Who really won WW2...

Main Page | Report this Page

Politics Forum Index » British Politics Forum » Who really won WW2...

Page 2 of 43 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 41, 42, 43 Next

Who really won WW2...

Author

Message

David Johnston...

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:40 pm

Guest

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:11:15 -0700 (PDT), kangarooistan
<kangarooistan9 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 30, 5:49 pm, bringyagrogalong <sof... at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:
German military deaths on the Eastern Front 1941-1945: 5,178,000

German military deaths on the Western Front 1939-1945: 367,000

A no-brainer, isn’t it?

Let's at least be honest and admit that the Allied contribution was a
bit of a joke. A sideshow, nothing more!

WW1 has not finished yet mate ,not until Palestine is FREE can WW1
end ,

So you think that Palestine should be returned to Turkey?

bringyagrogalong...

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:45 pm

Guest

ralph <cuckold... at (no spam) I.hate.my.stinking.kids.com> blathered:

Quote:

E. Barry Bruyea <termlim... at (no spam) democracy.com> wrote:
bringyagrogalong <sof... at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:

German military deaths on the Eastern Front 1941-1945: 5,178,000

German military deaths on the Western Front 1939-1945: 367,000

A no-brainer, isn’t it?

Let's at least be honest and admit that the Allied contribution was a
bit of a joke. A sideshow, nothing more!

A ridiculous contention and one that has been discounted by historical
fact, not idiocy on the part of historical revisionists.

The racist troll and liar Serge ("bringyagrogalong") posts the same
shite every so often to get some attention.

ROFLMAO I wonder how that idiot, Ralph, reconciles his oft repeated
claim that I'm a Nazi with my overt admiration for the communists on
this thread.

I guess his too stupid to see a contradiction.

Quote:

It's been doing this for years ... just pat it on its head and wait
for it to go back to sleep.

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.politics/msg/04d6eb79f8caf8bb?hl=e....

So you reckon that these facts are "shite"...

German military deaths on the Eastern Front 1941-1945: 5,178,000

German military deaths on the Western Front 1939-1945: 367,000

Incidentally, I should warn posters that that piece of filth, Ralph,
is on record in the Google archives for saying that he finds child sex
amusing.

My posts are like a red rag to a senile bull to Ralph and they always
elicit a petulant response.

He's had me in the gun ever since I exposed him as a low-life who
rails against having to pay child support to his own kids after his
wife pissed him off for another man.

He's still whining because the Courts found his long-suffering and
abused wife a better parent by awarding custody to her.

In short, he's a real piece of work.

Scotius...

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:40 am

Guest

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:49:35 -0700 (PDT), bringyagrogalong
<sofala at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:

Quote:

German military deaths on the Eastern Front 1941-1945: 5,178,000

German military deaths on the Western Front 1939-1945: 367,000

A no-brainer, isn’t it?

Let's at least be honest and admit that the Allied contribution was a
bit of a joke. A sideshow, nothing more!

You discount the contribution of the US and Britain to beating
Germany, but it was the British RAF that broke the Luftwaffe in the
Battle of Britain. If they hadn't, that same Luftwaffe would have been
at full strength for fighting the Soviets (bombing, strafing,
supplying the Germany Army there, etc). That's pretty significant.
The US 1,000 bomber raids over Germany might not have produced
much in the way of deaths of military men, but that sort of thing does
put pressure on people to give up, which it wasn't long before they
did.
Now, no one could possibly hope to minimize the Russian
contribution to the war, but don't say the US and Britain sat on their
hands and didn't do anything.
The US fought a war on two fronts (Europe and the Pacific) and
won, while producing enough material to supply Russia, Britain, and
some other countries with the means to fight for themselves.

Krudd the Dud...

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:16 am

Guest

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 01:55:48 -0700 (PDT), bringyagrogalong
<sofala at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:

Roy...

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:07 am

Guest

On Sep 30, 2:49 am, bringyagrogalong <sof... at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:

Quote:

=You bloody idiot. You don't mention the number of troops that the
Nazis sent into the USSR and the stupidity of the German war machine
in failing to adequately equip their troops for conflict there. Many
German troops were needlessly slaughtered because of under evaluating
the strength of their enemy. The Allies also supplied equipment to the
USSR which assisted them in their defense as well.

You are a clueless nitwit revisionist.
==

kangarooistan...

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:23 am

Guest

On Oct 1, 9:40 am, David Johnston <da... at (no spam) block.net> wrote:

Quote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:11:15 -0700 (PDT), kangarooistan

kangarooist... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 30, 5:49 pm, bringyagrogalong <sof... at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:
German military deaths on the Eastern Front 1941-1945: 5,178,000

German military deaths on the Western Front 1939-1945: 367,000

A no-brainer, isn’t it?

Let's at least be honest and admit that the Allied contribution was a
bit of a joke. A sideshow, nothing more!

WW1 has not finished yet mate ,not until Palestine is FREE can WW1
end ,

..
So you think that Palestine should be returned to Turkey?

silly boy , Turkey was not invented until 1923 ,Palestine has ALWAYS
been Palestine , in all history until 1948 when jews invented the
israel myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey

Palestine will be returned to Palestinians soon as Israel has bled ALL
western taxpayers to death

Palestine has ALWAYS belong to Palestinians , and ALWAYS will

Its only a matter of how long it takes for the jews to destroy EVERY
western country and THEN Muslims WILL return Palestine tpo
Palestinians exactly like they did in the LAST crusades
its only a matter of time

sooner or later western taxpayers will run out of money and be forced
to face the FACTS , Israel is a myth manufactured by jews and western
zionists to STEAL history and fabricate a mythical country they call
israel

FACTS and truth always win in the end

its only a matter of time mate , another few decades or a few
centuries , it wont alter the eventual outcome , jews dont care how
many meat headed western soldiers have to DIE defending their myths

Muslims KNOW how to win wars mate , they always concede the fist
century then move in once the ongoing cost of the war has weakened the
invaders , before driving them out and extracting compensation over
the next century or two
www.costofwar.com

kanga
=====

E. Barry Bruyea...

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:27 pm

Guest

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:40:05 -0400, Scotius <yodasbud at (no spam) mnsi.net> wrote:

Quote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:49:35 -0700 (PDT), bringyagrogalong
sofala at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:

German military deaths on the Eastern Front 1941-1945: 5,178,000

German military deaths on the Western Front 1939-1945: 367,000

A no-brainer, isn’t it?

Let's at least be honest and admit that the Allied contribution was a
bit of a joke. A sideshow, nothing more!

You discount the contribution of the US and Britain to beating
Germany, but it was the British RAF that broke the Luftwaffe in the
Battle of Britain. If they hadn't, that same Luftwaffe would have been
at full strength for fighting the Soviets (bombing, strafing,
supplying the Germany Army there, etc). That's pretty significant.
The US 1,000 bomber raids over Germany might not have produced
much in the way of deaths of military men, but that sort of thing does
put pressure on people to give up, which it wasn't long before they
did.
Now, no one could possibly hope to minimize the Russian
contribution to the war, but don't say the US and Britain sat on their
hands and didn't do anything.
The US fought a war on two fronts (Europe and the Pacific) and
won, while producing enough material to supply Russia, Britain, and
some other countries with the means to fight for themselves.

As has been often repeated (and accepted), without the Allies winning
the Battle Of The Atlantic, WWII may have had a significantly
different outcome. And for those who constantly repeat the idiocy
that the Allies were totally secondary to winning the war, I would
have to admit that militarily the Allies *did* win the war,
unfortunately, one of our 'Allies', namely the Soviet Union, got the
spoils of war by seizing and holding a large part of Eastern Europe in
the hold of dictatorship for almost 50 years which makes a for a great
debate suggesting just maybe we lost the war, considering our reasons
for going to war in the first place.

Dave Smith...

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:45 pm

Guest

Archie wrote:

Quote:

Let's at least be honest and admit that the Allied contribution was a
bit of a joke. A sideshow, nothing more!

I think it is a no brainer.

The West was watching two enemies destroy each other. In 1944 the jig
was up. Time to move in.

You can't really blame them can you?
What would be the logic of going in earlier than they did?

That is not exactly the case. France and Britain, along with their
Commonwealth countries, were willing to go to war against Nazi Germany.
Britain and France had tried appeasing Hitler but drew the line at the
invasion of Poland and carried out their threat to declare war. The
Soviet Union was not involved at that point, thanks to a mutual non
aggression treaty. The Allies were at war with Germany for close to two
years before Hitler reneged on that treaty and invaded the Soviet Union.

I would suggest that it was the US that was more interested in watching
its rivals knock each other out. They were not interested in going to
war and would have been quite happy let France and Britain fall. France
was occupied but Britain had successfully defended itself in the Battle
of Britain of Britain and prevented an invasion across the Channel.

Meanwhile, the US was sitting back and letting France, Britain and
German bloody each other. Germany did not invade the Soviet Union until
June 1941, and it was 6 months after Barbarossa that the Japanese
attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, followed a few days later by a German
declaration of war on the US. Had Japan and Germany not done that, the
US was likely to have sat out the entire war.

As for the vast difference in casualty figures, the eastern front was a
vast area of constant conflict from the initial invasion of the SU in
1941 until the fall of Berlin almost four years later. The OP has made
no mention of the other theatres of operation. He gave no figures for
the North African Campaign, the Italian Campaign, or the Pacific theatre.

David Johnston...

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:40 pm

Guest

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 14:23:48 -0700 (PDT), kangarooistan
<kangarooistan9 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Oct 1, 9:40 am, David Johnston <da... at (no spam) block.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:11:15 -0700 (PDT), kangarooistan

kangarooist... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 30, 5:49 pm, bringyagrogalong <sof... at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:
German military deaths on the Eastern Front 1941-1945: 5,178,000

German military deaths on the Western Front 1939-1945: 367,000

A no-brainer, isn’t it?

Let's at least be honest and admit that the Allied contribution was a
bit of a joke. A sideshow, nothing more!

WW1 has not finished yet mate ,not until Palestine is FREE can WW1
end ,

.
So you think that Palestine should be returned to Turkey?

silly boy , Turkey was not invented until 1923

It's the successor to the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Palestine
until World War I. If you want to reverse the outcome of World War I
in that area, giving Palestine back to Turkey is as close as you can
get.

Voyager...

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:53 am

Guest

x-no-archive: yes

On Oct 1, 12:27 pm, E. Barry Bruyea <termlim... at (no spam) democracy.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:40:05 -0400, Scotius <yodas... at (no spam) mnsi.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:49:35 -0700 (PDT), bringyagrogalong
sof... at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:

German military deaths on the Eastern Front 1941-1945: 5,178,000

German military deaths on the Western Front 1939-1945: 367,000

A no-brainer, isn’t it?

Let's at least be honest and admit that the Allied contribution was a
bit of a joke. A sideshow, nothing more!

You discount the contribution of the US and Britain to beating
Germany, but it was the British RAF that broke the Luftwaffe in the
Battle of Britain. If they hadn't, that same Luftwaffe would have been
at full strength for fighting the Soviets (bombing, strafing,
supplying the Germany Army there, etc). That's pretty significant.
The US 1,000 bomber raids over Germany might not have produced
much in the way of deaths of military men, but that sort of thing does
put pressure on people to give up, which it wasn't long before they
did.
Now, no one could possibly hope to minimize the Russian
contribution to the war, but don't say the US and Britain sat on their
hands and didn't do anything.
The US fought a war on two fronts (Europe and the Pacific) and
won, while producing enough material to supply Russia, Britain, and
some other countries with the means to fight for themselves.

As has been often repeated (and accepted), without the Allies winning
the Battle Of The Atlantic, WWII may have had a significantly
different outcome. And for those who constantly repeat the idiocy
that the Allies were totally secondary to winning the war, I would
have to admit that militarily the Allies *did* win the war,
unfortunately, one of our 'Allies', namely the Soviet Union, got the
spoils of war by seizing and holding a large part of Eastern Europe in
the hold of dictatorship for almost 50 years which makes a for a great
debate suggesting just maybe we lost the war, considering our reasons
for going to war in the first place.

What hogwash.

Voyager...

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:05 am

Guest

x-no-archive: yes

On Sep 30, 6:47 am, Archie <akenn... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 30, 4:49 am, bringyagrogalong <sof... at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:

German military deaths on the Eastern Front 1941-1945: 5,178,000

German military deaths on the Western Front 1939-1945: 367,000

A no-brainer, isn’t it?

Let's at least be honest and admit that the Allied contribution was a
bit of a joke. A sideshow, nothing more!

I think it is a no brainer.

The West was watching two enemies destroy each other. In 1944 the jig
was up. Time to move in.

You can't really blame them can you?
What would be the logic of going in earlier than they did?

Well, actually you can... lots of unnecessary deaths. But was it
pursuant to an agreement?

Roy...

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:07 am

Guest

On Oct 2, 11:53 am, Voyager <think.un... at (no spam) dlcwest.com> wrote:

Quote:

x-no-archive: yes

On Oct 1, 12:27 pm, E. Barry Bruyea <termlim... at (no spam) democracy.com> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:40:05 -0400, Scotius <yodas... at (no spam) mnsi.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:49:35 -0700 (PDT), bringyagrogalong
sof... at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:

German military deaths on the Eastern Front 1941-1945: 5,178,000

German military deaths on the Western Front 1939-1945: 367,000

A no-brainer, isn’t it?

Let's at least be honest and admit that the Allied contribution was a
bit of a joke. A sideshow, nothing more!

You discount the contribution of the US and Britain to beating
Germany, but it was the British RAF that broke the Luftwaffe in the
Battle of Britain. If they hadn't, that same Luftwaffe would have been
at full strength for fighting the Soviets (bombing, strafing,
supplying the Germany Army there, etc). That's pretty significant.
The US 1,000 bomber raids over Germany might not have produced
much in the way of deaths of military men, but that sort of thing does
put pressure on people to give up, which it wasn't long before they
did.
Now, no one could possibly hope to minimize the Russian
contribution to the war, but don't say the US and Britain sat on their
hands and didn't do anything.
The US fought a war on two fronts (Europe and the Pacific) and
won, while producing enough material to supply Russia, Britain, and
some other countries with the means to fight for themselves.

As has been often repeated (and accepted), without the Allies winning
the Battle Of The Atlantic, WWII may have had a significantly
different outcome. And for those who constantly repeat the idiocy
that the Allies were totally secondary to winning the war, I would
have to admit that militarily the Allies *did* win the war,
unfortunately, one of our 'Allies', namely the Soviet Union, got the
spoils of war by seizing and holding a large part of Eastern Europe in
the hold of dictatorship for almost 50 years which makes a for a great
debate suggesting just maybe we lost the war, considering our reasons
for going to war in the first place.

What hogwash.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not hogwash Mr. Voyager...Barry is correct in what he posted.
==

George...

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:17 am

Guest

On Oct 3, 7:07 am, Roy <wila... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Not hogwash Mr. Voyager...Barry is correct in what he posted.

That is what rankles with voyager.
Facts are anathema to his ilk

Voyager...

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:52 am

Guest

x-no-archive: yes

On Oct 2, 1:17 pm, George <gbl... at (no spam) hnpl.net> wrote:

Quote:

On Oct 3, 7:07 am, Roy <wila... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Not hogwash Mr. Voyager...Barry is correct in what he posted.

That is what rankles with voyager.
Facts are anathema to his ilk

Those weren't facts, asshat. The post was hogwash. The war wasn't
about freedom... and the Soviets did all the heavy lifting.

Voyager...

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:54 am

Guest

x-no-archive: yes

On Oct 2, 1:07 pm, Roy <wila... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Oct 2, 11:53 am, Voyager <think.un... at (no spam) dlcwest.com> wrote:

x-no-archive: yes

On Oct 1, 12:27 pm, E. Barry Bruyea <termlim... at (no spam) democracy.com> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:40:05 -0400, Scotius <yodas... at (no spam) mnsi.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:49:35 -0700 (PDT), bringyagrogalong
sof... at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:

German military deaths on the Eastern Front 1941-1945: 5,178,000

German military deaths on the Western Front 1939-1945: 367,000

A no-brainer, isn’t it?

Let's at least be honest and admit that the Allied contribution was a
bit of a joke. A sideshow, nothing more!

You discount the contribution of the US and Britain to beating
Germany, but it was the British RAF that broke the Luftwaffe in the
Battle of Britain. If they hadn't, that same Luftwaffe would have been
at full strength for fighting the Soviets (bombing, strafing,
supplying the Germany Army there, etc). That's pretty significant.
The US 1,000 bomber raids over Germany might not have produced
much in the way of deaths of military men, but that sort of thing does
put pressure on people to give up, which it wasn't long before they
did.
Now, no one could possibly hope to minimize the Russian
contribution to the war, but don't say the US and Britain sat on their
hands and didn't do anything.
The US fought a war on two fronts (Europe and the Pacific) and
won, while producing enough material to supply Russia, Britain, and
some other countries with the means to fight for themselves.

As has been often repeated (and accepted), without the Allies winning
the Battle Of The Atlantic, WWII may have had a significantly
different outcome. And for those who constantly repeat the idiocy
that the Allies were totally secondary to winning the war, I would
have to admit that militarily the Allies *did* win the war,
unfortunately, one of our 'Allies', namely the Soviet Union, got the
spoils of war by seizing and holding a large part of Eastern Europe in
the hold of dictatorship for almost 50 years which makes a for a great
debate suggesting just maybe we lost the war, considering our reasons
for going to war in the first place.

What hogwash.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not hogwash Mr. Voyager...Barry is correct in what he posted.
=
See reply to George.

Page 2 of 43 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 41, 42, 43 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:28 am Politics Forum Index