.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

Isn't that chart as much an indicator of how bad USSR battle tactics were?

Even if they sucked and lost 10 soldiers for every 1 they killed they did Far more than many other nations.  Like the ones not even fighting...

USSR did a LOT of killing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II

Edited July 24, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

I don't think he did. He wrote something trite and posted a dubious graph with wikipedia links and ran away

I do other things at times.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

"History" is written by the winners and varies by location and author.  No doubt you guys got American "educations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II

Edited July 24, 2019 by Enthalpic

[shadowkin + 584]

3 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

The other nations were making weapons and getting nothing in return, no land lease, no potential returns.  This was also giving US time to ramp up its industrial war machine without much risk of direct attack.

You guys value lives at nothing.

That first sentence doesn't make sense and who were these other nations (besides the USSR in the latter half of the war) pumping out so many weapons?

I guess you never heard of Pearl Harbor. Hawaii wasn't a state at the time but it sure as hell was a direct attack on the US. No other nation could directly attack us because they couldn't regardless of our war machine status. Japan came closest but that was about the limit of their capabilities.

I don't even think you know what you're trying to say with this graph. If you're asserting that country x suffered more casualties than country y thus country x contributed more to victory then according to your graph India, Indonesia, or Poland contributed more to the defeat of Nazi Germany than the US or UK. I'm not belittling their losses but that's just asinine.

 

[shadowkin + 584]

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

"History" is written by the winners and varies by location and author.  No doubt you guys got American "educations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II

and your 'education' is wikipedia (anyone can edit) and random, dubious charts from the internet which you don't even understand

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

That first sentence doesn't make sense and who were these other nations (besides the USSR in the latter half of the war) pumping out so many weapons?

I guess you never heard of Pearl Harbor. Hawaii wasn't a state at the time but it sure as hell was a direct attack on the US. No other nation could directly attack us because they couldn't regardless of our war machine status. Japan came closest but that was about the limit of their capabilities.

I don't even think you know what you're trying to say with this graph. If you're asserting that country x suffered more casualties than country y thus country x contributed more to victory then according to your graph India, Indonesia, or Poland contributed more to the defeat of Nazi Germany than the US or UK. I'm not belittling their losses but that's just asinine.

 

You don't think other nations were making weapons as fast as they could?  They were just using them themselves instead of trading.

I said "much risk"  a far away island getting attacked is different from Washington getting hit.

USSR took more casualties but also killed far more Germans.

Lives aren't free.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

and your 'education' is wikipedia (anyone can edit) and random, dubious charts from the internet which you don't even understand

You just choose to ignore anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

"USA rocks"

Edited July 24, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

6 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

and your 'education' is wikipedia (anyone can edit) and random, dubious charts from the internet which you don't even understand

There are 184 references in that wiki article, start reading.

[shadowkin + 584]

6 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

There are 184 references in that wiki article, start reading.

Once again you miss the point. Wikipedia may or may not be accurate because anyone can edit. Likewise the references may be legitimate but the editor twists it or ignores the reference but it's included to give the article legitimacy. It's clear you don't even read the links you post and don't understand the fake graphs either.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

Once again you miss the point. Wikipedia may or may not be accurate because anyone can edit. Likewise the references may be legitimate but the editor twists it or ignores the reference but it's included to give the article legitimacy. It's clear you don't even read the links you post and don't understand the fake graphs either.

This is oil price.  Shoddy links abound - wiki is generally not one of them.

Everything is "fake news" if it disagrees with you trumptards.

I don't have patience for your kind right now.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Enthalpic

[shadowkin + 584]

16 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

You don't think other nations were making weapons as fast as they could?  They were just using them themselves instead of trading.

I said "much risk"  a far away island getting attacked is different from Washington getting hit.

USSR took more casualties but also killed far more Germans.

Lives aren't free.

I said name them. Instead you respond with a question. Sure other countries were producing what they could but that paled in comparison to the US. So name them and name the quantities of war material. 

You said much risk of attack. But an attack occurred so that risk was 100%. Doesn't matter. Hawaii was US territory.

[shadowkin + 584]

1 minute ago, Enthalpic said:

This is oil price.  Shoddy links abound - wiki is generally not one of them.

Everything is "fake news" if it disagrees with you trumptards.

I don't have patience for your kind right now.

No, what you don't have are the facts. You're talking about fake news and you post a fake graph and wiki links whose veracity you don't even bother to verify?

[NickW + 2,714]

27 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Even if they sucked and lost 10 soldiers for every 1 they killed they did Far more than many other nations.  Like the ones not even fighting...

Irrespective of command acceptance of large casualties, The UK and USA did not have the land armies in which to engage in that sort of titanic combat on land that would generate those sort of casualties. 

The UK was primarily a Naval power so used this strength to blockade Germany and supply the USSR once it was forced to join the war and stopped being a major supplier to the Axis;-).....Population wise the UK was smaller and had a small army. The USA's army and airforce was tiny in 1939. 

There is also the indirect support provided. Bombing of Germany by 1943 had stripped the Germany Army of 70% or more of its fighter availability and heavy artillery which would have made a huge difference if supplied to Germany's eastern armies. Bomber Command fought a thousand battles but never got a campaign medal due to Political correctness. 

[NickW + 2,714]

23 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

You don't think other nations were making weapons as fast as they could?  They were just using them themselves instead of trading.

USSR took more casualties but also killed far more Germans.

Lives aren't free.

How many of those casualties were from the invasion of Finland and Continuation war? 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

58 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

No, what you don't have are the facts. You're talking about fake news and you post a fake graph and wiki links whose veracity you don't even bother to verify?

How did you verify the graph was fake?

If wiki is so bad start editing and see how long your BS lasts on there.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

40 minutes ago, NickW said:

Irrespective of command acceptance of large casualties, The UK and USA did not have the land armies in which to engage in that sort of titanic combat on land that would generate those sort of casualties. 

The UK was primarily a Naval power so used this strength to blockade Germany and supply the USSR once it was forced to join the war and stopped being a major supplier to the Axis;-).....Population wise the UK was smaller and had a small army. The USA's army and airforce was tiny in 1939. 

There is also the indirect support provided. Bombing of Germany by 1943 had stripped the Germany Army of 70% or more of its fighter availability and heavy artillery which would have made a huge difference if supplied to Germany's eastern armies. Bomber Command fought a thousand battles but never got a campaign medal due to Political correctness. 

All true.

I accept that USA did a lot of good, but the whole "we saved everyone's asses" rhetoric is too much.  Let's agree that it was a group effort and drop this.

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

47 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

How did you verify the graph was fake?

If wiki is so bad start editing and see how long your BS lasts on there.

Indonesia was a combatant? Do tell

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, shadowkin said:

Once again you miss the point. Wikipedia may or may not be accurate because anyone can edit. Likewise the references may be legitimate but the editor twists it or ignores the reference but it's included to give the article legitimacy. It's clear you don't even read the links you post and don't understand the fake graphs either.

 

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

This is oil price.  Shoddy links abound - wiki is generally not one of them.

Everything is "fake news" if it disagrees with you trumptards.

I don't have patience for your kind right now.

Wikipedia is generally not accepted as a reference point or aource of information in a debate.

Wikipedia can be useful as a casual overview of a subject, but since literally anyone can edit Wikipedia and scrub / delete / alter information as per their own biases and intentions, Wikipedia is generally not allowed to be a source of information in a debate.

Anyone who claims otherwise, has already lost credibility in a debate.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

24 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

Wikipedia is generally not accepted as a reference point or a source of information in a debate.

Wikipedia can be useful as a casual overview of a subject, but since literally anyone can edit Wikipedia and scrub / delete / alter information as per their own biases and intentions, Wikipedia is generally not allowed to be a source of information in a debate.

Anyone who claims otherwise, has already lost credibility in a debate.

Yes, but many here link to plain opinion articles all the time.  Wiki articles often do have credible references listed at the end if people bother to look. 

Furthermore, open editing can be a positive, in that two (or more) people with differing opinions can virtually "argue" via competing edits and the occasional wiki staff (a real editor) review.  In my opinion the truth often lies between the polarized views and this can come out in the documents.

Lastly, they are often top on google searches which sort of is a way of voting for the article (well it was a long time ago at least).

Edited July 24, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Indonesia was a combatant? Do tell

I'm not a historian, but obviously nor are many others here.

It looks like there were only civilian casualties in Indonesia.

Peace

Edited July 24, 2019 by Enthalpic

[John Foote + 1,135]

23 hours ago, shadowkin said:

I've said it many times but it bears repeating. First of all the USSR lost so many people because in the early stages of the war they fought very stupidly due to Stalin's interference.

It's hard to overestimate how Stalin's purges had wiped out any officer who knew how to fight. Stalin had to learn not to kill his own people who showed leadership potential. That said, Russia mattered more than the US, by a lot, in winning the European theater. Now without heavy USA involvement the UK falls. Without the US the Germans probably win, but the Soviets mattered a lot. The miserable Russian winter was a hell of a foe as well. What did we learn in "The Princess Bride?" Never start a land war in Asia.

[shadowkin + 584]

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

How did you verify the graph was fake?

As I said the graph for Indonesia looked fishy. So, I look at the reference for the graph that you got from wikipedia. It was originally 'self-made’ by some anonymous guy who used another now non-existent wikipedia page. What is that based on? We don’t know. 

It was subsequently uploaded 6 more times by 2 other anonymous users. What edits were made? We don't know.

Instead of the non-existent page Wikipedia suggest the next closest page about WW2 casualties. I use that.

Next I check the reference next to the casualty figure from this page. A book. I do a cursory check of the book on Amazon. Its impartiality and objectivity appears immediately questionable; less interested in history and more about pushing an agenda.

It claims, for instance, American firebombing of Japanese cities was due to racial animosity. Now a lot of Americans did have prejudiced views back then but so did the Japanese, Chinese, etc. So what was the reason for firebombing German cities?

This calls into question everything about that chart.

[shadowkin + 584]

You went from

On 7/23/2019 at 3:26 PM, Enthalpic said:

Absolutely not; the Soviet Union did far far more. You guys entered late after profiteering.

On 7/23/2019 at 3:26 PM, Enthalpic said:

But yeah you guys dropped the A-bombs on an already failing Japan.

as though we didn't bring Japan to their knees

to

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Let's agree that it was a group effort and drop this.

 

all because you posted a bunch of fake news and you were getting called on it and chewed up in this thread.😂

 

 

[shadowkin + 584]

2 hours ago, John Foote said:

That said, Russia mattered more than the US, by a lot, in winning the European theater. Now without heavy USA involvement the UK falls. Without the US the Germans probably win, but the Soviets mattered a lot.

You're contradicting yourself

[shadowkin + 584]

3 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I'm not a historian, but obviously nor are many others here.

It looks like there were only civilian casualties in Indonesia.

Peace

Ran away again. If you can't stand the heat...