WWI/WWII (continued from thugz mansion)

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

You should just give up your whole 'fear' theory, because it's obviously not true. For example, if someone killed your mom, would you attack them? You would wouldn't you? Okay, now did you attack them because you were pissed that they killed your mom, or because of fear that they might come back for you? It's pretty obvious that you'd be upset that they killed your mom. Hoping my analogy was easy enough for you to catch. Now, with that said, I can get to the real point. Our response was declaring war on Japan, and our most notable "attacks" were the nuclear arms at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If it's 'obviously not true', why do you have such a problem disproving it?

And you seem to find it really hard to grasp that Pearl Harbour made America look weak & slow. Why? I can see that Nagasaki & Hiroshima showed strength, but you can't see that Pearl Harbour showed weakness? That is just plain ignorance.

You said that Japan attacked America because it sought to conquer more land. If you weren't implying that Japan was trying to gain control of Hawaii, than please explain what you meant, because it seems pretty obvious that that is what you meant.

I will overlook the patheticness of your sentences & try to simplify things for you. Japan actively wanted to conquer more land - for living space, raw materials etc. Japan saw an opportunity to weaken the US - Japan took it, end of. That is all. No conquering Hawaii, no conquering America. Could it be any simpler? Possibly, but I'd need to hit myself over the head to take myself down to that level.

The reaction was declaring war on Japan. I already said this. Okay, now here's where it gets complicated, try to keep up. We declared war on Japan. In response, Germany declared war on us. In response to that, we declared war back on Germany. So, when the U.S. declared war on Germany, it officially put us into World War II. But (are you ready for this?), Japan attacking us sparked the beginning of our entry! See, it's a whole cause/effect relationship! Too complicated? I hope not!

Sparked? Then why don't we blamed the ancestors of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Fact is, until there is a declaration of war regarding a nation involved in the World War, America isn't in the war. Too complicated? I suspect it will be, but I can always hope.

Okay, I've been trying to use lamen's terms for you this whole time, but it has not been working, so I will dumb it down another level for you! Here goes....

I would laugh if it weren't so pathetic. While you're using laymen's terms, you might want to learn how to spell, punctuate, construct sentences & get the hang of grammar while you're there.

When I say "You're plainly wrong", it's not because I believe you're wrong, it's because you ARE wrong. When there are facts, you can either be right or wrong. When there are opinions, you can niether be right nor wrong. This is a conversation based on facts. Therefore, when I say you're wrong, it's not because I disagree with you, it's because your facts are not right.

Another waste of my time.

Thinking ahead is wonderful. It really is. However, it is extremely unnecessary in this case. Why would America choose to attack if there was a possibility that they didn't need to? The allies were doing fine for themselves in the war, and I realize that America wanted them to win. Okay, here's another example. You have a friend who is extremely physically fit. He gets in a fight with a kid a few years younger than him. Halfway through the fight, it is obvious your friend will most likely win. Do you jump in and fight the little guy, or let your friend take care of it because he has it under control? I'm not sure what you would do, but I would let my friend take care of it.

Why did the American government invade Iraq? They didn't need to but they did anyway, right? Good.

Tell me something, in this hypothetical fight, will your nation's economy be severely damaged if your friend loses? Will the 'little guy' become a superpower if he somehow wins?

Do you really think that it bothers me that you and maybe a few people on this board don't think I have a high IQ? Do you know me in real life or just from this board? I've made it clear in this post that I can be grammatically perfect if I want to be. Yet, I find it no use since it's a waste of time, when I'm just posting on an internet message board.

But kid, you misconstrue what I say in almost every post despite my posts containing few errors & yet you expect me to sit & read through your barely comprehensible posts - which are made harder to read by the fact that, due to your intelligence, basic assumptions cannot be made.

P.S. Do you think a person with an IQ as low as mine can get 4.0's in school?

I'm not sure what this level is, but you are trying to make it sound high so I'm guessing - if you can achieve it - then it can't be all that hard. Besides that, to succeed in the education system, application is arguably the most important factor. Now elaboration is available if required - which I suggest it will be - but it is pretty straightforward. Then again, assumptions can't be made with you.

Or how about being only a sophomore and taking college classes?

Again, doesn't impress me. You could be taking the lowest classes available for all I know - or you could be lying.

Or how about being in the National Honor Society?

Damn, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were in the National Honor Society, I take it all back, you now have the right to rewrite history my man....

Or how about recieving letters from MENSA?

Still not impressing me.

Or how about reading Machiavelli's "The Prince" before I finished 8th grade?

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference, but incase it hasn't registered with you before: reading is one thing, comprehending is another. This is particularly apt in light of you reading what I post & completely misinterpreting it consistently without fail.

Next time you make assumptions, you should know me before you notice my alarmingly low IQ. :thumb

You are still held in the low esteem.

And like Glockmatic said......I'm Bill Gates.

 

[Flipmo]

I'd say the Russian defeated Germany. Hitler was already fearful of the Russians, actually he read about him saying he was more fearful of the Russians than the US, that's why he had make a treaty with them initially. He broke it afterwards and declared war and did the same mistake Napoleon did, and that was taking on Russia during the wintertime. You'd think Hitler would have known that especially how he admired Napoleon so greatly. After the Nazis failed to take over the capital of Stallingrad, that's when the Russian counter-attacks started taking place and the Germans were fleeing. Russians were slowly taking the advantage. There were mass deaths on the German side cause of the icey-Russian winter, tanks would get stuck into snow ditches (which apperently can still be seen up to this day). Nazi Germany was also running low on oil. So while the Russians were pushing from the east, US was pushing from the west and Canada/Uk soldiers from the south. Another problem was Hitler had to send troops to Italy because Mussolino couldn't do shit on his own, so it was a waste of time and soldiers for Hitler, but it had to be done.

Nazi Germany was a victim of a 3 sided pinzer attack, which was another problem, but I can beat anything that if Hitler and the SS army had taken over Stallingrad, we'd be seeing a whole different history in our hands.

Else from that, CalcuoCuchicheo said, America was seen as weak and slow after the Pearl Harbor incident. The people at the time couldn't understand how the US could not have prevented such an attack. Why do you think when 9/11 occured it was being compared to Pearl Harbor? Because it was a slap to the America's face, just like 9/11 was.

That's my 2 cents, about it all.

 

[Morris]

Fact is, until there is a declaration of war regarding a nation involved in the World War, America isn't in the war. Too complicated? I suspect it will be, but I can always hope.

While you might be right technically, the truth is that during World War II, the United States Navy was actively engaged against the German Navy by 1940. It was simply undeclared warfare. We were also economically supporting the British with war supplies and materials. We had to keep the guise of neutrality going at that point because the national population wasn't interested in helping to fight what was perceived as another costly and unnecessary European war (like WWI).

In World War I, we had warships accompanying our trading ships in convoys. The difference was the British would board our's and/or send them back if they were on their way to the Central Powers. The Germans would shoot at them if they were on their way to the Allies.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

While you might be right technically, the truth is that during World War II, the United States Navy was actively engaged against the German Navy by 1940. It was simply undeclared warfare. We were also economically supporting the British with war supplies and materials. We had to keep the guise of neutrality going at that point because the national population wasn't interested in helping to fight what was perceived as another costly and unnecessary European war (like WWI).

In World War I, we had warships accompanying our trading ships in convoys. The difference was the British would board our's and/or send them back if they were on their way to the Central Powers. The Germans would shoot at them if they were on their way to the Allies.

Morris, these things are not new to me but you have to understand that rather than proliferating knowledge I am having to rebut Little Skittle's posts &, as he appears to perceive undeclared war as 'conflict', I'm working on that basis to keep things simple for him.

 

[Little Skittle]

If it's 'obviously not true', why do you have such a problem disproving it?

And you seem to find it really hard to grasp that Pearl Harbour made America look weak & slow. Why? I can see that Nagasaki & Hiroshima showed strength, but you can't see that Pearl Harbour showed weakness? That is just plain ignorance.



I will overlook the patheticness of your sentences & try to simplify things for you. Japan actively wanted to conquer more land - for living space, raw materials etc. Japan saw an opportunity to weaken the US - Japan took it, end of. That is all. No conquering Hawaii, no conquering America. Could it be any simpler? Possibly, but I'd need to hit myself over the head to take myself down to that level.



Sparked? Then why don't we blamed the ancestors of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Fact is, until there is a declaration of war regarding a nation involved in the World War, America isn't in the war. Too complicated? I suspect it will be, but I can always hope.



I would laugh if it weren't so pathetic. While you're using laymen's terms, you might want to learn how to spell, punctuate, construct sentences & get the hang of grammar while you're there.



Another waste of my time.



Why did the American government invade Iraq? They didn't need to but they did anyway, right? Good.

Tell me something, in this hypothetical fight, will your nation's economy be severely damaged if your friend loses? Will the 'little guy' become a superpower if he somehow wins?



But kid, you misconstrue what I say in almost every post despite my posts containing few errors & yet you expect me to sit & read through your barely comprehensible posts - which are made harder to read by the fact that, due to your intelligence, basic assumptions cannot be made.



I'm not sure what this level is, but you are trying to make it sound high so I'm guessing - if you can achieve it - then it can't be all that hard. Besides that, to succeed in the education system, application is arguably the most important factor. Now elaboration is available if required - which I suggest it will be - but it is pretty straightforward. Then again, assumptions can't be made with you.



Again, doesn't impress me. You could be taking the lowest classes available for all I know - or you could be lying.



Damn, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were in the National Honor Society, I take it all back, you now have the right to rewrite history my man....



Still not impressing me.



Doesn't make a blind bit of difference, but incase it hasn't registered with you before: reading is one thing, comprehending is another. This is particularly apt in light of you reading what I post & completely misinterpreting it consistently without fail.



You are still held in the low esteem.

And like Glockmatic said......I'm Bill Gates.

I haven't had a problem disproving it at all. You're just not paying attention. I seriously don't know how to say it any easier. If someone hits you, will you hit back? If you said yes, was it because you were mad they hit you, or because you were scared that they would hit you again? I seriously don't know how to make it any easier for you.

You said that is exposed us as weak and slow, which it did not. It showed weakness. Because a nation may falter several times does not make them weak. We were surprise attacked in a location that we believed to be safe. We were not ready. It was weak, but it did not expose America as weak.

If you are trying to say "Japan wanted more land" and "Japan attacked America" as two different points, you should split them apart instead of making them into one sentence. I couldn't say "Joe wanted more candy and he stole from a candy store." Now you would assume that he stole candy, but i could go back and say "No I never said that, he stole money." That, in essence, is what you did.

Stop being so simple minded for a moment and open your eyes. America declared war on Japan. In response, Germany declared war on America. Japan was allied with Germany. If Pearl Harbor had never happened, we possibly would not have joined the war. How are you going to try to tell me that Pearl Harbor didn't spark the U.S. entry into WWII? If you really believe this, you know absolutely nothing about history, and you don't even deserve to be in this thread debating (I guess what you do can be considered debating) with me.


A 4.0 is the highest grade point average (best grades) that you can get if your school district doesn't take into account A+'s and weighted (harder, so worth more) classes. True, to pass you need to apply yourself. However, to take all accerlerated/AP classes, and do well, you do need to have brains.

Yes, I could be lying. It doesn't really matter if you believe I am. There is no way for me to prove that I'm telling the truth.

I'm not rewriting history, I'm just telling the truth (which seems to be beyond you).

Why would I try to impress you? I'm just informing you that I'm not unintelligent.

Okay, maybe i should've rephrased it. I read and was able to comprehend Machiavelli's "The Prince" before I finished Middle School.

Yes, that hurts deeply to know that a man who spends all his time on the internet thinks of me lowly (especially since you've proven yourself borderline mentally challenged in this thread). Ouch, you've got me now....

 

[Little Skittle]

prove that stuff, cus i can say i won a nobel peace prize and have a billion dollars.

Yes you could say that, but it is very unlikely. The things that I said are not as extreme as what you said. How do you want me to prove the things I have said? There is no way that I could possibly prove what my GPA is, or what books I have read. You can trust me (if you want to...it doesn't matter to me), because I would not waste my time making things up on an internet message board. Also, if I were lying, I could come up with better lies than that.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

I haven't had a problem disproving it at all. You're just not paying attention. I seriously don't know how to say it any easier. If someone hits you, will you hit back? If you said yes, was it because you were mad they hit you, or because you were scared that they would hit you again? I seriously don't know how to make it any easier for you.

Of course you can't make it any easier, it's hard to shore up so many holes.

You said that is exposed us as weak and slow, which it did not. It showed weakness. Because a nation may falter several times does not make them weak. We were surprise attacked in a location that we believed to be safe. We were not ready. It was weak, but it did not expose America as weak.

So you finally understand what I am saying but you still deny what is widely acknowledged? This isn't even funny any more...

If you are trying to say "Japan wanted more land" and "Japan attacked America" as two different points, you should split them apart instead of making them into one sentence. I couldn't say "Joe wanted more candy and he stole from a candy store." Now you would assume that he stole candy, but i could go back and say "No I never said that, he stole money." That, in essence, is what you did.

Oh wait, let me retract that last sentence, there is comedy in you yet. Why would I split them up? Despite me having a low opinion of you, was I still granting you too much leeway with which to interpret what I said? If Japan's ambition was to 'conquer more land' then it cannot be seperated from her actions. Again, governments like to 'think ahead' (you had me thinking that you'd grasped this concept) & what they decide has massive repurcussions. The deliberation & long term nature of all a nation's actions makes is such that using a 'kid & a candy store' analogy is hardly realistic never mind relevant.

Stop being so simple minded for a moment and open your eyes. America declared war on Japan. In response, Germany declared war on America. Japan was allied with Germany. If Pearl Harbor had never happened, we possibly would not have joined the war. How are you going to try to tell me that Pearl Harbor didn't spark the U.S. entry into WWII? If you really believe this, you know absolutely nothing about history, and you don't even deserve to be in this thread debating (I guess what you do can be considered debating) with me.

I know what 'sparked' America's involvment in WWII but it was you who decided you would try to be smart & get into the details - remember the declarations of war? Good. And as you refuse to believe that America is in a war unless it is declared, it is hardly reasonable for you to speculate on what 'sparked' what when there is an official reason for you to present.

A 4.0 is the highest grade point average (best grades) that you can get if your school district doesn't take into account A+'s and weighted (harder, so worth more) classes. True, to pass you need to apply yourself. However, to take all accerlerated/AP classes, and do well, you do need to have brains.

Without brains we would be dead.

Yes, I could be lying. It doesn't really matter if you believe I am. There is no way for me to prove that I'm telling the truth.

Then why say it?

I'm not rewriting history, I'm just telling the truth (which seems to be beyond you).

You are telling solely your version of the truth while I am giving an account of history devised from textbooks & accepted historians and, admittedly, these are peppered with some of my own personal bias.

Why would I try to impress you? I'm just informing you that I'm not unintelligent.

No you're not, you're informing me of that which cannot be confirmed. You may as well have told me a story of a galaxy far, far away...

Okay, maybe i should've rephrased it. I read and was able to comprehend Machiavelli's "The Prince" before I finished Middle School.

Fully comprehend? I doubt it, but not out of pettiness but for the fact that many scholars still differ in opinion as to certain parts of the text.

Yes, that hurts deeply to know that a man who spends all his time on the internet thinks of me lowly (especially since you've proven yourself borderline mentally challenged in this thread). Ouch, you've got me now....

Spend all my time? I get paid for this though! Didn't I already tell you that I'm Bill Gates?

And yes, pinch yourself & make sure you know when you've been embarassed.

 

[Little Skittle]

Of course you can't make it any easier, it's hard to shore up so many holes.



So you finally understand what I am saying but you still deny what is widely acknowledged? This isn't even funny any more...



Oh wait, let me retract that last sentence, there is comedy in you yet. Why would I split them up? Despite me having a low opinion of you, was I still granting you too much leeway with which to interpret what I said? If Japan's ambition was to 'conquer more land' then it cannot be seperated from her actions. Again, governments like to 'think ahead' (you had me thinking that you'd grasped this concept) & what they decide has massive repurcussions. The deliberation & long term nature of all a nation's actions makes is such that using a 'kid & a candy store' analogy is hardly realistic never mind relevant.



I know what 'sparked' America's involvment in WWII but it was you who decided you would try to be smart & get into the details - remember the declarations of war? Good. And as you refuse to believe that America is in a war unless it is declared, it is hardly reasonable for you to speculate on what 'sparked' what when there is an official reason for you to present.




Without brains we would be dead.



Then why say it?



You are telling solely your version of the truth while I am giving an account of history devised from textbooks & accepted historians and, admittedly, these are peppered with some of my own personal bias.



No you're not, you're informing me of that which cannot be confirmed. You may as well have told me a story of a galaxy far, far away...



Fully comprehend? I doubt it, but not out of pettiness but for the fact that many scholars still differ in opinion as to certain parts of the text.



Spend all my time? I get paid for this though! Didn't I already tell you that I'm Bill Gates?

And yes, pinch yourself & make sure you know when you've been embarassed.

There are no holes in what I've been saying....

The one event was weak, but that does not make America weak as a whole....

The analogy I used was not relevant to the situations, but rather to the way you phrased your sentece and the way i phrased my analogy...that's what you were supposed to catch...

It's not speculation in what involved our official involvement, it's not a coincidence that: 1) Pearl Harbor was attacked 2) America declared war on Japan 3) Germany declared war on the U.S in response to the declaration on Japan...in a matter of 3 days.

When I say 'you need brains,' I meant that you need to be smart.

I said it to prove that I am not an unintelligent person. It doesn't matter to me what you think of me, I'm just defending my dignity.

Where do you think I have gotten all of my arguments from? Don't you think that I've read textbooks? Don't you think that my World History professor knows what he is talking about? Or do you think I just made all these facts up? There is only one truth. I wouldn't have even gotten into this conversation in the first place, but we are just getting into depth on the causes and effects of WWI and WWII right now in my AP World History class....

What part do they disagree upon? Most of the book is pretty straightforward, if you have a large enough vocabulary and an ability to comprehend.

You get paid for posting on internet message board? What do you do for a living?

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Yes there are.

I told you, it exposed America as weak & slow - this is in reputed books! And these clearly state that the Pearl Harbour incident made America look bad.

No, I know what you were trying to do but as with your 'fight' analogy, the circumstances are nowhere near parallel & as such, I can't even accept it as a display of sentence construction. I mean, even if I wasn't as clear as you'd have liked me to have been, on the whole, people can read between the lines - not that this was even needed IMO.

It is speculation - as you wish to work to official reasons at the time & this was not one - & it isn't coincidence. This is not the first time you have brought up a point regarding coincidence so could you please show me where I said certain incidents were coincidences?

Like I've already said, I understand what happened - officially & unofficially - but you fail to grasp that in a debate you cannot refute one's point & then use that which you had just denounced as the basis of your next point.

I know what you meant, I just decided to make a fool of you.....again.

Well if it doesn't matter would you mind not bringing it up? Good.

I don't know the credentials of your professor so I'm not in a position to comment on this. That said, there are certain things about what is taught in the American education system which would be dismissed as unacceptable in most other Western countries. I'm not just speaking of bias either - every country will have that - I'm referring to fabricated or unsubstantiated teachings, apparently, such as those you post now.

If you have an ability to comprehend? To comprehend what? 16th century politics? You have this ability? Well, if you have the ability to fully comprehend 16th century politics then that would be quite exceptional. Of course, not only would this need a detailed knowledge of Italian & European regions, politics & rulers, but you would also need a vocabulary 'large' enough to encapsulate words which haven't been in use for hundreds of years. Again, I doubt it....

Twice I have stated I am Bill Gates! I guess if I keep saying it you might believe it - well you appear to base your posts on this principle so I'll give it a shot....

My name is Bill Gates & I am the head of Microsoft...

 

[Glockmatic]

I'm a nobel peace prize winner and have a billion dollars, nice to meet you bill gates

 

[Little Skittle]

Yes there are.

I told you, it exposed America as weak & slow - this is in reputed books! And these clearly state that the Pearl Harbour incident made America look bad.

No, I know what you were trying to do but as with your 'fight' analogy, the circumstances are nowhere near parallel & as such, I can't even accept it as a display of sentence construction. I mean, even if I wasn't as clear as you'd have liked me to have been, on the whole, people can read between the lines - not that this was even needed IMO.

It is speculation - as you wish to work to official reasons at the time & this was not one - & it isn't coincidence. This is not the first time you have brought up a point regarding coincidence so could you please show me where I said certain incidents were coincidences?

Like I've already said, I understand what happened - officially & unofficially - but you fail to grasp that in a debate you cannot refute one's point & then use that which you had just denounced as the basis of your next point.

I know what you meant, I just decided to make a fool of you.....again.

Well if it doesn't matter would you mind not bringing it up? Good.

I don't know the credentials of your professor so I'm not in a position to comment on this. That said, there are certain things about what is taught in the American education system which would be dismissed as unacceptable in most other Western countries. I'm not just speaking of bias either - every country will have that - I'm referring to fabricated or unsubstantiated teachings, apparently, such as those you post now.

If you have an ability to comprehend? To comprehend what? 16th century politics? You have this ability? Well, if you have the ability to fully comprehend 16th century politics then that would be quite exceptional. Of course, not only would this need a detailed knowledge of Italian & European regions, politics & rulers, but you would also need a vocabulary 'large' enough to encapsulate words which haven't been in use for hundreds of years. Again, I doubt it....

Twice I have stated I am Bill Gates! I guess if I keep saying it you might believe it - well you appear to base your posts on this principle so I'll give it a shot....

My name is Bill Gates & I am the head of Microsoft...

You just keep saying the same things over and over which force me to say the same things over and over, so I'm just going to end this now. BTW what books have you been getting this info from, because I got all mine from the college board approved world history book.

 

[Kareem]

damn i gotta comment on this shit, i dont know much bout ww1 but i have studied ww2 greatly, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor out of desperation, not fear, negotions were failing an they saw no other alternative but to attack an pravoke the United States into war, in fact the japaneese Admril who planned the Pearl Harbor Attack was quoted as saying "I feel we have done nothing more then awake a sleeping giant". point number 2 the only reason the u.s. declared war on Germany was because Japan and Germany were allied even tho correct me if im wrong Hitler had declared war on the u.s. some time before Pearl Harbor. Now as far as did we the u.s. save Britians ass? hell yeah dont get it it twisted, Hitler was bombing the dog shit out of ya'll not to mention the Luftwaffa was very successful at shooting down r.a.f. pilots not saying the u.k. was weak or nothing but ya'll were taking a beating by Germany dont front, rewind time and assume, Pearl Harbor had not happened an Hitler had not double crossed Russia, ya'll would be speaking german today along with, France, Poland an so forth, thank God we jumped in can you imagine present day Nazi Germany an its influence or Japan an its old tactics, Japaneese were cruel back in the day. Anyway just my 2 cents go ahead an hate i can smell it brewing.

 

[Glockmatic]

point number 2 the only reason the u.s. declared war on Germany was because Japan and Germany were allied even tho correct me if im wrong Hitler had declared war on the u.s. some time before Pearl Harbor.

Germany declared war on the US to get Japan to attack USSR, and they declared after pearl harbour. The Tripartite Pact that "allied" the axis stated that they would defend each other only if they were attacked first, but since Japan attacked the US Germany had no obligation to declare war on the US, and Japan had no obligation to declare war on the USSR.

 

[Little Skittle]

damn i gotta comment on this shit, i dont know much bout ww1 but i have studied ww2 greatly, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor out of desperation, not fear, negotions were failing an they saw no other alternative but to attack an pravoke the United States into war, in fact the japaneese Admril who planned the Pearl Harbor Attack was quoted as saying "I feel we have done nothing more then awake a sleeping giant". point number 2 the only reason the u.s. declared war on Germany was because Japan and Germany were allied even tho correct me if im wrong Hitler had declared war on the u.s. some time before Pearl Harbor. Now as far as did we the u.s. save Britians ass? hell yeah dont get it it twisted, Hitler was bombing the dog shit out of ya'll not to mention the Luftwaffa was very successful at shooting down r.a.f. pilots not saying the u.k. was weak or nothing but ya'll were taking a beating by Germany dont front, rewind time and assume, Pearl Harbor had not happened an Hitler had not double crossed Russia, ya'll would be speaking german today along with, France, Poland an so forth, thank God we jumped in can you imagine present day Nazi Germany an its influence or Japan an its old tactics, Japaneese were cruel back in the day. Anyway just my 2 cents go ahead an hate i can smell it brewing.

thats wut i been tryin to explain to everyone, but as u can see from my previous posts everyone tells me im wrong

 

[Glockmatic]

Hitler was bombing the dog shit out of ya'll not to mention the Luftwaffa was very successful at shooting down r.a.f. pilots

during the Battle of Britain RAF pilots shot down more planes then the germans were. Hitler stopped bombing britain because he thought it was worthless so he ordered to stop bombing and prepped to invade russia.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Tell me something Litte Skittle have you been trying to tell everybody that, & I quote,

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor out of desperation, not fear ?

No, you haven't.

Kareem has obviously not read the previous posts thoroughly enough to even warrant anybody's time in this discussion.

No offence Kareem, but you made a point about an aspect that nobody is really debating. Even Little Skittle didn't disagree with reasons put forth for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour - neither of which was desperation nor fear so I don't know where you got that from.


And as for the rest of your post Kareem, the Luftwaffe were a strong force but as Glockmatic put forward, the RAF were winning the aerial battle. You should type 'Battle of Britain' into a search engine & - once you get past all the football/soccer related sites - you will see what I'm talking about.

And had Germany won WWII, they would have assumed their intended status as the world's greatest superpower in which case, not even America's new found toy (which would've been in Nazi clutches in a short time) could've stopped them if they decided to cross the sea. So all this 'you'd be talking German' bullshit, is just that - so migh you be. Your post contains a lot of decorations, but not a lot of hardware.

 

[Little Skittle]

Tell me something Litte Skittle have you been trying to tell everybody that, & I quote,

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor out of desperation, not fear ?

No, you haven't.

Kareem has obviously not read the previous posts thoroughly enough to even warrant anybody's time in this discussion.

No offence Kareem, but you made a point about an aspect that nobody is really debating. Even Little Skittle didn't disagree with reasons put forth for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour - neither of which was desperation nor fear so I don't know where you got that from.


And as for the rest of your post Kareem, the Luftwaffe were a strong force but as Glockmatic put forward, the RAF were winning the aerial battle. You should type 'Battle of Britain' into a search engine & - once you get past all the football/soccer related sites - you will see what I'm talking about.

And had Germany won WWII, they would have assumed their intended status as the world's greatest superpower in which case, not even America's new found toy (which would've been in Nazi clutches in a short time) could've stopped them if they decided to cross the sea. So all this 'you'd be talking German' bullshit, is just that - so migh you be. Your post contains a lot of decorations, but not a lot of hardware.

i shoulda been more clear....i was not talking about japans reasons for attacking pearl harbor...but i have been saying everything else that he said....sorry, i forgot to exclude that part

 

[Morris]

the UK had a killer navy/decent army, but the air force was not all there

The R.A.F. singlehandedly stopped the Luftwaffe and saved the UK for an 8 month period of time from summer 40 - May 41. How can you say the air force was not all there? The RAF proved to be the best airforce on the planet.

Germany declared war on the US to get Japan to attack USSR, and they declared after pearl harbour. The Tripartite Pact that "allied" the axis stated that they would defend each other only if they were attacked first, but since Japan attacked the US Germany had no obligation to declare war on the US, and Japan had no obligation to declare war on the USSR.

The USSR didn't declare war on Japan until early August of 1945. Japan didn't declare war on the Soviets at any point in time.

And had Germany won WWII, they would have assumed their intended status as the world's greatest superpower in which case, not even America's new found toy (which would've been in Nazi clutches in a short time) could've stopped them if they decided to cross the sea. So all this 'you'd be talking German' bullshit, is just that - so migh you be.

It took 2 years of planning for a million man Allied force to cross 12 miles of English Channel to attack German divisions along a 60 mile front. There is absolutely no way the Germans could have ever attacked the North American continent, simply from a logistics standpoint.

Also, the Germans still didn't know how to do nuclear fission, partly because they exiled one of the first scientists to figure it out. German scientist Lise Meitner had figured out the puzzle of nuclear fission before 1940. But she couldn't help the Nazis: she had to flee because she was Jewish.

The Germans were years away from having a workable nuclear bomb.

 

[Glockmatic]

The USSR didn't declare war on Japan until early August of 1945. Japan didn't declare war on the Soviets at any point in time.

When i said "and they declared after pearl harbour" i meant the germans, sorry for the confusion

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

It took 2 years of planning for a million man Allied force to cross 12 miles of English Channel to attack German divisions along a 60 mile front. There is absolutely no way the Germans could have ever attacked the North American continent, simply from a logistics standpoint.

Also, the Germans still didn't know how to do nuclear fission, partly because they exiled one of the first scientists to figure it out. German scientist Lise Meitner had figured out the puzzle of nuclear fission before 1940. But she couldn't help the Nazis: she had to flee because she was Jewish.

The Germans were years away from having a workable nuclear bomb.

As the most powerful country on earth, I'm pretty sure they could acquire the required territory from which to launch an attack.

None of us can be sure about how long it would've taken the Nazis to get a working nuclear bomb but what we do know is the US smuggled Nazi scientists out of the country so they could avoid trial & work for the US on their various programs.