|
The Official Canada in Afghanistan thread (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Zentac_75 |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
exactly, they got afraid that Soviets would occupy most of the Europe and turn it into an even stronger superpower than the nazis. |
Agreed. However this is one of many reasons for the U.S.A joining the war.
Though I do not agree that Russia would have won without the Allies help. Germany was already at war with England before the nazis turned on Russia. I have read/heard hundreds of times over that if the Nazis didn't split their forces across two fronts, they would have one. It is the biggest reason why they lost, same applied to Napolean hundreds of years ago. Supply lines are too long, forces are spread to thin. THAT was the biggest contributor to the Nazis defeat. Not anyone nation (although some clearly contributed more than others).
*Not discrediting Russia's numerous massive victories over Nazi forces*
Since different accounts from different nations history textbooks are being presented here...while in Germany conversing with history majors (at a hostel while stoned)...from their perspective... Allies did not win the war, Germany lost it.
Let's just be happy we didn't go through this personally and honour those who lost their lives (military and civilian) during this horrific period. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
they don't teach that here in history class.. |
Ok, thanks, we read this the first 3 times... POINT MADE!
Lets start a "Russian Military Victory" thread where all the Russians/former-bloc citizens can get together and mutually-masturbate about their past grand "strategies" and "massive achievements"? |
|
|
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Ok, thanks, we read this the first 3 times... POINT MADE!
Lets start a "Russian Military Victory" thread where all the Russians/former-bloc citizens can get together and mutually-masturbate about their past grand "strategies" and "massive achievements"? |
i don't know why you're getting so offended with my comments when all i'm trying to do is make people aware of the real facts. I will consider it though. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
so who was fighting the most effective? I don't think you know much about Soviet's military strategies and their massive achievements... well it's obvious, they don't teach that here in history class.. |
Yes... Effective like being encircled and losing tens of thousands of men at a time?
Or suicide attacks because Soviet officers feared getting killed by NKVD for desertion and treason?
Or human wave attacks by getting criminals (and other 'undesirables' according to Soviet leadership) drunk and sent them trampling into minefields and into blunt of enemy bullets and artillery?
Or needing something like 10 to 1 advantage to defeat a German formation?
Stop. Insulting. My. Intelligence.
You're assuming that I'm an avg uni student who knows dick all about WW2. Believe me when I say I've read a lot of books on WW2 that I've forgotten more about WW2 than I need to know.
So far, you've presented one evidence, that documentary, to do all your talking. I will watch that documentary when I have the time. And one casualties chart, as if that speaks volumes of who fought well. You don't judge who won or fought best by how many of YOUR men you lost.
The rest of your talking is vague generalities wrapped around patriotism. Not to mention you agreeing with Kris's rather silly comment about North America nation's entry into war which rather discredits how much you actually know about WW2.
I think you actually have no idea what you're talking about. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zentac_75
Agreed. However this is one of many reasons for the U.S.A joining the war. |
Debatable. While American leadership (Roosevelt) was for pushing the war on Germany because they did see Germany as emerging threat to American security and interest, but there was still a very strong isolationist movement among the general public. WW2 was just European imperialists fighting among each other and US has no business sacrificing American boys in that sort of war thing.
So when Japan attacked, of course US would respond. But I think many would have been content to just deal with Japanese and leave Germany alone. Germany's subsequent declaration of war on US made that argument moot, and US's full war effort went behind Allied cause, helping to Germany's downfall.
| quote: |
Let's just be happy we didn't go through this personally and honour those who lost their lives (military and civilian) during this horrific period. |
+1 |
|
|
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Yes... Effective like being encircled and losing tens of thousands of men at a time?
Or suicide attacks because Soviet officers feared getting killed by NKVD for desertion and treason?
Or human wave attacks by getting criminals (and other 'undesirables' according to Soviet leadership) drunk and sent them trampling into minefields and into blunt of enemy bullets and artillery?
Or needing something like 10 to 1 advantage to defeat a German formation?
Stop. Insulting. My. Intelligence.
You're assuming that I'm an avg uni student who knows dick all about WW2. Believe me when I say I've read a lot of books on WW2 that I've forgotten more about WW2 than I need to know.
So far, you've presented one evidence, that documentary, to do all your talking. I will watch that documentary when I have the time. And one casualties chart, as if that speaks volumes of who fought well. You don't judge who won or fought best by how many of YOUR men you lost.
The rest of your talking is vague generalities wrapped around patriotism. Not to mention you agreeing with Kris's rather silly comment about North America nation's entry into war which rather discredits how much you actually know about WW2.
I think you actually have no idea what you're talking about. |
so who fought well then? you did not answer my question. The reason why i posted a link was because i was rather lazy to explain in detail what and where and how things happened and totally hijack the thread. While the documentary is not 100% accurate it explains in pretty good detail and gives an idea of what happened in the region during the war without me having to explain and prove everything to you and others.
About Kris: even though her comment is silly it is actually true, US didn't do much until the attack on pearl harbour which they actually instigated themselves by imposing sanctions on Japan (oil, metal and others). Because of those shortages they attacked US. I have posted another documentary in here also which is called Zeitgeist. You should watch it also when you get a chance. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/. Only in the end did US join the main war in Europe when it was quite obvious who was winning.
You might know a lot about the war but so far you haven't showed me much of your knowledge regarding the battles between german and russian troops. Btw I'm sorry to hijack this thread like this, so i'm going to finish here. EvilTree, get back to me when you're done watching, i'd like to hear your response. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
so who fought well then? you did not answer my question. The reason why i posted a link was because i was rather lazy to explain in detail what and where and how things happened and totally hijack the thread. While the documentary is not 100% accurate it explains in pretty good detail and gives an idea of what happened in the region during the war without me having to explain and prove everything to you and others. |
As I have said, I will watch your documentary when I have the time.
But my short answer is that everyone fought well, to their own way. I can criticize Soviet tactics and leadership that led to so many Soviet soldiers died quite uselessly IMO, just as I admire some brilliance and persistence that led to Germany's downfall.
My problem with you is that you think Soviets did most of the work, and you've not really backed it up, other than your documentary and your casualties chart.
| quote: |
About Kris: even though her comment is silly it is actually true, US didn't do much until the attack on pearl harbour which they actually instigated themselves by imposing sanctions on Japan (oil, metal and others). Because of those shortages they attacked US. I have posted another documentary in here also which is called Zeitgeist. You should watch it also when you get a chance. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/. Only in the end did US join the main war in Europe when it was quite obvious who was winning. |
So America brought the war unto itself by refusing to trade with Japan? What kind of apologist answer is that?
Japan attacked US because they knew that US would not allow them to invade other resource rich Asian nations. It was an imperialist strategy at its finest, and for a while it worked.
As for US not being involve in the war effort, Roosevelt pretty much financed Britain's war effort after Britain ran out of gold to buy American goods until US joined. (Land Lease Deal) US also sold 50 destroyers to Britain in exchange for lease on couple of bases, IIRC.
Without Americans sending war materiel for Britain to keep fighting, Europe would have been lost. The constant build up of troops in England forced Hitler to keep a lot of German divisions from the Eastern Front until Germany was ripe for an invasion. I agree with Allied decision to hold off Normandy landing until Allies had enough men and equipment to take the fight to the Germans, and many historians agree that Germans put up quite a resistance until early Spring, 1945. If the Normandy invasion was premature (as Dieppe seemed to indicate), the cost of war could have been higher and much longer.
Not to mention secondary efforts like, Torch (invasion of North Africa, fall 1942), Sicily and Italy in 1944 which also took away German troops from Eastern Front. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
he doesnt realize that here they teach only about what canadians did in the war, to be honest they didn't really do much at all...
there was 45,300 Canadian Casualities while there was 23,600,000 of Russian (Soviet) Casualities, the numbers speak for themselves |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
i did not say that canadian veterans did nothing, i said that canadian history books are mostly based on canadian/american achievements in the war when there were much more important things happening in europe. |
actually...yes, you did.
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
Total deaths:
United States: 418,500
United Kingdom: 450,400
Soviet Union: 23,600,000
this is including the civilians, i mean its quite obvious who did most of the work.
...
some more stats for you:
 |
since when does # of casualties have anything to do with who defeated who in a war or who 'did most of the work'? That is simply an illogical assumption that there is a direct correlation there.
I'll qualify this all by saying that I certainly don't have concrete answers...but I'm not exactly swayed by your line of reasoning here. |
|
|
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
But my short answer is that everyone fought well, to their own way. |
I agree with this, obviously everyone fought well and tried to destroy the enemy, lives were lost everywhere. I'm not saying Russia is the best and everyone should bow down to them, they themselves were almost like communist Nazis. Stalin obviously wanted to gain control after all this was over. He killed many Russian people himself (millions), deporting many to Siberia, especially famous writers that would not agree with the regime.. Anyone that was caught saying something against the Soviets was executed etc.. I'm not denying these facts.
I'd like to correct myself, when I said Canadians didn't do much I meant that as an army they did not achieve much because of their numbers, I'm sure if there were millions of Canadians deployed their achievements would be much greater..i never meant to disrespect soldiers that fought in the war, I meant to say that it is not correct for canadian history books to publish mostly Canadian achievements in the war when there were much greater things happening in europe.
i'd like to paste a quote to end this debate
| quote: | | The Eastern Front was by far the largest and bloodiest theatre of World War II. It is generally accepted as being the most costly conflict in human history with over 30 million dead as a result. It involved more land combat than all other World War II theatres combined. The distinctly brutal nature of warfare on the Eastern Front was exemplified by an often willful disregard for human life by both sides. It was also reflected in the ideological premise for the war which also saw a momentous clash between two directly opposed and radical ideologies. To hardline Nazis in Berlin, the war against the Soviet Union was one of a struggle of Fascism against Communism, and the Aryan race against the "inferior" Slavic race. Hitler referred to it in unique terms, calling it a "war of annihilation", one in which the Soviet Union was to be utterly destroyed and the populations of Eastern Europe and Russia were to be enslaved and exterminated. This would further German expansion and provide for the colonization of Eastern Europe and Western Russia. In addition, Hitler also sought to wipe out the large Jewish population of Eastern Europe (see The Holocaust). Aside from the ideological conflict, the mindframe of the leaders of Germany and the Soviet Union, Hitler and Stalin respectively, contributed to the escalation of terror and murder on an unprecedented scale. Stalin and Hitler both disregarded human life in order to achieve their goal of victory. This included terrorization of their own people, as well as mass deportation (planned, in the case of Germany) of entire populations. All these factors resulted in tremendous brutality both to combatants and civilians that found no parallel on the Western Front. |
if you want to read more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter..._(World_War_II) |
|
|
| RobotHouse |
Germany lost because they had to fight a two front war for too long, just like in WW1. End of debate.
Back to Canada at war.
I recommend Canada In Afghanistan: the War so Far for a starting point to understand the history of Afghanistan itself and what Canada, NATO, ISAF and coalition forces have accomplished there. |
|
|
| MarkT |
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/260315
| quote: | Canada wrote Afghan leader's speech, NDP says
Sep 25, 2007 01:40 PM
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA – The NDP says it has documents that show the Canadian military effectively wrote Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech to Parliament last year.
The party's defence critic, Dawn Black, says the papers indicate Karzai's address was an "elaborately staged political stunt."
Black held a news conference today to release access-to-information documents that suggest a team of military advisers prepared an initial draft of Karzai's speech, delivered on Sept. 22, 2006.
She quoted a situation report from Task Force Afghanistan as saying: "Team prepared initial draft of President (Karzai's) address to Parliament 22 Sep."
Black said Gen. David Fraser reports in the documents that "key statistics, messages, themes, as well as overall structure (of the speech), were adopted by the president in his remarks."
"What Canadians heard was not the voice of the Afghan people, but the talking points of the Department of National Defence," Black said.
In the speech, Karzai thanked the families of soldiers killed in combat and painted an optimistic, but not rosy picture of his country's future.
He also took direct aim at NDP Leader Jack Layton's opposition to the war, saying that those who believe the mission was weighted too heavily toward combat and not enough toward reconstruction were wrong.
"There has been speculation about the resources that the Department of National Defence is pouring into trying to sell this mission to the Canadian people," Black said.
"I never thought that the Canadian military would go this far. This raises serious concerns about the independence of the Afghan president and origin of his recent comments to Canadian media in Kabul."
Black said she plans to call for an emergency debate on the issue in the House of Commons when Parliament resumes next month.
She also said she will seek an investigation by the Commons defence committee into the military's communications campaign. |
|
|
|
| EvilTree |
Initial draft?
Or was it merely background briefing to Karzai?
Not much info about this right now, but either way, Karzai had final say on his speech.
This isn't even a major issue, but just NDP grasping at straws, as per normal |
|
|
|
|
