Pearl Harbor

Mr.Ganji · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:40 am

Why the fark does it matter? This is history...cold, clear history. You guys are debating simple facts. I don't see any subjects being discussed here that fall under the "controversy" catagory. All of this mixed with some immaturity and a lot of plain ignorance on the war itself.

America and its allies won the war. Period. Maybe someone should bring up a topic worth discussing about instead of the stupid e-shit thats being thrown around.

user · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:19 am

Mr.Ganji wrote:

America and its allies won the war. Period.

America didn't just won the war, they sent the nazi bastards to cry on their sorry asses

USA! USA! USA!

Mr.Ganji · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:24 am

I wouldn't rant on German soldiers...they were equal, if not better trained, disciplined, and armed than the Allies. If it hadn't been for a few, critical mistakes by Hitler, he could have easily conquered Europe.

xApplex · **Joined:** Feb 2008 **Posts:** 166 **Location:**

thats odd... i live right next to pearl harbor(less than a mile) and i totally forgot about it...i usually hear the planes or something and we usually do somekind of "remembrance" or "moment of silence" in school...o wells

JustKill · **Joined:** Nov 2008 **Posts:** 118 **Location:** Ecsro

John_Doe wrote:

JustKill wrote:

if germany won the war vs russia and england USA would have been done and destroyed.

Germany already lost when they tryed to take Britain and couldn't.

No.If germany didnt attacked russia and attacked england instead england would be destroyed whitin 1month

Quote:

America didn't just won the war, they sent the nazi bastards to cry on their sorry asses

USA! USA! USA!

Dude you think only usa fighted germany?they fighted only 250000soldiers in france while 5.1Millions died on russian front russia did the job america ended it.End.
Plus we arrived first at berlin thats mean we defeated germany not USA.

Sharp324 · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 4383 **Location:**

JustKill wrote:

John_Doe wrote:

JustKill wrote:

if germany won the war vs russia and england USA would have been done and destroyed.

Germany already lost when they tryed to take Britain and couldn't.

No.If germany didnt attacked russia and attacked england instead england would be destroyed whitin 1month

Quote:

America didn't just won the war, they sent the nazi bastards to cry on their sorry asses

USA! USA! USA!

Dude you think only usa fighted germany?they fighted only 250000soldiers in france while 5.1Millions died on russian front russia did the job america ended it.End.
Plus we arrived first at berlin thats mean we defeated germany not USA.

If im gonna read your crap then at least state sources to back it all up

Shadow · **Joined:** Feb 2008 **Posts:** 1039 **Location:** lolwut

It was not a single country that won the second world war. You are totally clueless bastion of ignorance if you claim that the USSR alone defeated Germany. The great USSR couldn't even conquer small Finland. Later the USSR got its arse kicked in Afghanistan, just like the States in Vietnam.

No country is invincible, no empire lasts forever. No, not even because you live there. Blind patriotism is just stupid.

Sharp324 · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 4383 **Location:**

Shadow wrote:

It was not a single country that won the second world war. You are totally clueless bastion of ignorance if you claim that the USSR alone defeated Germany. The great USSR couldn't even conquer small Finland. Later the USSR got its arse kicked in Afghanistan, just like the States in Vietnam.

No country is invincible, no empire lasts forever. No, not even because you live there. Blind patriotism is just stupid.

Wow someone i like on these forums.

The Joker · **Joined:** Aug 2008 **Posts:** 36 **Location:** In Chaos

Mr.Ganji wrote:

Why the fark does it matter?

Eight million people died.

I think the least we can do is to say that it does matter, don't you?

XemnasXD · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:06 pm

hmmm millions of ppl are dying now and there is something we can do about it but it doesn't seem to matter now....ppl look at mass murders in retrospect even while they watch it...

The Joker · **Joined:** Aug 2008 **Posts:** 36 **Location:** In Chaos

Not action, but acknowledgement.

To actually do something about it, well...let's just say that's impossible.

And it's not because we are not capable of, but not willing to.

JustKill · **Joined:** Nov 2008 **Posts:** 118 **Location:** Ecsro

The Joker wrote:

Not action, but acknowledgement.

To actually do something about it, well...let's just say that's impossible.

And it's not because we are not capable of, but not willing to.

8millions? you mean 80Millions died
and for the source that russia arrived first at berlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin
and lol? russia vs finland in 1v1 WITH NO ALLIES NO HELP NO SUPPLIES Finland would be destroyed in matter of weeks and who told u that russia tryed to conquer finland OO?we didnt got ass kicked in afghanistan we just did RETREATED not LOST OR GOT ASS KICKED THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RETREATING AND GETTING ASS KICKED
And the magnific picture of The russian army on Reichstag after declaring that berlin was controled completly

Shadow · **Joined:** Feb 2008 **Posts:** 1039 **Location:** lolwut

JustKill wrote:

and lol? russia vs finland in 1v1 WITH NO ALLIES NO HELP NO SUPPLIES Finland would be destroyed in matter of weeks and who told u that russia tryed to conquer finland OO?we didnt got ass kicked in afghanistan we just did RETREATED not LOST OR GOT ASS KICKED THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RETREATING AND GETTING ASS KICKED
And the magnific picture of The russian army on Reichstag after declaring that berlin was controled completly

Oh holy shit. I never knew it was possible to be so ignorant. You dont know anything. I dont know why anyone even bothers to answer to your replies.. Dont know why I do...
1. Finland had no allies during the winter war.
2. The soviet invasion of Finland was included in the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact).
3. to retreat = to run away. Russians ran away from Afghanistan after getting their arses kicked by Mujahideen rebels.

Your ignorance would be amusing if it wasnt so hardcore. Because now it's just sad. Go drink some Molotov's coctail.

heroo · **Joined:** Sep 2006 **Posts:** 6618 **Location:**

the only one who really got f*cked during the sovjet-afghanistan war was the U.S

the only reason the rebels won is that the U.S sponsored everything for them, but after the sovjets were beaten, the rebels began to f*ck with the U.S.

JustKill · **Joined:** Nov 2008 **Posts:** 118 **Location:** Ecsro

how could russia beat germany that was the best at this time and not the little finland and look like your finland i dont think we didnt attacked finland

Mr.Ganji · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:06 pm

JustKill wrote:

how could russia beat germany that was the best at this time and not the little finland and look like your finland i dont think we didnt attacked finland

Russia was no match for Germany initially. If it hadn't been for the Russian Winter and the Lend-Lease Act.

Russia attacked Finland and lost.

The Joker wrote:

Mr.Ganji wrote:

Why the fark does it matter?

Eight million people died.

I think the least we can do is to say that it does matter, don't you?

You don't need to write in italics.

What I was saying that didn't matter is the nonsense bullshit thats being thrown in here. Read my post carefully. I never meant disrespect to the dead.

JustKill · **Joined:** Nov 2008 **Posts:** 118 **Location:** Ecsro

then give me source that russia attacked finland?

Snoopy · **Posted:** Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:19 am

JustKill wrote:

if germany won the war vs russia and england USA would have been done and destroyed.

JustKill wrote:

Germany already lost when they tryed to take Britain and couldn't.

No.If germany didnt attacked russia and attacked england instead england would be destroyed [/quote]

With both of these; wrong. These countries have Allies. Strong allies, powerful allies. All greater forces than Germany. Germany stood no chance. It is in the middle of Europe.

JustKill · **Joined:** Nov 2008 **Posts:** 118 **Location:** Ecsro

france had strong allies and it got conquered in weeks every historian said if germany attacked england and focused on it they had won but they was worried about russia because stalin didnt like them at all every general said to hitler to not attack russia now but he did it what strong allies have america?israel LOL? israel would have been saved america from the giant germany army?russia? not sure

Shadow · **Joined:** Feb 2008 **Posts:** 1039 **Location:** lolwut

JustKill wrote:

france had strong allies and it got conquered in weeks every historian said if germany attacked england and focused on it they had won but they was worried about russia because stalin didnt like them at all every general said to hitler to not attack russia now but he did it what strong allies have america?israel LOL? israel would have been saved america from the giant germany army?russia? not sure

You are a joke. You dont know even your own country's history, yet you're talking about "every historian" as if you knew something about something. You dont even know which countries the soviets attacked in the second world war, yet you speculate about power balances of the world war?

Snoopy · **Posted:** Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:20 pm

JustKill wrote:

france had strong allies and it got conquered in weeks every historian said if germany attacked england and focused on it they had won but they was worried about russia because stalin didnt like them at all every general said to hitler to not attack russia now but he did it what strong allies have america?israel LOL? israel would have been saved america from the giant germany army?russia? not sure

You're forgetting what other vital allies these countries have. Although they weren't exactly the most largest armies, their training was superior to that of the German Nazi soldiers, that too of the Russian soldiers.

Mr.Ganji · **Posted:** Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:31 pm

JustKill wrote:

then give me source that russia attacked finland?

Winter War

Snoopy wrote:

JustKill wrote:

france had strong allies and it got conquered in weeks every historian said if germany attacked england and focused on it they had won but they was worried about russia because stalin didnt like them at all every general said to hitler to not attack russia now but he did it what strong allies have america?israel LOL? israel would have been saved america from the giant germany army?russia? not sure

You're forgetting what other vital allies these countries have. Although they weren't exactly the most largest armies, their training was superior to that of the German Nazi soldiers, that too of the Russian soldiers.

Whose training was superior to the Wehrmacht? America was totally unprepared for war when it broke out in 1939 and nor was America expecting to involve itself in another European war. Russia had little military capabilities until the Lend-Lease Act. Troops in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Luxembourg, etc. those conquered by Nazi Germany was a joke compared to the German army. Britain fared best of all those victim to Nazy Germany - however its epic failure to protect Poland and France prove just how militarily backwards the whole continent really was and how Hitler caught everyone with their pants down. Like I said before, its only Hitler's critical tactical errors that cost him the war, not the quality of his army.

Snoopy wrote:

These countries have Allies. Strong allies, powerful allies. All greater forces than Germany. Germany stood no chance. It is in the middle of Europe.

Name a "strong, powerful" allie(s). Germany stood no chance? It's in the middle of Europe, therefore it was weak? Come back after you've read about WWII - you don't know jack about it.

Snoopy · **Posted:** Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:49 pm

Mr.Ganji wrote:

Snoopy wrote:

You're forgetting what other vital allies these countries have. Although they weren't exactly the most largest armies, their training was superior to that of the German Nazi soldiers, that too of the Russian soldiers.

Whose training was superior to the Wehrmacht? America was totally unprepared for war when it broke out in 1939 and nor was America expecting to involve itself in another European war. Russia had little military capabilities until the Lend-Lease Act. Troops in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Luxembourg, etc. those conquered by Nazi Germany was a joke compared to the German army. Britain fared best of all those victim to Nazy Germany - however its epic failure to protect Poland and France prove just how militarily backwards the whole continent really was and how Hitler caught everyone with their pants down. Like I said before, its only Hitler's critical tactical errors that cost him the war, not the quality of his army.

Snoopy wrote:

These countries have Allies. Strong allies, powerful allies. All greater forces than Germany. Germany stood no chance. It is in the middle of Europe.

Name a "strong, powerful" allie(s). Germany stood no chance? It's in the middle of Europe, therefore it was weak? Come back after you've read about WWII - you don't know jack about it.

I've read about WW2, I've also studied it for years in my schools history classes.

At the time, the German army was one of the strongest. If countries like, Australia, New Zealand (cba naming others) who, if were on the same scale as that of the German Army their role could have been more significant. Their ground training was superior to the Germans, and Air-Force was later to become superior even though they have less jets and people.

I'm not saying the Wehrmacht weren't strong. Not saying their quality was bad. Simply saying that if other countries had an army on the same scale their role would have been more significant. However we can't go back in time, we can't change the amount of people that participated in the war. However, might I say, those who did, did it for the freedom of their country.

Mr.Ganji · **Posted:** Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:59 pm

Snoopy wrote:

I've read about WW2, I've also studied it for years in my schools history classes.

At the time, the German army was one of the strongest. If countries like, Australia, New Zealand (cba naming others) who, if were on the same scale as that of the German Army their role could have been more significant. Their ground training was superior to the Germans, and Air-Force was later to become superior even though they have less jets and people.

I'm not saying the Wehrmacht weren't strong. Not saying their quality was bad. Simply saying that if other countries had an army on the same scale their role would have been more significant. However we can't go back in time, we can't change the amount of people that participated in the war. However, might I say, those who did, did it for the freedom of their country.

Lol? Why are you talking about "what ifs?" Or are they "would bes?" You're right - we can't go back in time, so why are you considering countries that had almost absolutely nothing to do with the war in Europe? Even if Australia and New Zealand, who you contend were better trained than the Nazis, it wouldn't have mattered. Last time I checked, neither country was involved in the European theatre. Europe was at the mercy of Nazi Germany for a period of time during the war and until America could step in, nothing except divine intervention would have saved the continent from complete Nazi control.

Snoopy · **Posted:** Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:20 pm

Mr.Ganji wrote:

Snoopy wrote:

I've read about WW2, I've also studied it for years in my schools history classes.

At the time, the German army was one of the strongest. If countries like, Australia, New Zealand (cba naming others) who, if were on the same scale as that of the German Army their role could have been more significant. Their ground training was superior to the Germans, and Air-Force was later to become superior even though they have less jets and people.

I'm not saying the Wehrmacht weren't strong. Not saying their quality was bad. Simply saying that if other countries had an army on the same scale their role would have been more significant. However we can't go back in time, we can't change the amount of people that participated in the war. However, might I say, those who did, did it for the freedom of their country.

Lol? Why are you talking about "what ifs?" Or are they "would bes?" You're right - we can't go back in time, so why are you considering countries that had almost absolutely nothing to do with the war in Europe? Even if Australia and New Zealand, who you contend were better trained than the Nazis, it wouldn't have mattered. Last time I checked, neither country was involved in the European theatre. Europe was at the mercy of Nazi Germany for a period of time during the war and until America could step in, nothing except divine intervention would have saved the continent from complete Nazi control.

Quote:

With the coming of war, Australia had to make a decision: whether to look after home defence (there was a fear that Japan might try and expand its power), or to commit troops to help England. Japan had pledged its neutrality, and England had assured Australia that it was secure from Japan - the British naval base at Singapore would stop any Japanese advance towards Australia. So Australia committed itself to a European War.

At the time, Australia was a new country.

WW1
Major Allies
France
United Kingdom
Russia (until 1917)
United States (from April 6, 1917)
-
Minor Allies
Australia
Belgium
Canada
Japan
Greece
Italy (from May 23, 1915)
Montenegro
Newfoundland
New Zealand
Romania
Serbia
South Africa

WW2
Major Allies
(later: permanent members of the UN Security Council)
China
France (3 September 1939) - then (after 1940) Free France
United Kingdom (3 September 1939)
Soviet Union (from 22 June 1941)
United States (from 7 December 1941)
Minor Allies
Australia
Belgium (invaded May 10, 1940)
Brazil
Canada (10 September 1939)
Greece (invaded October 28, 1940)
Holland (invaded May 10, 1940)
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Norway (invaded April 9, 1940)
Poland (invaded 1 September 1939)
South Africa
Yugoslavia

Although considered a part of the "Minor Allies", for a country of which was only considered a part of the British Empire from 1901, Australia embarked on this war to prove that as a country, they have the means to become a strong country. If Australians were a no-hope weak little country, we would not be allied with Britain and USA, we wouldn't be invited to G20 meetings for the 20 largest Economies, because we wouldn't have an economy.

Anyway, before I get too off-track; we did fight in defense of our country, and Britain.

Mr.Ganji · **Posted:** Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:25 pm

I never said Australia did not participate in WWII - I said that it did not participate in the European theatre.

Snoopy · **Posted:** Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:42 pm

Mr.Ganji wrote:

I never said Australia did not participate in WWII - I said that it did not participate in the European theatre.

Quote:

When the Second World War began in 1939, it began in Europe. As part of the British Commonwealth, Australian & New Zealand forces were sent to the European Theatre to fight the Germans, and then in 1940 the Italians also

Quote:

When the Japanese began the war against the United States & the British Empire in the Pacific in December 1941, then some Australian & New Zealand forces would be shifted to the Pacific.

As the Japanese forces came closer to Australia, more Australian forces were used to defend Australia itself. Australian forces, later assisted by some US forces, were instrumental in the defeat of the Japanese in New Guinea. Australian forces were also used ito retake territory from the Japanese in the Solomon Islands and the Dutch East Indies.

JustKill · **Joined:** Nov 2008 **Posts:** 118 **Location:** Ecsro

the 3generals that was invading finland with 1million troops vs 250k only are surely stupid no tactic or strategy but still we did took some territories.. so i dont call it a defeat.

Junsai · **Joined:** Oct 2008 **Posts:** 135 **Location:**

Locketart wrote:

Not sure who the greater evil is here, the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbot and killed a couple thousand soldiers or the U.S. who nuked 2 Japanese cities and killed more than 100,000 civilians.

fire bombing tokyo killed about 130k hiroshima and nagasaki affected millions for years.

What was the epicentre of hiroshima? A christian church..or was that nagasaki..whichever nice job attacking "military bases".

As far as I am concered Japan was aggitated into attacking the usa. If we only look for a momment what was happening between us and japan during ww2 b4 pearl harbor you'd see that as well.

pr0klobster · **Joined:** Oct 2007 **Posts:** 1427 **Location:**

Junsai wrote:

Locketart wrote:

Not sure who the greater evil is here, the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbot and killed a couple thousand soldiers or the U.S. who nuked 2 Japanese cities and killed more than 100,000 civilians.

fire bombing tokyo killed about 130k hiroshima and nagasaki affected millions for years.

What was the epicentre of hiroshima? A christian church..or was that nagasaki..whichever nice job attacking "military bases".

As far as I am concered Japan was aggitated into attacking the usa. If we only look for a momment what was happening between us and japan during ww2 b4 pearl harbor you'd see that as well.

Yeah, Japan's little territorial war in China had nothing whatsoever to do with it...although, we might have stayed out of it, appeasement had already been tried and failed.

Silkroad Online Forums

Pearl Harbor

Who is online