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!

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!

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.

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!

Krudd the Dud wrote:
bringyagrogalong <sof... at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:

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

What exactly are you trying to say, you Hitler wannabe?

That Hitler didn't have the boats (or balls) to invade
England, let alone America, so he had to sate himself
with murdering his neighbors and his own.  

Fact is the SU _might_ have handled the NAZIs alone,
without lend-lease, Anzio or Normandy.  But that entirely
discounts the Empire of Japan which was  dealt with
by the Anglo part of the Alliance.

A two-front war would have been just as deadly to the SU as it was to the NAZIs.

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!

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

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

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


What exactly are you trying to say, you Hitler wannabe?

You've got to hit the ball, Barry, you've got to back your shit up!

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.

And what hysterical fact was that?

Come-on don't be shy.

Any idiot can stand there and say, "yup, it went over the plate, all
right."

You've got to hit the ball, Barry, you've got to back your shit up!

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 , it will last another few decades until every western taxpayer
has been totally bankrupted for israel

Only then can Muslims finally restore PALESTINE to its lawful owners

EXACTLY like in the first Crusades , it takes about 200 years to bleed
the west to death and they can simply no longer wage WAR in Muslim
countries

Every western country will continue support for Israeli occupation
until all money has been wasted , and Israel wiped off the maps

EXACTLY like last time and the time before that

jews are very slow learners

western taxpayers are suicidal fools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

kanga

Duncan Patton a Campbell <campb... at (no spam) neotext.ca> wrote:
Krudd the Dud wrote:
bringyagrogalong <sof... at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:

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

What exactly are you trying to say, you Hitler wannabe?

That Hitler didn't have the boats (or balls) to invade England, let
alone America, so he had to sate himself with murdering his neighbors
and his own.

He could have finished Britain off quite easily, after all, he made the
BEF turn tail and run for home in less than two weeks.

Hitler's mistake was his eagerness to attack Russia in fear that it
would attack Germany first.

Fact is the SU _might_ have handled the NAZIs alone, without
lend-lease, Anzio or Normandy.  But that entirely discounts the Empire
of Japan which was  dealt with by the Anglo part of the Alliance.

What! "the Empire of Japan was dealt with by the Anglo part of the
Alliance"?

Whoaa! The Yanks might take issue with you over that. LOL

A two-front war would have been just as deadly to the SU as it was to
the NAZIs.

Firstly, the Nazis were virtually destroyed by the time the second front
was opened.

Secondly, the Japanese would have been very reticent to take on the
Russians again after their defeat in Manchuria in 1939....

"It may be said to be the first decisive battle of World War II, because
it determined that the two principal Axis Powers, Germany and Japan,
would never geographically link up their areas of control through
Russia. The defeat convinced the Imperial General Staff in Tokyo that
the policy of the North Strike Group, favoured by the army, which wanted
to seize Siberia as far as Lake Baikal for its resources, was
untenable."

Duncan Patton a Campbell <campb... at (no spam) neotext.ca> wrote:
Krudd the Dud wrote:
bringyagrogalong <sof... at (no spam) aapt.net.au> wrote:

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

What exactly are you trying to say, you Hitler wannabe?

That Hitler didn't have the boats (or balls) to invade
England, let alone America, so he had to sate himself
with murdering his neighbors and his own.  

He could have finished Britain off quite easily, after all, he made
the BEF turn tail and run for home in less than two weeks.

Hitler's mistake was his eagerness to attack Russia in fear that it
would attack Germany first.

Fact is the SU _might_ have handled the NAZIs alone,
without lend-lease, Anzio or Normandy.  But that entirely
discounts the Empire of Japan which was  dealt with
by the Anglo part of the Alliance.

What! "the Empire of Japan was dealt with by the Anglo part of the
Alliance"?

Whoaa! The Yanks might take issue with you over that. LOL

A two-front war would have been just as deadly to the SU as it was to the NAZIs.

Firstly, the Nazis were virtually destroyed by the time the second
front was opened.

Secondly, the Japanese would have been very reticent to take on the
Russians again after their defeat in Manchuria in 1939....

"It may be said to be the first decisive battle of World War II,
because it determined that the two principal Axis Powers, Germany and
Japan, would never geographically link up their areas of control
through Russia. The defeat convinced the Imperial General Staff in
Tokyo that the policy of the North Strike Group, favoured by the army,
which wanted to seize Siberia as far as Lake Baikal for its resources,
was untenable."

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!


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