truth on hold Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) No joke. I've never read a worse assessment of any WW2 events. Joe, who the !@#$ have you been reading? Right because there was no race to Berlin between russia and US. That whole east-west Germany thing happened at the conclusion of WW2 because the German people wanted it. Edited May 21, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 21, 2013 Author Share Posted May 21, 2013 Right because there was no race to Berlin between russia and US. That whole east-west Germany thing happened at the conclusion of WW2 because the German people wanted it. There was a race to Berlin, but that has nothing to do with your earlier mis-statements about the war, and U.S. involvement. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 There was a race to Berlin, but that has nothing to do with your earlier mis-statements about the war, and U.S. involvement. . Was that about Germans bombing Pearl Harbor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Right because there was no race to Berlin between russia and US. That whole east-west Germany thing happened at the conclusion of WW2 because the German people wanted it. There was no race to Berlin. Read some history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 21, 2013 Author Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) There was no race to Berlin. Read some history. LOL..............I actually knew that the "race" terminology was untrue, but since I wanted to point out how this didn't really change what he had said about the war earlier................I figured why drive the thread I started about Syria even farther afield...............Oh well. . Edited May 21, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 The nature of war in WWII between nations is totally different than the sectartian violence within the colonial borders of countries in the Middle East. You can't compare them. If not for oil and Israel, we would treat the Middle East like we do wars in Africa. It's always been about economics and politics, regardless of political party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Did someone mention Hillary in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 The nature of war in WWII between nations is totally different than the sectartian violence within the colonial borders of countries in the Middle East. You can't compare them. If not for oil and Israel, we would treat the Middle East like we do wars in Africa. It's always been about economics and politics, regardless of political party. So you lost the argument and you fall back on the old "it's different this time" argument. War has always been about politics and economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 There was no race to Berlin. Read some history. Of course there was a race to Berlin it was between Zhukov and Konev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Of course there was a race to Berlin it was between Zhukov and Konev Well...yeah, okay. Though I doubt that's what JtSP was talking about. Not a very fair race, either. "Georgi, you attack across a river, through a marsh, and up this escarpment. Ivan Stepanovich...here, use this autobahn..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 So you lost the argument and you fall back on the old "it's different this time" argument. War has always been about politics and economics. What argument did I lose? You're hallucinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 What argument did I lose? Uh...all of 'em? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) The nature of war in WWII between nations is totally different than the sectartian violence within the colonial borders of countries in the Middle East. You can't compare them. If not for oil and Israel, we would treat the Middle East like we do wars in Africa. It's always been about economics and politics, regardless of political party. No different here. Roosevelt's motives for entering were to thwart the spread of communism across the continent from a soviet invasion of Europe, keeping trading partners open. Battle of Britain was lost by Nazis early in war in 1940, with the opening of a 2nd front against Russia in 41' further dooming them and opening the door for Russian advances on the continent. Edited May 21, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 No different here. Roosevelt's motives for entering were to thwart the spread of communism across the continent from a soviet invasion of Europe, keeping trading partners open. Battle of Britain was lost by Nazis early in war in 1940, with the opening of a 2nd front against Russia in 41' further dooming them and opening the door for Russian advances on the continent. What. The. !@#$? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 What argument did I lose? You're hallucinating. Sorry I got you mixed up with the other Joe. Easy enough mistake though wouldn't you agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 What. The. !@#$? So you think it was all about defeating Nazism as a means to an end (a regime that was already in the process of being defeated) , and nothing at all to do with the dominant global theme of communism vs capitalism? And youre going along with a consensus view, even though you think consensus is always wrong? Lol what a moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 So you think it was all about defeating Nazism as a means to an end (a regime that was already in the process of being defeated) , and nothing at all to do with the dominant global theme of communism vs capitalism? And youre going along with a consensus view, even though you think consensus is always wrong? Lol what a moron Ah so consensus isn't science means consensus is always wrong? Where did you learn how to read? The gulags in north korea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 So you think it was all about defeating Nazism as a means to an end (a regime that was already in the process of being defeated) , and nothing at all to do with the dominant global theme of communism vs capitalism? And youre going along with a consensus view, even though you think consensus is always wrong? Lol what a moron Yup, still an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Ah so consensus isn't science means consensus is always wrong? Where did you learn how to read? The gulags in north korea? Better place than you. But try reading this: on may 17, who posted "bottom line: consensus is bull****"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Better place than you. But try reading this: on may 17, who posted "bottom line: consensus is bull****"? Is 6:00am too early for popcorn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts