|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jul 17, 2014 9:17:40 GMT -5
Let me explain something that you obviously aren't aware of or don't understand. The UN - representing all the developed countries of the world - has been condemning Israel since the first day of its existence. The UN Security Council has passed a number of Resolutions condemning Israeli actions against Palestinian civilians and demanding that Israel retreat from the territories it illegally occupies etc. In fact the UN has passed 45 Resolutions condemning Israel and demanding that it end the occupation, stop bombing civilians and so on. In order for the UN to TAKE ACTION to force Israel to comply with these Resolutions (whether sanctions, military intervention or whatever), it has to get the unanimous approval of the 15 Security Council states. But every time any kind of action against Israel is proposed, the US uses its veto to block it. EVERY OTHER Security Council state has advocated taking action to compel Israel to obey the UN Resolutions outstanding against it, but they can't take action without US agreement. Here's an example from three years ago: www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37572#.U8fTy0AqSSoHere are just a few of the UN Security Council Resolutions that the US has used its veto to block: S/1997/241 - Confirming Israeli Expropriation of Land in East Jerusalem as Invalid S/1997/241 - Demanding Israel Cease Construction of Settlements in East Jerusalem S/2001/1199 - Demanding Immediate Cessation of Israeli-Palestinian Violence S/2002/1385 - Condemning Israeli Killing UN employees of World Food Programme S/2003/980 - Seeking to Bar Israel from Extending Security Fence S/2006/878 - Calling Israel To Halt Gaza Operation S/2011/24 - Condemning Israeli settlements Established Since 1967 as Illegal and 38 others. The UN General Assembly has also adopted a number of resolutions saying that the strategic relationship Israel has with the US encourages Israel to pursue aggressive and expansionist policies and practices. So that's the reason none of the 192 member States of the UN has taken action against Israel, or intervened on behalf of the Palestinians. They are prevented from doing so by the US, which automatically vetoes all Resolutions calling for punitive action against Israel. As for other countries using the US debt to them to leverage action against Israel, most of the US debt is owed to China and Japan, countries with no real strategic or financial interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict. China is notorious for its own human rights violations. But even China, which is a member of the UN Security Council, has supported action against Israel. Therefore US is the only country that has the power to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, by discontinuing its policy of automatically using its veto to block sanctions against Israel. As long as the US continues to give its unqualified backing to Israel (and $3.5b annually), Israel can do whatever it likes: amass nuclear weapons (it has 300), steal Palestinian land, bomb densely-populated civilian areas, shoot children - in other words it is above the law and immune from any kind of punitive action. |
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jul 17, 2014 12:04:13 GMT -5
If that's the case I guess it's a good thing for the Jewish people that the US agreed with everyone else that the holocaust was a bad thing? So if the US had said "No, we're okay with this, leave the Germans alone." all the other countries would have just agreed and watched it keep happening? Then what? They justify it all by saying the US was okay with it so we had to be as well? Because that's what you're saying here....you're saying that it's ok for all the other countries to sit back and watch what they're doing, and it doesn't matter WHAT it is they do, if the US is okay with it they'll just agree to let it continue.
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Jul 17, 2014 13:09:52 GMT -5
If that's the case I guess it's a good thing for the Jewish people that the US agreed with everyone else that the holocaust was a bad thing? So if the US had said "No, we're okay with this, leave the Germans alone." all the other countries would have just agreed and watched it keep happening? Then what? They justify it all by saying the US was okay with it so we had to be as well? Because that's what you're saying here....you're saying that it's ok for all the other countries to sit back and watch what they're doing, and it doesn't matter WHAT it is they do, if the US is okay with it they'll just agree to let it continue. Britain & France were more involved during that era & took active roles. It wasn't just us doing everything as it appears to be now. |
|
|
|
Post by mcans_notloggedin on Jul 17, 2014 21:05:43 GMT -5
Your "suspicion" disgusts me ray. That's all I can say right now, &, I'm certainly not an apologist for Israel. There has been a disturbing upsurge in the number and political influence of fundamentalist Jewish communities in the last 10-15 years, to the point where in some places, like Jerusalem, the fundamentalists are actually in control. And these people are every bit as bad as the Muslim fundamentalists they decry so much - they've already pressed for gender segregation in public, and with the settlers dictating most of Israeli foreign policy it's only a matter of time until the fundamentalists take control of Israeli domestic policy in turn. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jul 17, 2014 21:07:29 GMT -5
You're serious? Geez, you really do need to learn some history. Most of the fighting in WW2 was over before the US became involved. The US stayed out of the war for as long as it could, and it only got dragged into it because Germany declared war on the US, and then it had no choice. It was either fight Hitler in Europe - where 40 million people had already been killed - or have German bombers flying over New York. The American soldiers who fought did a good job, but they arrived late to the party and their involvement wasn't what defeated Hitler. It was the Russians and the Brits who defeated Hitler. Twenty five Russian soldiers died in WW2 for every American soldier killed. America's refusal to become involved in WW2 until most of the fighting was over is something Americans should be ashamed of, but instead - thanks to Hollywood and US media propaganda - most Americans believe the US army went over to Europe and saved the day. (I have actually heard loud-mouthed Americans tell shopkeepers, waiters, barmen etc that "We saved your asses in WW2") You joined late, and then only because you had no choice, and it was in your own self-interest.
America also did diddlysquat to help Jews trying to escape the Nazis. Boatloads of refugees were turned away from American ports, and were forced to turn back and sail for places like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Ireland.
As I said, your soldiers did well on D-Day, but overall, the US's contribution to fighting the Nazis wasn't exactly your finest hour. (And that's without mentioning the 120,000 Japanese Americans who were rounded up and sent to prisoner of war camps in the US.)
If anything Europe and Russia saved America's butt in WW2.
As for the UN veto, that's the way it works. If the US vetoes any UN Security Council decision, no action can be taken. You can argue - as many people do - that the US has too much power in the UN, but the reality as of now - and since the UN was founded - is that the main founders have a veto, and the US always uses its veto to protect Israel from any punitive action arising from its refusal to obey Security Council Resolutions. Whether you like it or not, America is 100% to blame for the situation in Israel-Palestine. In addition, the US provides Israel with the weapons it uses against Palestinian civilians. Palestine has no army. No tanks, no ships, no planes. Israel has the best-equipped and most sophisticated army in the world next to the US. It has fighter planes, tanks, battleships, gunships, submarines, helicopters, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons. Palestine has qasam rockets, which are little more than fireworks. They do not carry an explosive charge, so the only way you can be killed by one is if it lands on your head. In 20 years only 5 Israelis have been killed by qasam rockets. In that same period, over 3,000 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians have been killed by the Israeli army. Qasam rockets are only symbolic resistance, and the land they are fired into is land that was stolen by Israel.
Obama made a statement a couple of days ago supporting Israel's right to defend itself (Israel isn't defending itself, it's defending land in illegally occupies, from the rightful owners of that land) and he remarked how terrible it was that Israel children were being killed by Hamas rockets. No Israeli children have ever been killed by Hamas rockets. Only Israel kills children.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 17, 2014 22:37:12 GMT -5
You have to be kidding. Russia was devastated by the Nazis initial attack. The USA lost fewer people at Pearl Harbor than we did in the 9/11 attack. "Europe" saved America's butt? The UK was the only nation there on our side. Switzerland and Sweden were neutral. All the others were helping Hitler. American aid to Russia in WWII saved their butt.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jul 18, 2014 0:33:00 GMT -5
Seriously, Bob, that's the most warped and balonious history of WW2 I've ever read. Where did you find that website!?
"Even with American aid, many Russians died from lack of food."
Yes, millions of them! That's how great US aid was.
I presume you're talking about the US's lend-lease policy. That was designed to keep the US OUT of the war.
The Soviets won the war against Hitler. 12 million Russian soldiers were killed (that's at least 25 times the number of US soldiers killed). 20-25 million Russian civilians were killed.
At the outbreak of WW2, in 1939, America declared itself neutral.
The US remained neutral throughout the most intensive two years of fighting, including the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, and the Blitz.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was on 7 December.
On 10 December 1941 Germany declared war on the US
On 11 December 1941 US declared war on Germany
The US only came into the war in its third year, and only after Germany had declared war against it.
Most war historians and military strategists agree that the turning point of the war was the Battle of Stalingrad, in which German forces suffered a heavy defeat after a battle lasting five months. In fact Adolf Hitler himself acknowledged that Stalingrad had been his downfall. After Stalingrad, Germany was on the defensive, and never really regained the initiative.
So yes, Europe - mainly the Russians - saved America's butt by defeating Hitler in the most decisive battle of the war. If the German army had not been contained and defeated in Europe, there is no question at all that their next step would be to attack the US mainland. They already had warships and submarines off the US coast.
The US didn't join the fighting in Europe until mid 1943. The German army was already in retreat. The heaviest fighting was over. The US had no involvement in Stalingrad. The party, as I said, was almost over. There was still heavy fighting to do, and I do not wish to detract from the contribution made by the US towards the end of the war, but the worst of it was over before America came into it. The US did nothing at all to help in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942 and most of 1943 (apart from selling materials to the Allies under the lend-lease program. Gee, thanks).
American troops did NOT "win the war", or "save Europe", or "defeat the Nazis", or "make the decisive difference" to the outcome of the war. They certainly helped. They made a significant contribution. But they arrived late, and they wouldn't have arrived at all if they hadn't been attacked by the Japs and if Hitler hadn't declared war against the US. After these events it was in the US's own best interests to send troops to Europe to fight the Nazis, rather than possibly have to fight them in the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 18, 2014 9:12:27 GMT -5
Seriously, Bob, that's the most warped and balonious history of WW2 I've ever read. Where did you find that website!? Argument from insult. Anyone can call a source bad names. Where are your facts? Hello, Zak. It was wartime. Russia is a big country. Did you actually expect the USA to feed the whole country? And itself. And the UK? All at the same time. So? Are you saying that success in war is based on the number of fatalities you have? Then nations that are wiped out should be victorious! Yes. What reason was there for the USA to enter the war in 1939? None. So your point here is not relevant. Which proves conclusively that the butt of the USA was never on the line, so your original point is false. The Russians could not have done that without American aid. Which proves conclusively that America's butt was never on the line. Thanks for proving it Zak.  Which, once again, contradicts your original point that Russia and Europe saved America's butt. According to what you said here, America's butt was never on the line to begin with. All of which is irrelevant since the USSR could not have done that without American aid. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jul 18, 2014 9:55:25 GMT -5
The historical "facts" on the page you linked are inconsistent with the facts in every history book, and in every online history, I've ever read. What you lined to was propaganda, not accurate, objective information.
You make it sound like charity. The aid wasn't donated free. The US didn't carry out humanitarian food drops. A cynical person could argue that the US exploited Europeans' predicament to make a profit.
Except that I wasn't discussing victory/defeat, I was discussing the contribution the US made to the war effort, and its commitment to the defeat of Hitler, and the number of fatalities is certainly relevant to that assessment. Russia sacrificed far more than the US in its efforts to defeat the Nazis. And in the end it was the country which, in the final analysis, did more than any other to crush the Germans and end the war.
To support its allies in Europe? To support its closest ally, Great Britain, with whom it was supposed to have a "special relationship", when British towns were being razed to the ground in nightly German bombing raids? To support and defend millions of European Jews who were being slaughtered wholesale by the Nazis? To stem the growing menace of a lunatic dictator who was clearly intent on world domination, and who had already invaded a number of countries?
There were a number of compelling reasons for the US to enter the war. But it didn't. It stayed out and sold materials to the allies.
It proves nothing of the kind. The butt of the US most certainly was on the line. Do you seriously believe that if the Nazis had conquered Europe and the USSR, the US would have been safe? Even if the Nazis didn't actually invade the US, the consequences for the US of a Nazi takeover of Europe (and much of the rest of the world) would have been dire.
Well, there you go with the "aid" again, making it sound like a humanitarian gesture. It was "aid" that had to be paid for in hard cash. In any event we don't know whether the Russians could have coped without American "aid". My guess is they would have prevailed in any case. But we are now entering the realms of speculation. The undeniable fact is that Russia did far more than any other country to defeat the Nazis, and they paid the highest price for their bravery and determination. America arrived late in the day, when Germany was in retreat and the final outcome of the war was pretty much a foregone conclusion.
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Jul 18, 2014 9:57:08 GMT -5
Your "suspicion" disgusts me ray. That's all I can say right now, &, I'm certainly not an apologist for Israel. There has been a disturbing upsurge in the number and political influence of fundamentalist Jewish communities in the last 10-15 years, to the point where in some places, like Jerusalem, the fundamentalists are actually in control. And these people are every bit as bad as the Muslim fundamentalists they decry so much - they've already pressed for gender segregation in public, and with the settlers dictating most of Israeli foreign policy it's only a matter of time until the fundamentalists take control of Israeli domestic policy in turn. Yes, that is very disappointing. If the Jewish fundamentalists ever succeed & take over the culture of the country bringing it back to the way things were thousands of years ago, I could then safely say I would withdraw any support I have for Israel.So far, they are pressing for things like gender segregation, women covering their arms (so sexual, bare arms), etc. & have for many years. Although they press, they have not had success. In fact, I believe women are protected if they pray at the Wall (My neighbor's granddaughter is an Israeli rabbi & has written about this for Huff Post) I will take a 'wait & see' attitude on this, but would never support a religious, fundamentalist state of any kind. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 18, 2014 17:49:33 GMT -5
The historical "facts" on the page you linked are inconsistent with the facts in every history book, and in every online history, I've ever read. What you lined to was propaganda, not accurate, objective information. What history books are those? Anyone can say that they have read contradictory facts. You didn't even give one link. I never said it was charity. What I did say was that without that aid, the USSR would have probably been defeated. Without the trucks alone, they could not have moved their troops.  What profit was that? The aid to the USSR was never repaid. Oh I agree that they more fatalities. My point was that without U.S. aid, they probably would have been defeated or forced to sue for peace. Roosevelt wanted to get into the war, but he couldn't. After Russia signed that pact with Germany, the Communist Party and waged a campaign to keep America out of the war. That's hypothetical. The fact is that Europe and the Soviet Union were battered. Except for Pearl Harbor, the USA was unscathed. The German armed forces were already strained occupying all those countries. There were resistance movements in in every country they occupied. Japan was bogged down in China. The fact is that the Axis Powers were already stretched too thin. And there you go again ignoring the fact that without this aid, Europe would have fallen. What "speculation?" 2/3 of all the trucks Russia had came from the USA. And that was only a small part of the aid. And yes, it was aid. Russia never paid the USA back even one penny. Yes. But that is not the issue here. They didn't save America's butt. America saved their butt. Wrong. The USA entered the war in December 1941 when Germany was most certainly not in retreat. The Battle of Stalingrad did not take place until a year later. It wasn't over until February 1942. And the Battle of El Alamein didn't happen until July 1942. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jul 19, 2014 3:14:02 GMT -5
Speculation. This presumes that they couldn't have got trucks from another source, or made do with available transport (horse-drawn carriages were still in widespread use). There were also trains. Or even that troops couldn't have walked. It wasn't unheard of in those days for troops to march hundreds of miles. I don't deny that the US "aid" helped Russia, but I don't agree with your claim that this "aid" was crucial to Russia defeating the German army. The Russians are a very resourceful people. And they had the weather (the *bad* weather) on their side.
It's hypothetical that the consequences of a Nazi takeover of Europe and most of the rest of the world would have had dire consequences for the US? Are you serious?
The US was unscathed because the Nazis were defeated in Europe, mainly by the Russians and the Brits. That the US was unscathed supports the probability that they saved your butts : )
On the contrary, the entire Russian debt was repaid in full. The first consignments were actually paid for in gold bullion. Part of the remainder ($160m) was paid by Finland (as part of a reparations arrangement with the USSR). The USSR then made payments up until it broke up. Russia then assumed the debt (though it had no legal obligation to do so). The entire debt - including interest - was finally cleared in 2009.
Butwhat a nerve, expecting Russia to pay for the equipment it needed to fight an army which, if it had not been stopped, would soon have been dropping bombs on American cities. The US ought to have paid Russia for saving it from the Nazis.
The US officially entered the war in December 1941 (in fact it was in the war from the moment Germany declared war on it, whether it liked it or not). But the first US military boots didn't set foot on mainland Europe until July 1943 (the invasion of Sicily), long after Stalingrad. When Germany was in retreat.
The US army did a good job WHEN they eventually came into the war. I have no criticism at all of the army. The US government is another kettle of fish altogether. Yes, FDR wanted the US to become involved, but very few others did. And my main point is that the legend Americans have been fed - that America "won the war", or "saved Europe from the Nazis" - is completely bogus. American soldiers made a significant contribution to the fight against Germany, but they did arrive late in the day, when the worst of the fighting was over, and the Russians had already broken the back of the Nazi war machine, at a cost of 25 million soldiers and civilians killed in action, and another 6 million from hunger and disease.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 19, 2014 11:09:26 GMT -5
Speculation. This presumes that they couldn't have got trucks from another source,... Really? What other source? There weren't any. Horse drawn transport is much slower. And where were they going to get enough horses? If there were enough trains and horses, they why did they need all those trucks? Marching troops take much longer than trucking troops. That's not good when you are facing a highly mechanized German army. Taking longer also means you are more vulnerable to air attacks. And your evidence for this is...?What you are asking us to believe is that a massive amount of aid was not crucial. That's a stretch. Red Herring. Please don't change the subject. It is a fact that Europe and the Soviet Union were battered. Do you deny this? As usual, you are making a statement unsupported by facts. Where are your supporting links? Supporting links please.  Red Herring. The topic is: Did Russia save America's butt? If you want to make an issue about payments, start another thread. So far you have presented no evidence to support your claim. The USA was in the war from the moment war was declared. Supplies were sent to the British and Russians shortly afterwards. The Battle of Midway took place in the Summer of 1942. The USA was in the war while the Germans were still advancing. Good. The last time I looked, FDR was the head of the U.S. government. And most of those who wanted to keep the USA out of the war were on the far left. The Nazis weren't completely on the road to defeat until after the Battle of Kursk, which happened in July and August of 1943. That was the last big German offensive on the Russian front. By that time, US forces were already in the field. Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa, started in November 1942, over 6 months earlier. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_TorchAnd yes, the Russians did break the back of the German war machine, and at a terrible cost. But they did it with American trucks, tanks, planes, and food. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jul 19, 2014 12:40:03 GMT -5
There was no hurry. The German army was bogged down. As for where they were going to get horses, they did have horses themselves, you know; and the US isn't the only country in the world. Maybe they could have got more horses from China (an allied country that lost 12m people in the war) or some other country. I don't know the answer to that, but neither do you. As I said, the Russians are an extremely resourceful people. If they hadn't received US "aid", my guess is they would still have prevailed over Germany.
Well, who says they needed them? It's not at all clear that they needed these things to defeat the Germans, or that the US was the only country able to provide them. But so what anyway? The US sold them materials and equipment, so on that basis America saved them? If I buy a gun in a gun shop and I use it to shoot somebody who's attacking me, am I supposed to be grateful to the gun shop owner for saving my life?
Ah, but the German army wasn't highly mechanized in Russia. It was bogged down in mud and snow. It was frozen solid. German soldiers were dying from the cold, and from starvation. They weren't used to the extreme weather. The Russians were. And in fact the Russians had more mobility than the Germans, owing to the fact that they were still relying heavily on horses. That's why I question the usefulness of US trucks etc. Most mechanical vehicles were bogged down on the Russian front, and pretty much useless.
Well, let me ask you a different question. Who financed the German war machine and provided Hitler with the materials he needed to launch his war in Europe? It was American industrialists including Prescott Bush (father of George Bush Snr., who was actually indicted for trading with the enemy), Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford and, of course the Rothschilds. Hitler was bankrolled and supplied by corporate America.
You're the one who made the claim that the Russians never repaid a penny of the debt. Where are your supporting links?
And he didn't take the US into the war, even though he wanted to, because...?
Wiki quote. Wiki is not a reliable or objective source of information on anything. I could go and edit a Wiki article myself, and then link to it. So I don't *do* Wiki.
And Hitler waged his war with money, equipment and fuel provided by American businessmen, American banks and American politicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 19, 2014 19:50:57 GMT -5
There was no hurry. The German army was bogged down. Bogged down everywhere and at all times? Really? Where is your supporting evidence? Then why were they using the U.S. trucks? Oh yeah, sure. And brought them all the way across Siberia? China was struggling themselves. They were in no position to provide support to anyone. But I do know the answer. There was no other country that could have given such massive aid to the Russians because no other country had the industrial power. A guess is not a fact. That massive amounts of supplies were sent to the Russians is a fact. It is also a fact that they used it and didn't refuse it. And it is a fact that the Russians are still grateful for the aid they received from the USA. In fact, they even have a museum to commemorate it! The Russians did! And they even opened a museum to immortalize that fact. That's a really bad analogy. Here's a better one. Some bad guys in Nazi uniforms are chasing you. You run into a gun shop and beg the owner to sell you a gun. He does so in the nick of time and saves your life. Hell yes, you should be grateful. That was only true in the winter. In the spring, summer, and fall, the Germans were highly mobile and made most of their advances. And you have not given any evidence that the Russians were relying heavily on horses. Yeah, that's probably why the Russians sent all the trucks back to the USA. Wait a minute!. They didn't send any of them back. That's called a Red Herring. You are introducing another totally different issue to keep from dealing with your original claim that Europe and Russia saved America's butt. If that were true, then why did Russia set up a museum to commerate the American aid? Because the Communist Party and the America First movement opposed doing that. No problem. There are plenty of other sources. Operation Torch was a major invasion. My point was that it happened in 1942 while the German army was still an the advance. Here is a non-Wiki link: www.secondworldwarhistory.com/operation-torch-the-allied-invasion-of-north-africa.aspThat's another Red Herring. We were discussing your claim that Europe and Russia saved America's butt. There is massive evidence to show that claim is false. American aid saved their butts. If you want to talk about who helped Hitler, start another thread. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jul 20, 2014 10:36:22 GMT -5
It wasn't necessary for them to be bogged down "everywhere and at all times". They were bogged down for the winter on the main German front. First by the raid, and then by the snow and ice. All war historians agree that this was the turning point of the war. Watch the whole video, it's excellent footage. Or run it from 17.00
The US *sold* materials to the Russians. Again, you use words like "sent" and "aid" is if it were a humanitarian gesture on America's part. It was in the US's interests to stop the Nazis, and the goods were sold, not donated free. And as I said above, if I buy a gun from a gun shop and use it to protect myself, I don't owe a debt of gratitude to the shop that sold me the gun. The Russians did all the fighting. America sold them materials (while other Americans financed Hitler and supplied the German army).
Watch the video above. The Germans were NOT "highly mobile" in the spring, summer and fall. That's just false. The German regiments on the Russian front were decimated. The soldiers who were killed were replaced by 16-year-olds. The Germans never really recovered from their defeat at Stalingrad. The video also shows that the Russians were still heavily reliant on horses, and that motorized vehicles - tanks, trucks, armoured cars etc - ceased up in the sub-zero temperatures.
Well that's just silly. Russia - along with the rest of Europe - had more urgent things to think about than transporting equipment to the US (equipment they had bought). Like rebuilding the country, recovering bodies etc - all the things America never had to do. Apart from that, most of the equipment you're talking about was destroyed in the fighting.
It is highly relevant to your counter claim that America saved Russia and Europe, that the US financed and supplied the Nazis. How can you claim that America saved Europe and Russia from the Nazis when America financed and supplied the Nazis? That isn't a different issue. That's a fact that's central to - and refutes - your claim.
Well, that depends on whether or not you accept that world domination by the Nazis would have had dire consequences for the US. If you believe that it would, then you must accept that Russia saved America's butt. But as you've said that in your opinion German global domination would not have adversely affected the US, then fine, Russia didn't save America's butt. But I didn't state categorically that Russia saved America's butt, I said that if anything - ie, as an alternative to the popular notion among Americans that the US saved Europe and Russia - Russia saved America's butt. It depends on what you think would have happened next. My main point was that the US categorically did not save either Europe's or Russia's butt, as most Americans seem to believe. And I regard that as an extremely offensive claim, given that 60 million Europeans died fighting the Nazis, and millions more lost everything they had. For decades after the war ended, Europeans had to tolerate loud-mouthed American tourists who demanded and expected to be treated like VIPs because, as they believed, and as they were fond of saying, "We saved your asses in the war". They did not save our asses in the war. They arrived late, when most of the fighting was over. They made a significant contribution to the final defeat of Hitler's army, but their contribution was dwarfed by the contributions of Russia and Britain.
Russia, more than any other country, defeated the Nazis. America helped. Eventually. That's the reality.
Yes, they'd been in the field for a whole week.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 20, 2014 12:47:30 GMT -5
It wasn't necessary for them to be bogged down "everywhere and at all times". They were bogged down for the winter on the main German front. First by the raid, and then by the snow and ice. All war historians agree that this was the turning point of the war. Watch the whole video, it's excellent footage. Or run it from 17.00 Winter lasts how long? 4 months? The rest of the time the German army was not bogged down. Your video is irrelevant. Once again, irrelevant to proving your original claim. The fact is that Russia did not save America's butt. America saved Russia's butt. And as I said above, that is a false analogy. A better one would be this. You are barricaded in your house and outside there are a bunch of thugs trying to break in. You call the gun store and the owner delivers the gun to you while risking his own life. Many Americans were killed by German submarines while trying to deliver those supplies. It is an insult to them and to their sacrifice to claim that this was no more than a mere commercial transaction. The Russians did all the fighting on the Russian front. They were not in the North African invasion in 1942. As for some Americans financing Hitler and supplying the German army, are you claiming they did this after war was declared on the USA? Your video prove nothing of the sort. All it shows is that the Germans got bogged down in the late fall and winter. The Russians used horses because they had nothing else. Thanks for proving my point Zak. It was Russia's butt that was on the line, not America's. And the fact which you mentioned that most of the equipment was destroyed in the fighting shows that the Russians were using it! No Zak, your claim is a Red Herring. The question is: Were the supplies that the USA sent to Russia instrumental in the Russian victory. The answer is yes. Did some Americans help Hitler? I don't know. You haven't given any supporting evidence at all. But even if some did, every nation has it's traitors. That is nothing but speculation on your part. The fact is that the Russians did defeat the Germans and they were aided in this by the massive amount of supplies that America sent them. We are discussing what actually happened, not some fantasy about what might have been. Was the American aid critical to the Russian victory or not? This is the question that you are avoiding. A point for which you have presented no evidence at all. Even the Russians admit that the American supplies were critical to their victory. In my previous post, I mentioned that the Russians even have a museum devoted to commerating this aid. Perhaps you missed it. Here it is again: “The Museum of the Allies and Lend-Lease is a unique, one-of-a-kind museum,” said Nikolai Borodin, Director, Museum of the Allies and Lend-Lease, Moscow at a 29 May 2012 Kennan Institute event. Borodin said he wished to honor and show gratitude to the United States and its veterans who rendered aid to the Soviet Union during World War II. “Those years were a very trying time and the aid received from the U.S. was substantial and timely,” he stated. The museum, which is located in a school in Russian and opened eight years ago, is dedicated to the WWII allies but mainly focuses on the American contribution to the war effort. The Great Patriotic War, as Russians call World War II, claimed the lives of more than 27 million Soviet citizens. When Putin traveled to Normandy, France to celebrate the 60th VE Day anniversary, he took with him two WWII veterans. Those veterans were members of the organization that ultimately helped to open the Museum the Allies and Lend-Lease. Shortly after Putin’s return from Normandy, the Museum of the Allies and Lend-Lease was given approval to open. The greatest contribution to the museum from the Russian government, according to Borodin, was Putin’s statement at Normandy, where he encouraged citizens to celebrate the aid the U.S. gave to Russia and to move beyond the Soviet practice of denying the importance of lend-lease. www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-allies-and-the-role-lend-lease-wwii-the-russian-viewRead more: unfacts.freeforums.net/thread/1191/?page=2#ixzz381zhfMNpThe fact that some Americans were rude people does not negate the fact that without American help, the war could have been easily lost. That is totally false. As I pointed out, the North African Campaign happened in 1942, well before the Battle of Stalingrad. Supplies from America started flowing well before that. That's your unsupported opinion. America helped BIG TIME. Once again, even the Russians admit this and they have a museum to commemorate the American Aid. And your evidence is...? Oh gee, you didn't give any. The fact is that American troops started seeing action with the November 1942 invasion of North Africa. That was 8 months before the battle of Kursk even started. Of course American supplies started flowing much earlier. These are facts that you seem to be ignoring. Bob [/quote] |
|
What profit was that? The aid to the USSR was never repaid.