergeant with Army Air Corps and the Strategic Air
Command; he had lots of experience with the B-17 bombers.
If he were alive today, he'd laugh and acknowlege the good
possibilities of a successful soft landing of the plane: it happened
more times than is recorded in history books of the 1941-1945 War in
Europe. Think North Africa: the planes soft landed many times in that
leg of the Allied campaigns.
Dad's home base was Orlando, Florida where pilots were trained
specifically on crash landings.
Oswego, Illinois is a repeat of how well the plane could land in an
emergency with no loss of life!

Rather lose a plane than any of its crew, EVER.
Adam H. Kerman
2011-06-18 05:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by rikkitikki
<SNIP> to all yer nipping at each others' heads on WW II.
My dad was a Master Sergeant with Army Air Corps and the Strategic Air
Command; he had lots of experience with the B-17 bombers.
If he were alive today, he'd laugh and acknowlege the good
possibilities of a successful soft landing of the plane: it happened
more times than is recorded in history books of the 1941-1945 War in
Europe. Think North Africa: the planes soft landed many times in that
leg of the Allied campaigns.
As was my father. He was a Flight Radio Operator on bombing missions,
African theater, then later part of the Italian occupation.
JG
2011-06-16 01:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Post by smr
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ?  Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Putting aside the fact that you're confusing World Wars, the Reich
couldn't muster up the navy and air force to cross the English Channel
against only the British. How do you presume they were going to cross
the entire goddamned Atlantic against the combined force of the British
Empire and the United States?
Huh? The bombing of London was a myth?
Had Germany won the war, it wouldn't have taken long before they were here.
with what navy?  sorry, but the thought of the nazis invading the US (and
I'm not talking about some bullshit couple guys as "invading", I'm well
aware of the couple subversion missions, etc) is laughable.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anyone remember the episode of SOAP were Burt is in a So. American
restaurant and the waiter looks like Hitler ??
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
2011-06-17 02:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Had Germany won the war, it wouldn't have taken long before they were here.
I don't agree. USA wasn't in Nazi gun sights at all.
Post by core
Post by smr
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The soviets didn't have the engineering talent the germans had. It's a tossup
whether they could have beaten down the germans, given the resource advantage
they would have gained, winning.
I've always fancied that if France and England had done a Mexican
stand-off with the Nazis, which was in their interests, and which
stand-off the Nazis, for their part, may have really wanted, and if the
US had stayed out of it, the Nazis would have beat the Soviets badly and
quickly.

A recent book by Buchanan suggests that Hitler really just wanted to
glare across the borders at France and England, and even cut a
partnership deal with the Poles, as long as everyone would let him go
after the Commies and grab some of their land, resources, and even
ports. Buchanan specifically blames Churchill's diplomacy for the war
in western Europe.

Then what happens? If the Nazis had pounded the Soviets, and the US had
pounded the Japs, what would the map look like today? Does Germany go
to the Urals and even beyond to the east? If France and England didn't
exhaust themselves, are the Euro-empires still in place? Are we in the
US fabulously rich because we sell everything to all these clowns and do
not squander our profits and riches on wars?
smr
2011-06-17 02:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
Post by core
Had Germany won the war, it wouldn't have taken long before they were here.
I don't agree. USA wasn't in Nazi gun sights at all.
Post by core
Post by smr
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The soviets didn't have the engineering talent the germans had. It's a tossup
whether they could have beaten down the germans, given the resource advantage
they would have gained, winning.
I've always fancied that if France and England had done a Mexican
stand-off with the Nazis, which was in their interests, and which
stand-off the Nazis, for their part, may have really wanted, and if the
US had stayed out of it, the Nazis would have beat the Soviets badly and
quickly.
A recent book by Buchanan suggests that Hitler really just wanted to
glare across the borders at France and England, and even cut a
partnership deal with the Poles, as long as everyone would let him go
after the Commies and grab some of their land, resources, and even
ports. Buchanan specifically blames Churchill's diplomacy for the war
in western Europe.
Then what happens? If the Nazis had pounded the Soviets, and the US had
pounded the Japs, what would the map look like today? Does Germany go
to the Urals and even beyond to the east? If France and England didn't
exhaust themselves, are the Euro-empires still in place? Are we in the
US fabulously rich because we sell everything to all these clowns and do
not squander our profits and riches on wars?
Missing in this is the fact that Buchanan is a goddamned flaming retard.
--
smr
spamtrap1888
2011-06-17 03:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Had Germany won the war, it wouldn't have taken long before they were here.
I don't agree.  USA wasn't in Nazi gun sights at all.
Tru dat. US corporations such as Ford, GM, IBM, and Coca Cola enjoyed
good relationships in Nazi Germany. American luminaries like Henry
Ford and Lindbergh thought anti-Semitism was A-OK. George H.W. Bush's
daddy Prescott was effectively Hitler's banker in the U.S. The Johnson-
Reed Act passed in the mid-20s prevented any large influx of Jews
during the 30s.

But, in the run up to Pearl Harbor, Great Britain was scared shitless
that the Nazis would invade. The "Quiet Canadian," Sir William
Stephenson, Director of "British Security Coordination" set up a
propaganda office in NYC to influence Americans to support entering
the war on the side of GB. FDR could get Lend-Lease through Congress,
but it took the honorary Aryans' invasion of Pearl Harbor (and the
subsequent Nazi declaration of war on the US) to get the US into the
war.

Nicholas John Cull, a professor at U Southern California, wrote a very
readable description of the Brits' successful effort in "Selling
War:The British Propaganda Campaign against American "Neutrality" in
World War II "
Post by core
Post by smr
All of which equally ignores the fact that the UK could've folded, the
US could've stayed out, and the Soviets would've slowly ground Germany
into dust anyways, if over a longer period of time at greater cost.
The soviets didn't have the engineering talent the germans had. It's a tossup
whether they could have beaten down the germans, given the resource advantage
they would have gained, winning.
I've always fancied that if France and England had done a Mexican
stand-off with the Nazis, which was in their interests, and which
stand-off the Nazis, for their part, may have really wanted, and if the
US had stayed out of it, the Nazis would have beat the Soviets badly and
quickly.
Given a choice between the Hitler and Stalin, we picked Stalin.
A recent book by Buchanan suggests that Hitler really just wanted to
glare across the borders at France and England, and even cut a
partnership deal with the Poles, as long as everyone would let him go
after the Commies and grab some of their land, resources, and even
ports.  Buchanan specifically blames Churchill's diplomacy for the war
in western Europe.
Yes, that's why the Blitzkrieg allowed Hitler to take over France and
the Low Countries -- it was a feint to cover their desire to get Lvow
and Kiev.
Then what happens?  If the Nazis had pounded the Soviets, and the US had
pounded the Japs, what would the map look like today?  Does Germany go
to the Urals and even beyond to the east?  If France and England didn't
exhaust themselves, are the Euro-empires still in place?  Are we in the
US fabulously rich because we sell everything to all these clowns and do
not squander our profits and riches on wars?
Too fucking many Anglophiles in control of our government to supply
both sides.
Brent
2011-06-14 21:07:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
If the US didn't enter WW1 there would have been no third reich.
Probably no second world war. No middle east problem. No Israel. No
great depression. And no countless other problems that have resulted in
the deaths of americans and a huge squandering of american wealth.

For extra credit see what made US entry into WW1 financially doable.
Wing Ding
2011-06-15 12:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
actually, this has been subject to a lot of study - the hypothesis is
that the soviets would have defeated germany, most of europe excepting
UK would have become clients of the Soviets. The western europeans
along with reagen's strategy of spending the russsians into the ground
would have wound up exactly where we are today. Maybe the "american
firsters" weren't so wrong after all.
Adam H. Kerman
2011-06-18 05:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by core
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by core
He seems to have no concept of history and why we were in WWII.
Oooo! Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
Because we let our good friends and allies the French and the British,
whose butts we saved in WWI, walk all over us at the Treaty of Versailles,
creating a new Europe in which a lasting peace was an illusion.
What the British and the French did to the Middle East during the Mandate,
the world is still paying for today.
We really should have told our good friends and allies to go fuck themselves
instead of entering WWI, as that war was every bit as much their fault as
it was Germany's.
And I suppose you would rather, now, be speaking German ? Just what part of
the Gestapo do you find compelling?
Sigh.
spamtrap1888
2011-06-16 03:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Post by max
B17 Liberty Belle crashed this morning after takeoff from Aurora
Municipal.    No injuries, no fatalities,  7 souls.   Very good
piloting, and a testament to the superb Boeing engineering of the 1930s.
Pilot set it down in a bean field, engine out from the early reports.
Bird is almost 100% burned up at this point, probably just the radial
engines left.
Another sad passing, they aren't making any of those magnificent
4-engine radial engined Leviathans any more.    They fly over my house
at 500' for a few days every year, echoing over the river valley and i
love the listening.
found a pic... that is as sad seeing the photos of the Kee Bird
(B-29) burning.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/B-17-Bomber-Crashes-in-Suburbs-1...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kee_Bird
Hm. I just stumbled across this article on the guy who sold four
engines to the Kee-Bird restorers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/06/local/la-me-military-museum-20110606
Nicko
2011-06-14 23:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by max
B17 Liberty Belle crashed this morning after takeoff from Aurora
Municipal.    No injuries, no fatalities,  7 souls.   Very good
piloting, and a testament to the superb Boeing engineering of the 1930s.
Pilot set it down in a bean field, engine out from the early reports.
Bird is almost 100% burned up at this point, probably just the radial
engines left.
Another sad passing, they aren't making any of those magnificent
4-engine radial engined Leviathans any more.    They fly over my house
at 500' for a few days every year, echoing over the river valley and i
love the listening.
I have seen B-17s a few times, but only once in flight, out near
Morris some years ago. It was an awesome sight to behold. Those
radials have quite a distinct gargling sound, but hearing four of them
going all out was just wicked cool.
Hannah Fontana
2011-06-15 20:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by max
Another sad passing, they aren't making any of those magnificent
4-engine radial engined Leviathans any more. They fly over my house
at 500' for a few days every year, echoing over the river valley and i
love the listening.
We need another world war so future generations can have shit like this to drool over.

Maybe we can bomb Russia this time.
spamtrap1888
2011-06-15 20:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hannah Fontana
Post by max
Another sad passing, they aren't making any of those magnificent
4-engine radial engined Leviathans any more.    They fly over my house
at 500' for a few days every year, echoing over the river valley and i
love the listening.
We need another world war so future generations can have shit like this to drool over.
Maybe we can bomb Russia this time.
B-52s are still operational, 55 years after they were introduced.
JG
2011-06-16 01:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by Hannah Fontana
Post by max
Another sad passing, they aren't making any of those magnificent
4-engine radial engined Leviathans any more.    They fly over my house
at 500' for a few days every year, echoing over the river valley and i
love the listening.
We need another world war so future generations can have shit like this to drool over.
Maybe we can bomb Russia this time.
B-52s are still operational, 55 years after they were introduced.
After massive overhauls and re-engining.
max
2011-06-16 03:39:49 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by JG
Post by spamtrap1888
Post by Hannah Fontana
Post by max
Another sad passing, they aren't making any of those magnificent
4-engine radial engined Leviathans any more.    They fly over my house
at 500' for a few days every year, echoing over the river valley and i
love the listening.
We need another world war so future generations can have shit like this
to drool over.
Maybe we can bomb Russia this time.
B-52s are still operational, 55 years after they were introduced.
After massive overhauls and re-engining.
"they" say the BUFF will quite possibly be flying for a century.
JG
2011-06-16 01:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by max
B17 Liberty Belle crashed this morning after takeoff from Aurora
Municipal.    No injuries, no fatalities,  7 souls.   Very good
piloting, and a testament to the superb Boeing engineering of the 1930s.
Pilot set it down in a bean field, engine out from the early reports.
Bird is almost 100% burned up at this point, probably just the radial
engines left.
Another sad passing, they aren't making any of those magnificent
4-engine radial engined Leviathans any more.    They fly over my house
at 500' for a few days every year, echoing over the river valley and i
love the listening.
After 60+ years in age, time to go with a strictly STATIC display.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...