|
Page 2 of 10 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last › |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 11:15 PM
Yes, Leo, but Europe is sadly less important to us than our own history.
For instance - WWII wasn't about Britain, France, Russia, or China. It was all a buildup to America's entry into the war our hauling everyone's asses out of the fire.
Europe and Asia are lucky, though. Africa is only known as "the place the slaves came from". |
leo777
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 11:37 PM
I tried not to touch the religious issues that directly related to the subject at hand,coz' this forum would explode. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 11:39 PM
Wouldn't be the first time, unfortunately. |
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 11:47 PM
I knew about russia and Napoleon in 1812, but I couldn't see how that related to the subject at hand.
Besides, I'd forgotten  |
leo777
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 11:55 PM
To Charybdis.
The thing is that it was not WWII issue.It was 1812 issue.And it would be extremely ignorant on both sides not to know that both events took place in 1812. Have you ever heard of Leo Tolstoy?
The Holywood made a great movie about the events I mentioned around 1958? .I know Henry Fonda was in it. |
leo777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 12:12 AM
To Sharruma.
Do you read you own messages?
"What war of 1812?"
2 important events took place in the History of the World in 1812.Conflict between British and Americans and conflict between Russia and Napolion's France.
That was a fair quistion.And I'm just trying to help out to resolve it.
Because as Charybdis mentioned the Americans don't care much what had happened in Europe in the past and probably in the present and visa versa when it comes to Europiens. |
Leo 777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 12:45 AM
To Charybdis.
So you trying to say that Americans were the most important part in defeating Hitler.You really insault British and especially Russians who sucrificied 20.000.000 lives to stop the monster.I watched a number of german movies about WWII and being sent to the Russian front was a death sentence,while going fighting Americans was like going to Summer Camp.Remember an american sitcom "Hogan's Heroes" .
You were watching who would have the upper hand and when the Russians started winning you entered the Europian stage.Yes that is true that you helped to Western Europe.But please don't talk about Russia and Eastern Europe,coz' we were real slaves. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:31 AM
You were watching who would have the upper hand and when the Russians started winning you entered the Europian stage. - Leo 777
Not quite...my interpretation was that the Americans didn't see fit to enter WWII because they didn't want to be involved. The only reason they did was that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour.
But it's true that if they had decided to enter the war at a much earlier stage, it could have been finished at a much earlier stage too, without the need to have resorted to nuclear weaponry. |
leo777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:43 AM
To Smerk.
With all due respect I have to desagree with your opinion about the events of 1943-1945.
The Communism was the main issue.And the spread of it.As a victim of Communism myself I am not taking sides here.But that was the main reason Americans entered the Europian scene,and dropping nuclear bombs on 2 unfortunate japanise sities was a warning signal to Communists(Soviet Union).Back off.And beware. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:02 AM
Hang on. The reason that the Americans bombed Japan is because the Japanese were the last group perpetuating the war. I remember that much from my history classes...From my understanding the Russians were one of the first groups to surrender. This I can't quite remember.
But I'm certain that Pearl Harbour was a major trigger for the Americans to join in the war.
And that the bombings were done to stop Japan, not anyone else.
And another thing, why would the Americans be warning their Allies? Which (after a quick bit of research tells me that the Soviets were working with the allied forces) |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:07 AM
Well, the dropping of the atomic bomb did bring aggression to a quick stop in the Pacific, at least. Granted, a lot of civilians died, but if the Japanese continued their strategy of "fight until the last man," twice as many people might have died, Americans and Japs, soldiers and civilians, until Japan was defeated. Japan was undeniably war-crazy, like all the other forces in the war.
And, you might note, many cities were devestated to the same degree as Hiroshima and Nagasaki with more conventional weapons. WWII sucked. |
leo777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:14 AM
To Smerk.
Please read the previous messages from other participants.Use your brain,Listnen to what they tell you in school but have your own opinion.
You just said that they warned Allies.Well that is exactly what I said "Beware".Read between the lines.
And why would any country finish the war in such inhuman fashion.Killing 200.000 civilians.Come on man.Give me a brake.Use your brain. |
leo777
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:24 AM
To Citizen Premier
It's still no excuse to kill 200.000 civilians(including women and children).It's not noble.There was a message to Russia(Soviet Union) in it.After all it was the beginning of the Cold War. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:32 AM
Hah! Go read my first post on this thread and you'll see my original opinion.
Now, I'm gathering that English is not necessarily your first language, which is why I'm so forgiving of your various typing errors. However, the word "Warn" is to inform someone of a risk while the word "Beware" is used to tell someone to be on guard against someone or something, so essentially, I don't know why you are picking on those semantics.
As for why anyone would stop a war so cruelly, see Citizen Premier's most recent response. I find it hard with my own bias to argue the US POV convincingly. And I don't particularly want to, it's just that I found a few of your points at odds with what I know. |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:37 AM
BTW, how many civilians did the Germans kill?
I personally think you may be reading a tad to much into it...funny, my resources say that the cold war didn't start until 1947...fully two years after the end of WWII. |
Razela
in Chicago, IL
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:43 AM
I'm sorry to be a bit off topic, but this has been extra annoying me due to the fact that it is printed in bold type:
"History is the lies that historians agree upon."
The noun verb disagreement is horrendous. I should state, |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:44 AM
Or "History are the lies that historians agree upon"  |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:44 AM
No, wait. Razela's way's better! |
Razela
in Chicago, IL
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:45 AM
Oh, and to stick up for Charybdis, I think he was just stating examples of how American History classes are biased, rather than actually saying he believes all that stuff. |
Razela
in Chicago, IL
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:47 AM
Yah Smerk, that was my first thought to fix it as well, but after thinking about it I determined that because "history" is a singular you can only use the verb "is," though your way still sounds right to me. |
|
Page 2 of 10 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last › |
