Us tour with Sentenced

Yhm, sorry about that one, didn't mean to bring politics here. I was just reading some article about something that fascist bastard had done or said while I was posting that last one. I agree that YOU deserve seeing DT after waiting for an eternity - it is just that we, the mankind, also deserve someone else than that idiot leading the most powerful country of the world.

-Villain
 
Originally posted by Dreamlord
Again, I say we shouldn't have bailed those ungrateful Europeans out of WWII. You should be sucking our dicks.

A typical comment by someone completely uneducated in military history - as Americans usually are.

The Second World War was fought and decided between Germany and the Soviet Union - no other country had virtually ANYTHING to do with the end result. The invasion of Normandy and all the following operations on the western front were done only because the western allies didn't want to give the whole continental Europe to the Soviets - they had less than 1% to do with defeating the Germans.

More than 90% of the Axis soldiers killed in the war died on the eastern front. The western allies did commit many atrocities against the German civilian population (Dresden, for example), but militarily they did very little.

The battles of Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk were EACH more important than ALL the operations on the western front COMBINED. Had the western allies done nothing in 1944, the Germans would probably have fought against the Soviets a month or two longer than they did - no more.

The biggest contribution the US had in the war, was their lend-lease to the Soviets. Which didn't have much effect, anyway.

-Villain
 
DT in the states = :D :D :D :D

Originally posted by Villain


A typical comment by someone completely uneducated in military history - as Americans usually are.

The Second World War was fought and decided between Germany and the Soviet Union - no other country had virtually ANYTHING to do with the end result.

So I guess it was the Soviets that won the Pacific Theater as well?:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by fueledbymetal
DT in the states = :D :D :D :D



So I guess it was the Soviets that won the Pacific Theater as well?:rolleyes:

While I agree that Villain's comment was simply ridiculous, I've also found that it's near impossible to argue military history w/ Europeans, probably for many of the same reasons they don't like to argue it with us. Neither of us are ever wrong! :D

BTW, Dark Tranquillity better play TWO shows in the NYC area! Now I'm getting greedy!
 
Originally posted by fueledbymetal
So I guess it was the Soviets that won the Pacific Theater as well?:rolleyes:

The whole little conflict in the Pacific was - regarding the result of the war - just about as important as the fighting in, say, Denmark 1940. Absolutely insignificant.

The Japanese campaing started in 1937 when they conquered Mantshuria from China and ended in 1945 after the needless atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It had very little to do with the Second World War that was fought mostly on European soil.

Had the war in Asia ended in some other way, it would only have affected that region of the world. Had the Soviets not defeated Germans in 1941-45, we would all be speaking German by now. If we were ever born, that is.

The American media has for decades wanted to make the USA the victor of WWII and saviour of Europe, where in reality it was Stalin and his Red Army who really "saved" us. Ironic, isn't it? There are dozens of "authentic and historical" Hollywood-movies that portray the American soldiers as heroes of Normandy, Ardennes, etc. that have nothing to do with the real course of war; those battles didn't resolve anything - it was all decided on the eastern front.

If you still doubt my words, please check some statistics regarding WWII or read some book about the subject - written by some non-American, that is.

-Villain
 
@Villain: Without getting into a WWII 101 course, you have done a decent job here of stating SOME fact. However, you know as well as I that you're injecting quite a bit of your own opinion here.

To say that the Pacific Theatre was insignificant is your OPINION, not a fact. What IS a fact is that the end result of that portion of the war contributed EQUALLY to the war finally ending. And while I do agree with you that Stalin's Russian army lent a great deal toward the outcome of the European Theatre, they certainly weren't responsible for 90% of the outcome of the war as you've declared. It's true that the Germans were in no way, shape or form prepared for a "Siberian winter" as it's come to be called, and the fact that Hitler committed his forces to a multi-front war proved to be his downfall. Stalin/Russia merely "stalled" the Germans and kept them tied up so the other Allied forces could break through in France, Belgium, Holland, Italy and finally into Germany. So it would also then be true to say that the Germans OWN overconfidence contributed mightily to their downfall, no?

To say that the USA involvement in the above mentioned countries, our supplying the British, French and Russian armies w/ munitions, etc. for 2 YEARS before even entering the war, our crushing defeats of the STRONGEST portions of the German army in France, Belgium, Holland, northern Africa, etc. meant less than 10% of the outcome of the war is equally as ignorant.

It's fair to say that without the USA involvement from 1941-1945, the war would have dragged on for many more years and who exactly knows what the outcome would have been? Neither you nor I do, that's for sure. All I CAN say is that I'm glad the USA did get involved, and you probably should feel at least somewhat grateful as well.
 
Okay, this indeed should not be done here, and I agree that there are other points of view on this matter than just mine - but I just can't stop here right now. After all, I guess it is better to argue about this than about the terrorist actions Bush has been committing lately.

Originally posted by markgugs
Stalin/Russia merely "stalled" the Germans and kept them tied up so the other Allied forces could break through in France, Belgium, Holland, Italy and finally into Germany.

Most incorrect. At the time of the Normandy invasion, the Soviets had already won the war in the east and routed the German army - had the Germans thrown all their forces from the west to the east, it wouldn't have stopped the Soviets for any longer than a couple of months. I present some statistics I found from the net below to support this fact. ;)

Where you are right, is that the supply the Americans gave to the Soviets (and some less significant Allies) probably had an effect on the outcome of the war - a much bigger effect than any American military operation in the war had. Still, however, the end result wouldn't probably been different without it - again, it would probably just have taken a little longer for the Soviets to crush the Germans.

And again, about the war in the Pacific, that was just a regional conflict that started in 1937 and just happened to occur at the same time as the Second World War (well, that's for sure an opinion, but one shared quite largely outside those couple of nations that participated on that Pacific war).

And then about the statistics - here are the German losses (note, this does not include the Romanian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Finnish and Italian losses on the east front, which were massive) on both fronts up to 30th of November, 1944 (dunno why there aren't any numbers after that, the site is probably still under construction) taken from www.feldgrau.com/stats.html .

KIA = killed in action
MIA = missing in action
WIA = wounded in action

The west front after the French campaign and before Normandy:
KIA - 20 000 +
MIA - 1 700 +
WIA - ? (no information)

Africa campaign:
KIA - 12 808
MIA - 90 052
WIA - ?

Italian campaign:
KIA - 47 873
MIA - 97 154
WIA - 163 600

The west front from D-Day til 11.30.44:
KIA - 66 266
MIA - 338 933
WIA - 399 860

This limited info gives us a total of
KIA - 146 947
MIA - 527 839
WIA - 563 460
confirmed German losses on theaters that included Americans. Now, if we account 50% of them for the Yanks (which is probably an exaggeration, considering that the British, French, etc. were doing most of the work anyway), we get a total of 619 123 Germans removed from fighting by Americans.

Now, the eastern front from 1941 til 11.30.44:
KIA - 1 419 728
MIA - 997 056
WIA - 3 498 060

That is a total of 5 914 844 Germans removed from fighting by the Soviets - nearly ten times more than we attributed for the Americans!
And this was NOT counting the hundreds of thousands of Romanian, Hungarian, etc. soldiers that died in the hands of the Soviets.

Also note that all the best German units with the best equipment were fighting (and killed) on the eastern front - the units the western allies faced before the battle of Ardennes were inexperienced and poorly equipped second-line units.

The battle of the Ardennes was different, though - the remainders of the best German units were taken from the east to the west in one of Hitler's mad operations. The war itself, however, had already been decided in the east by that time - the Soviet march towards Berlin could not have been stopped with any forces the Germans had.

(And to add to it, the Soviets killed thousands of Japanese soldiers as well.)

-Villain
 
So if DT is playing at Jaxx, I have a question for those that have been there (since I'll for sure be there) - what's it like? How big is it? And most importantly, do they serve alcohol? :D





@Villain:
Originally posted by markgugs
All I CAN say is that I'm glad the USA did get involved, and you probably should feel at least somewhat grateful as well.
It's disrespectful to those that gave their lives to belittle their contrubutions with flawed reasoning such as death count=contibution.
 
Originally posted by fueledbymetal
@Villain:
It's disrespectful to those that gave their lives to belittle their contrubutions with flawed reasoning such as death count=contibution.

Aside the point we were arguing about, but still quite interesting. My dilemma is this: Should I respect those that have given their lives in the wars past because they were ready to die (and kill) for their ideals? Even if their ideals were different from mine? What if they made the world like it is today with their sacrifice? What if I hate the world their sacrifice has created? I don't know.

I have decided to give my respect only for those who live today and reflect my views of goodness in people. No soldier in today's world deserves my respect - I hate and despise them all. Everyone following Bush and his ideals, everyone following bin Laden and his ideals, everyone following Sharon and his ideals, everyone following Arafat and his ideals - they are my enemy. As a humanist I don't want them all to die now; I just wish none of them had ever lived for a second on this earth.

-Villain (pacifist-militarist)