RE: WWII and Who Won It

RE: WWII and Who Won It (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

EvilCrimeLord -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/12/2007 12:58:51 PM)
It seems strange to me that anyone considers that they can actually win a war. When all sides have lost people, resources and time how can that be considered winning? These days it’s even harder to determine when wars are won. In my opinion you only win a war when you stop it from occurring in the first place. Think how if world war one and two hadn’t occurred we could now all have flying cars. As humanity we lost time in fighting these wars that could have been spent on our technological development but then hindsight is 20/20 they say. So I suppose we had to fight them to realise we should be fighting other things that face us; poverty, disease, famine. Have we realised this yet though?

came4U -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/12/2007 1:49:01 PM)
War should be won just as the Car of the Year awards. best safety rating fewest casualties lowest pricetag foreign or domestic.

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/12/2007 2:22:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen But the best is the Mustang, simply for its speed.E and range NO? allowing more fighter escort to the bombers that were busy flattening Germany courtesy of Bomber Harris who IMO was treated disgracefully after the War. Two faced Winston Churchill had something to do with that ! Incidently I believe the Mustang was the most used fighter aircraft, powered by Rolls Royce engines, in the RAF. we had one plane that was faster but it was not out till the end of the war it was called the hellcat.. they were known to flip because of the power of engine when being throttled up

samboct -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/12/2007 7:49:01 PM)
Michael Your contention seems a bit odd. A quick web perusal came up with the following photo gallery: http://www.tgplanes.com/campdoc.asp?id=5 which shows several FWs on the Eastern front. German fighter geschwader such as JG 26 were occasionally rotated from the Western front to the Eastern front, and needless to say, they took their airplanes with them. As noted in an earlier post- the most sophisticated German aircraft which operated at high altitude were not used on the Eastern front because the Russian aircraft rarely flew over 20k feet. Hence, no need for aircraft such as the Ta-152 or the Do-335, or the jets, but all these aircraft were built in very limited numbers anyhow. (well, they actually did build a bunch of 262s, but they didn't have engines or fuel for them) Through the war, the Russian aircraft and pilots improved dramatically, but I'm not sure they had very many superchargers, hence they flew lower. Plus, the Russians used their air force in a largely tactical, rather than strategic fashion. IIRC, the Yak 9 was a pretty good dogfighter down low-but all the Russian aircraft had very limited endurance. So yeah, the very sophisticated German aircraft were only on the Western front, but their mainstay aircraft such as the Me-109 and 190 were used on both fronts, and the numbers depended on the need at the time. Sam

ManInTheBox -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/12/2007 8:16:27 PM)
Jap Zeroes were the fastest planes in WW2 for the longest time. Plus wars are fought politically, like a giant chess game. No one really has any regard for the life of a soldier, which is why all soldiers are given numbers. Besides...if we didn't fight WW2 we'd be speaking German right now cause we would have had to give all the land to Hitler to prevent it. Then again he really came about because of WW1...which is a different story lol

LadyEllen -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 3:13:27 AM)
And WWI came about because Germany only became a unified state in the mid 19th century and was too late to the table for the age of empire. And Germany only became a unified state so late in the day because the French preferred it that way and wangled it that way with the aid of the Vatican. And the French only got such influence by way of being the Vatican's stormtroopers for centuries after the Roman Empire collapsed. So the ultimate source is the Vatican and its insatiable desire to have power over the world, to secure which, anything goes. Why is it, that whenever I look at any problem, it all seems to lead to one source? Either I'm psychopathic or I'm right. E

Politesub53 -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 4:20:16 AM)
Lady Ellen it does all go to one source....Money, which brings power, which brings more money. [;)]

seeksfemslave -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 4:24:43 AM)
LadyE:I dont think you are right. So that leaves ???? WW1 started as a consequence of a challenge to the Austro-Hungarian Empire didn't it ? After that assination all the fat arsed European leaders just let the consequences of their grandiose miltary alliances unravel into mayhem and slaughter NO? Only effected a few of them The Russkies Royals for example, so not much harm was done . Thats irony I hope you all see that.

LadyEllen -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 4:37:14 AM)
I'm looking beyond and behind the imminent cause, Seeks. The arms race of the late 19th and early 20th century and the alliances that came into play in 1914 were based on limiting German imperial expansion, which was present only because Germany was too late in the race for empire. I believe all they got was Tanzania and Namibia, and those only because the rest of us agreed to let them have those territories as a sop to avoiding conflict, when of course we only got and kept our empire by those means and Germany was not only as entitled as us to do the same but also very capable of doing so. Question - if the Vatican is a country, does that mean that should I somehow become PM, I might be able to declare war? E

caitlyn -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 6:02:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Question - if the Vatican is a country, does that mean that should I somehow become PM, I might be able to declare war? This will be a top priority, after the election. [;)]

LadyEllen -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 6:11:01 AM)
What other country is there which has selfishly amassed great wealth at the expense of so many, whilst all the while engaging in mass control of populations through the manipulation of ideology, and destroying anyone not susceptible to or otherwise resistant to it - both individuals and entire populations? What other counry is there which has spent centuries vilifying certain ethnic and cultural groups, aiding and abetting in their victimisation through the perpetuation of its ideology? Which country is it which has manipulated the social and political history first of Europe and then of the world, in its aims for dominance? Seems to me the Vatican fulfils all the requirements of a rogue state. The population also wear dresses and think its OK to fiddle with small children if the other arguments dont do it for you. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 7:32:19 AM)
The last paragraph contains some truth but maligns many. NO? Dont forget, wickedness resulting from superstition is not a uniquely Catholic "thing" is it ?

Alumbrado -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 7:33:20 AM)
Depends on how many the hassock fits

LadyEllen -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 7:46:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The last paragraph contains some truth but maligns many. NO? Dont forget, wickedness resulting from superstition is not a uniquely Catholic "thing" is it ? And yet that doesnt stop us from regarding all Muslims as terrorists, nor their idiots from regarding all of us as infidels. Difference being that few in the Vatican have not sworn oaths to uphold and extend its evil, making it far clearer as to who the enemy in such a war would be. And no, its not uniquely Catholic - Protestants have done and do the very same. But protestantism is less easy to identify as to its source, whereas the evils of its forebear are sourced to one place whether by direct executive decision or by active or passive approval by the executive or by way of command responsibility. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 9:42:44 AM)
LadyE: I note a distinct change in the tone of your last few posts. Anything said in public might come across as patronising, irritating ,with my sense of humour, or might strike a nerve if I inadvertantly hit upon something that is bugging you. I feel like saying.... Let daddy kiss it better lol Go back to your old self LadyE, forthwith.

ManInTheBox -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 12:04:47 PM)
Why WW1 was caused is still debated. Obviously alliances like the triple entante and imperialism had something to do with it and the assasination of the Austrian Archduke (Ferdinand?) but the countries...just hated each other. They all had a long history...we just got dragged into it cause the Mexicans warned us :p

NorthernGent -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 12:45:49 PM)
The Germans always get lumped in with the imperialism crowd, but their motivation wasn't the same as the English. In fact, by and large, the Germans didn't aspire to the British Empire at all. Yeah, they had a king playing games with other kings, but, Middle Class Germans believed in the superiority of German high culture, whereas the English middle classes believed in commerce. They were different: notions of racial and cultural superiority were far more widespread in Germany than they were in England. The Germans thought the English totally degenerate with their love of sports and materialism, and Germans saw themselves as the saviours of European culture in fields such as art and music. In both wars, the Germans wanted living space in the East: they were fully bought into the notion that humans compete for living space, and it was either the Germans or the Slavs who would emerge as victors in this competition i.e. according to German intellectual thought, there wasn't enough room for both of them. Having said this, the Germans were less jingoistic than the English. The Prussian conquest of France passed many Germans by, because, quite frankly, they weren't that interested: there were no great momuments or commeration, unlike in England, to mark the victory. Fair enough, you can't lump everyone into the same category, but English and German culture were two very different beasts at that time, and they didn't share the same aspirations. The English wanted to make money, the Germans aspired to high culture. There are exceptions to the rule, of course: the English had a tradition of Shelly, Byron, Keats, Wordsworth etc, but the romanticism of these people didn't have the same influence on English culture as the romanticists of Germany on their culture. The end goal for the English was 'let's secure some raw materials and trade', the end goal for the Germans amounted to securing land for the Germans to breed, subjugate the Slavs and preserve their perceived cultural superiority.

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 1:26:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManInTheBox Jap Zeroes were the fastest planes in WW2 for the longest time. Plus wars are fought politically, like a giant chess game. No one really has any regard for the life of a soldier, which is why all soldiers are given numbers. Besides...if we didn't fight WW2 we'd be speaking German right now cause we would have had to give all the land to Hitler to prevent it. Then again he really came about because of WW1...which is a different story lol it was F6f hellcat http://acepilots.com/planes/f6f_hellcat.html great plane known as the ace maker

Sinergy -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 2:24:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen And WWI came about because Germany only became a unified state in the mid 19th century and was too late to the table for the age of empire. And Germany only became a unified state so late in the day because the French preferred it that way and wangled it that way with the aid of the Vatican. And the French only got such influence by way of being the Vatican's stormtroopers for centuries after the Roman Empire collapsed. So the ultimate source is the Vatican and its insatiable desire to have power over the world, to secure which, anything goes. Why is it, that whenever I look at any problem, it all seems to lead to one source? Either I'm psychopathic or I'm right. E Didnt the Vatican only come about by the attempts of a few wealthy families using a religion developed after a man was nailed to a tree for telling people to be nice to each other for a change, which came to power after being used in the later years of the Roman Empire? All roads lead to two boys raised by wolves. Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: WWII and Who Won It (8/13/2007 2:42:34 PM)
You are entirely correct. Manipulation of the Christian faith by the Romans is an easy case to make. Emperor Maxentius prior to Milvian Bridge (312 AD), "campaigned" on a policy of restoring the old religions and customs of the Empire, at a time when many of the soldiers of the Empire were Bucallari practicing the Christian faith. Constantine decided to play on this difference to motivate his men. Many historians doubt Constantine's Christian virtues, and in truth he was never baptized until on his death bed. Many historians also feel that had Maxentius established the tenants of Christianity as his method of uniting his men, Constantine probably would have been in favor of establishing the Empire's old Gods. An interesting read, is the history of the schism between the Eastern and Western faiths, during the time of Byzantine Emporers Justin and Justinian. It becomes clear that faith, was used to promote political aims ... and in the end, the Western Catholics found familier with the barbarian Merovingians and Lombards, prefering to incorporate pagan principles in their religion, instead of bowing to the power of Constantinople. It's not hard to understand the manipulative ways of the Vatican, given the lessons taught to the infant church. This is not to agree with it ... only to understand it.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875