PeakOil is You
THE WWII Thread (merged)
by Russian_Cowboy » Sun 08 May 2005, 18:55:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'H')onestly, there's absolutely no comparison between what the Russians, French, Poles, Belgians, Latvians, and Ukrainians did on the one hand, and what the British and the Americans did on the other.
Lorenzo, in WW2 most Latvians fought for Hitler.
http://www.dol.ru/users/lawass/Nazism1_e.htm
As a reminder, Nazi Germany was also allied with all the continental European countries (except Sweden, Portugal and Switzerland). They all fought with USSR, not just Germany by itself. When Hitler invaded USSR, over a million Red Army troops, who hated Stalin, voluntarily surrendered to Wehrmacht to fight for Hitler. As a result, ethnically Hitler's troops looked like this: 6 mln. Germans, 1 mln. Russians, 600 thousand Hungarians, 500 thousand Italians, 450 thousand Romanians, etc. (not to mention tens of thousands of Jews fighting for Hitler too). So, you may as well state that Russians also played the 3rd most important role (after Germans and Japanese) in helping Hitler and the Axis. What I am getting at is that the real picture is far more complicated than the simple one presented in the history books. It would be impossible to measure the contributions of each country in WW2.
-
Russian_Cowboy - Lignite
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Wed 16 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
by PenultimateManStanding » Sun 08 May 2005, 19:07:05
Russian Cowboy (interesting name), if the Latvian President was addressing a 'predominantly Jewish crowd' then they must be breeding like rabbits because just about all of them were machinegunned in the 40's. Something doesn't add up.
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
by Russian_Cowboy » Sun 08 May 2005, 19:54:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'R')ussian Cowboy (interesting name), if the Latvian President was addressing a 'predominantly Jewish crowd' then they must be breeding like rabbits because just about all of them were machinegunned in the 40's. Something doesn't add up.
A number Jews were evacuated in 1941 from Latvia and returned with the Soviet troops. In addition, a number of jews came to live in Latvia after WW2. As a sidenote, the Germans themselves did not exterminate Jews in Latvia. They had to focus on the military operations. The extermination sanctioned by the nazis was performed by a squad of Latvians headed by Viktor Arais.
-
Russian_Cowboy - Lignite
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Wed 16 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
by PenultimateManStanding » Sun 08 May 2005, 20:26:47
A little research reveals that there are now about 15,000 Jews in Latvia. And they are worried about the new rise of anti-semitism. Considering that there were only 500 left after the purges of the WWII era they have done well to bounce back. I suppose that in a few months time it will all be a moot point.
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
by Geology_Guy » Sun 08 May 2005, 21:31:59
Hitler was baptized a Catholic, but I would not call him devout. I don't think the leader of the Third Reich was sitting in a pew every Sunday!
The Soviets rightfully complained about the lack of a western front in 1942 and 1943, but where was the eastern front in 1939 and 1940?
I think the United Kingdom and France would have appreciated an eastern front in 1939!! Maybe Stalin could have helped the Poles in 1939. Instead Stalin had other plans for Poland (at least eastern Poland!).
As for who won WWII-it was won by every soldier who died opposing the Hitlerites on any front.
The Soviets rightfully complained about the lack of a western front in 1942 and 1943, but where was the eastern front in 1939 and 1940?
I think the United Kingdom and France would have appreciated an eastern front in 1939!! Maybe Stalin could have helped the Poles in 1939. Instead Stalin had other plans for Poland (at least eastern Poland!).
As for who won WWII-it was won by every soldier who died opposing the Hitlerites on any front.
- Geology_Guy
- Lignite
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
by Cola-Is-Petroleum » Sun 08 May 2005, 21:44:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'L')ike many people of my generation, we look at things from an objective point of view. We are not afraid to pierce through any myth.
Yeah right, an "objective" point of view. I would take a guess and say that you don't give much credit to any sources to the right of Michael Moore. You see what you want to see, there is very little objectivity in the ideas you put across;if you think you really are being objective you are delusional.
You have your racist xenophobic view of "Anglo-Saxons" because that's what makes you tick, that's what keeps you going. You see "Anglo-Saxons" through your own warped looking glass, because you have a perverted need to "rebel" against these Evil Anglo-Saxons. I've seen this type of person many times.
"My generation" has no more interest is seeing the objective point of view than any other generation. Like every generation, people today are still only interested in constructing there own myths about how life is, and you are a perfect example of that. Furthurmore, you assume that "an objective point of view" even exists; reality is like an ink-blot drawing-you see what your biases pre-dispose you to see, interpreting data and facts to form a theory or myth, the validity of which is inevitably constrained by the perecptiveness and dispositions of the observer and the data which he accepts.
So stop pissing on the Anglo-Saxons or whoever. The "Anglo-Saxons" you speak of exist only in your prejudiced mind, and yes, they DID play a decisive role in the outcome of WW2-the facts and evidence are more than enough to convince any reasonable observer of this.
-
Cola-Is-Petroleum - Wood
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sun 08 May 2005, 03:00:00
by ubercynicmeister » Sun 08 May 2005, 22:02:19
What "won the war"? Oh, that's simple:
OIL.Simple as that.
It's also what STARTED it, too, as Japan initiated World War 2, in 1935, looking for "resources" (not just Oil) on Mainland Asia. So, too, with the Germans - it's why they never threw the full, total weight of armor against Moscow - they wanted the Caucuses Oil Fields more than they wanted the cities.
They got the Rumanian Oil fields by default - or they would have if the British, realising what the Nazi's wanted, hadn't promptly blown every oil well up. This drive-for-Oil was behind Rommel's abortive trip to North Africa. He wanted to surge towards the Iranian Oil Fields, which had been occupied by the Americans and the Soviets.
The historical fact that he didn't make it means that they started to run outta Oil fairly early on. The Japanese also wanted Oil quite badly, which is why they occupied Indonesia. The Americans submarines, operating out of Fremantle in Western Australia, (I''m pretty sure some were crewed by Australian crews, too, but I do not know this for a fact) made minced meat of the Oil tankers plying between Indonesia and Japan - the Japanese never introduced the convoy system. Let's not forget that Britain was kept alive by imported Oil from the United States at that time, a trade now impossible. And the United States had "indigenous" Oil supplies of mammoth proportions, at that time.
In essence, the Nazi's lost because they ran outta resources, same for Japan, and it did not matter how clever they were. This is a slaient lesson for us, NOW - it may not matter how clever we are - or how ruthless - we, too, may follow Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany into the dust of History, simply because we are running out of what THEY ran out of - OIL.And There May Not Be Much We Can Do About It....????
OIL.Simple as that.
It's also what STARTED it, too, as Japan initiated World War 2, in 1935, looking for "resources" (not just Oil) on Mainland Asia. So, too, with the Germans - it's why they never threw the full, total weight of armor against Moscow - they wanted the Caucuses Oil Fields more than they wanted the cities.
They got the Rumanian Oil fields by default - or they would have if the British, realising what the Nazi's wanted, hadn't promptly blown every oil well up. This drive-for-Oil was behind Rommel's abortive trip to North Africa. He wanted to surge towards the Iranian Oil Fields, which had been occupied by the Americans and the Soviets.
The historical fact that he didn't make it means that they started to run outta Oil fairly early on. The Japanese also wanted Oil quite badly, which is why they occupied Indonesia. The Americans submarines, operating out of Fremantle in Western Australia, (I''m pretty sure some were crewed by Australian crews, too, but I do not know this for a fact) made minced meat of the Oil tankers plying between Indonesia and Japan - the Japanese never introduced the convoy system. Let's not forget that Britain was kept alive by imported Oil from the United States at that time, a trade now impossible. And the United States had "indigenous" Oil supplies of mammoth proportions, at that time.
In essence, the Nazi's lost because they ran outta resources, same for Japan, and it did not matter how clever they were. This is a slaient lesson for us, NOW - it may not matter how clever we are - or how ruthless - we, too, may follow Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany into the dust of History, simply because we are running out of what THEY ran out of - OIL.And There May Not Be Much We Can Do About It....????
-
ubercynicmeister - Tar Sands
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
by Specop_007 » Sun 08 May 2005, 22:12:58
It was a joint effort, without any one, none would have succeeded. That said, the Russians probably played the most vital role.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
-
Specop_007 - Expert
- Posts: 5586
- Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
by PenultimateManStanding » Sun 08 May 2005, 22:20:56
It's amazing to me how a relatively small country could come so close to conquering the world. Germans were an uncommonly Ambitious people. They probably could have done it all with just a slightly more sane Insane Dictator.
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
by gnm » Sun 08 May 2005, 22:42:46
Yeah, if that psychopath had listened to half his generals they probably would have won.
Specop, Lorenzo, so you don't think the US taking out Hitlers bomb making plans was just a little important maybe? What do you think he would have done with nukes?
btw what the hell is an Anglo-Saxon? The Germans? Didn't some of them invade Britan like 1000 years ago? I don't believe they had any part in WWII...
-G
Specop, Lorenzo, so you don't think the US taking out Hitlers bomb making plans was just a little important maybe? What do you think he would have done with nukes?
btw what the hell is an Anglo-Saxon? The Germans? Didn't some of them invade Britan like 1000 years ago? I don't believe they had any part in WWII...
-G
- gnm
by ubercynicmeister » Sun 08 May 2005, 22:47:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Geology_Guy', 'H')itler was baptized a Catholic, but I would not call him devout.
Oh, THAT hoary old chestnut, hee hee.
LOL, read Mein Kampf...Hitler rejected ALL religion by the time he wrote it in the 1920's, though I'm guessing "Mein Kampf" existed inside Hitler's head for a long time before that. In his youth, it is said, Adolf used to put both his parents to sleep by long-winded Political Discussion - well, monologues, actually.
Hitler really worshipped one thing: ADOLF HITLER. Every now and then some dope trots out "Oh did you know that Hitler was a Catholic?" as though guilt-by-association should be used to condemn all Catholics & Christians, and all religious people thereby.
Welll, did you know Adolf Hitler was a VEGETARIAN, almost a vegan? (though that word had not been coined at the time) Yup, he believed that eating meat was "brutal", and "civilised people should not do it". When his Generals came to his Lair (in the various spots around Nazi Germany) they all ate things like lettuce and spinach and carrots and salads of varying descriptions...LOL, probably the healthiest meals they got.
But, let's contuinue the guilt-by-association, shall we? OK, Pol Pot was a Buddhist Monk, who abandoned his training and became the leader of the most genocidal movement in history - The Khmer Rouge . Now, Buddhist monks are vegetarians - does this mean that ALL vegetarians harbour Megolomanical genocidal impulses to take over the world and stuff people they don;t like into extermination camps?
Given that some forms of extreme Feminism seem to want to exterminate all males, and these "people" are usually vegetarians, well...this idea of vegetarian= genocidal maniac seems to fit the facts a LOT better than suppositions about religious people of varying sects / denominations (whatever) are therefore all like Adolf Hitler. To whit: Mother Theresa, who was as FAR from the Adolf Hitler end of humanity as you can get. She, though, was religious.
So were the former "collegues" of Pol Pot , the Buddhist monks he tortured to death in his "Killing Fields". In some places the bones of victims are stacked so high a person of average height cannot see over the top of them. As the Cambodians were tearing Pol Pot's torture chambers down, they dug up the concrete slabs they were built on.
The blood from Pol Pot's torturers ...ahhh...activities... had soaked through the concrete, and had pooled in the ground below. That's a lot of people dying in pain, extreme pain, to do that. I ask the question of guilt-by-association again: Given such actions by those who at least started out as Vegetarians - do all vegetarians thereby harbour megalomanical genocidal impluses to exterminate vast portions of humanity by the most brutal tortures? I presume not, but, well, I'm male, so I guess I must be wrong.
By the way, the word "Karma" and the word "Khmer" are related to each other, and mean virtually the same thing: fate. So the Khmer Rouge were the "Red fate". As an aside, "Baton Rouge" in the United States is a similar French word (erm phrase), "Baton" = "stick" and "rouge"="red", so it translates to "Red Stick".
-
ubercynicmeister - Tar Sands
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
