Except for the fact that America only occupied Germany and Austria, which were split among all the allies while the Soviets conquered all of eastern Europe. Uhh...without America backing up England, England would have been conquered by the Nazis.
Dude, England Saved itself from invasion at the battle of Britain, and another event where the British destroyed the Axis landing ships. America did not save England from invasion at all. There were detrimental to the Allies war effort in all of Europe, do not get me wrong.
The US was at war with Japan when we were worried about their bombs, a war which Japan instigated BTW. This guy was just paranoid, we had no reason to bomb japan until they, you know, jumped us at pearl harbor and murdered americans on our soil.
They attacked a military target (Pearl harbor). I in no way think this is an acceptable tactic as a whole, for an unprovoked, brutal attack like that would infuriate a nation; but it was at the very least a military target. Justifying murdering (as you put it) 200000K civilians because of this, after the Japanese tried to surrender, is ludicrous.
What did Japan do in self defense? All of America's involvement in WWII was self-defense however.
This is a nice way of justifying attack, Japan did start it, but in the whole of WW2 America did do a lot of aggressive moves. They were not purely defensive.
Is is more godawful than what the Japanese did in Manchuria? How about their murder of American soldiers at Pearl Harbor? How about their death marches in the Philippines? Japan started the war. What the US did was justified. If Japan hadn't murdered Americans, there would have been no Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings.
You say actions speak louder than words-I think Japan's actions on December 7, 1941 speak loud and clear of their intent. They could've had peace, but they chose war with America as their fate.
You may have a superiority complex. that is the only way i can explain your implications and connotations derived by the context of your statements.
Another country's atrocities are no reason why you should be exempt from morality when dealing with that country.
Starters, justifying the slaughter of 200000K civilians for a attack on a military naval base.
The US was justified in being engaged in a war with Japan, Do not get me wrong, in the grand scheme of things i have supported America's actions though to the 80's. But, IMHO when Japan called for surrender, imposing there conditions of surrender, America should have sent negotiators and diplomats, instead of two nuclear bombs. It was just not really necessary. I will not go into speculation upon possible alternate reasons why America dropped the bomb(s), but i think it has to be looked at in a more open minded way than, "someone kicked me in the back, they must die when they are at my mercy".
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
The Polish hated the Soviet occupiers. I'm not sure what history you're checking, but I doubt it's very objectively written if it's telling you that the Warsaw pact was entirely voluntary.
Japan was trying to surrender- sort of- conditionally. And all the head honchos wouldn't even agree on that. While they were making offers of surrender, they were going to force the war to drag on and try to force some concessions ala' their successful war against Russia forty years earlier. They at the very least weren't going to seriously consider giving up Korea and Taiwan. Nor was diplomacy between warring states at that time as easy and painless as you seem to think.
And Russia's main contribution to the war effort was to serve as a punching bag until the Nazis got tired. They may have choked the Rhine with their dead, but they didn't win the war single handed.
I think pretty much everyone here has a highly simplified and over-stated impression of history. There's no question that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved American soldiers' lives. You may argue that the lives of 200,000 civilians take precedence over another ten thousand soldiers or so, but it's any country's perogative to put it's own citizens first.
The Soviets won the war, they had every right to the spoils. Most of the Eastern European countries, like Poland for example joined the Soviet Union on their own accord anyway. Did the rest of America occupy California, or Arizona, or Montana, or Hawaii when they became states? No, they became states belonging to a Union just as the Eastern European countires did. Even if England fell to the Nazis, what would it have mattered? The Soviets won this war. The Soviets were the ones taking the casualties, and killing the Germans. The USA was a support to the Soviet efforts, not the other way around.
Please the soviets had their troops in these countries already and that probably had a very big influence on those countries that joined with the Soviet Union.
And let me tell you something: No country had the right to the "spoils", but they took stuff anyways, as it is with almost all wars. America just didn't take as much...
What's the problem with being scared of that technology and flying planes into someone's harbor then? You could easily say that the US instigated the war with Japan by pursuing the nuke. Had the roles been flipped, you would have been all for the Americans going old school kamikaze on some Japanese naval base. And you dismiss his fears as simply paranoid??? I think history clearly shows otherwise. You are still neglecting the fact that JAPAN HAD ALREADY THROWN IN THE TOWEL!!! They were done on August 3rd, we, being the peace-loving nation we are were not.
What Japan did in self-defense was pursue the nuclear bomb.
Wait a minute, who attacked whom? wait... wait... I think I know... wait! Oh yea Pearl Harbor thats it.
Killed in Pearl Harbor= 2,350 (MILITARY PEOPLE AT THAT!) A whole 68 civilians died in Pearl Harbor, the rest were military. Killed in Hiroshima + Nagasaki (THE MASSIVE MAJORITY BEING INNOCENT CIVILIANS!)= 220,000. Manchuria /= US, so it is irrelevant. The death marches= in a war, against other military personel, so they are irrelevant. So, actually, yes it was more godawful what the US did to those poor Japanese civilians... 100x more godawful to be exact. Not to mention, we are talking about 97% military casualties vs. bombing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. That could add maybe 10x more too.
How much more would have been killed if the Allies actually invaded Japan with soldiers?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
And the rest of the US didn't have a high influence on California either?
Thank Zeus for Bryspoon, at least I'm not entirely alone against the uber-patriotic American invasion anymore.
Saying Russia was just a punching bag is extremely unappreciative of their efforts as well. 25 million Russians died, 17 million of them being civilians. The Soviets also accounted for about 70% of German casualties.
Clinton to Obama: Actions speak louder than words.
Obama to Clinton: Elections speak louder than words.
"When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper." --Mike Huckabee
A nation historically suspicious of Western imperialism, Japanese military officials favored a ceasefire over surrender.[3] The rise of Japanese militarism in the wake of the Great Depression had resulted in countless assassinations of reformers attempting to check military power, such as those of Takahashi Korekiyo, Saitō Makoto, and Inukai Tsuyoshi, creating an environment in which opposition to war was itself a risky endeavor.[4]
Some members of the civilian leadership used diplomatic channels to attempt peace negotiation[citation needed], but they could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only legally enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and in the summer of 1945, the Japanese Supreme War Council, consisting of representatives of the Army, the Navy and the civilian government, could not reach a consensus on how to proceed.[4]
Japan had an example of unconditional surrender in the German Instrument of Surrender. On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and was rejected. Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to Japanese peace feelers (see July 17 Allied discussion of the Japanese offer), made no move to change the government position.[5] On July 31, he made clear to Kido that the Imperial Regalia of Japan had to be defended at all costs.[6]
In early July, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.[7]
A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan, the military increasingly determined to fight despite all costs and odds and the civilian leadership seeking a way to negotiate an end to the war.[citation needed] Further complicating the decision was the fact that no cabinet could exist without the representative of the Imperial Japanese Army. This meant that the Army and the Navy could veto any decision by having its Minister resign, thus making it the most powerful posts on the SWC.[citation needed] In early August of 1945 the cabinet was equally split between those who advocated an end to the war on one condition, the preservation of the Kokutai, and those who insisted on three other conditions : leave disarmament and demobilization to Imperial General Headquarters, no occupation and delegation to Japanese government of the punishment of war criminals[8] The "hawks" consisted of General Korechika Anami, General Yoshijiro Umezu and Admiral Soemu Toyoda and were led by Anami. The "doves" consisted of Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, Naval Minister Mitsumasa Yonai and Minister of Foreign Affairs Shigenori Togo and were led by Togo.[4] Under special permission of the emperor, the president of the Privy council, Kiichiro Hiranuma, was also member of the imperial conference. For him, the preservation of the Kokutai implied not only that of the Imperial institution but also the continuation of emperor Showa's reign.[9]
The "one condition" faction, led by Togo, seized on the bombing as decisive justification of surrender. Kōichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisers, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war."[citation needed]
And the rest of the US didn't have a high influence on California either?
Yes they did. So Russia and the US was both at fault. Doesn't mean that they were "entitled to the spoils" as you put it.
Quote from CunniJA »
The Soviets won the war, they had every right to the spoils.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
Clinton to Obama: Actions speak louder than words.
Obama to Clinton: Elections speak louder than words.
"When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper." --Mike Huckabee
I don't want to get into an argument too much because the past is the past.
I totally disagree with the use of the atomic bombs on Japan on the grounds of Japans situation at the time. Japan was in ruins, it had been under heavy bombing and it's navy was scuttled in the pacific. Even if Japan wanted conditions with the surrender a more tightened strangle hold of Japan and economic blocks would have worked that out of them quite a bit and eventually lead to a straight-up surrender. Invasion by land was totally unnecessary as you would gain the same results (without millions of dead soldiers) just with a blockade. In saying this though you have to put yourself back into the mindset of the time. The allied public wanted an end to the war, a blockade would have been unpopular and the bombs provided an easy out. They wanted to scare Russia into fairer negotiations of territory and as sick as it seems they wanted to test how effective their new found weapons were (Note the two atomic bombs used were different, plutonium and uranium I believe, correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand not using the Nukes would have given the Americans a good advantage in future conflict, so it is kind of a good thing they showed them off.
This is my opinion based off the History i've done at school and University.
So it would've been better to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths through starvation and disease, than to force a quick surrender and then immediately move in and begin reconstruction before Soviets can get feet on the ground in Japan? Why is that?
Also, CunniJA, you might want to look further into Soviet involvement in WWII. In particular, Stalin's relationship with Hitler prior to June 22nd, 1941.
So it would've been better to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths through starvation and disease, than to force a quick surrender and then immediately move in and begin reconstruction before Soviets can get feet on the ground in Japan? Why is that?
Also, CunniJA, you might want to look further into Soviet involvement in WWII. In particular, Stalin's relationship with Hitler prior to June 22nd, 1941.
The atomic bombs did a good job of killing a few hundred thousand anyway, so that's the same result.
And I think we all know about the non-aggression pact, but that really went down the toilet fast anyway. It's pretty clear that Stalin and Hitler really just wanted more for themselves, I don't think they really cared much about what the other got out of it.
Mono-G is right. The US wanted a real test of their new toy on actual people rather than on some dirt mound in MiddleofNowhere, USA. It's good to get a non-American opinion in there too.
And, the Andrew Jackson thing was just a joke, but he certainly would disagree. However, like Andrew Jackson, the United States believes in spoils, so they should recognize that the Soviets had greater rights to the spoils after the surrender of Germany. It's irrelevant if you disagree with spoils because your leaders do. Like in Iraq, all about the spOILs of war there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
OBAMA '08!
Clinton to Obama: Actions speak louder than words.
Obama to Clinton: Elections speak louder than words.
"When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper." --Mike Huckabee
And, the Andrew Jackson thing was just a joke, but he certainly would disagree. However, like Andrew Jackson, the United States believes in spoils, so they should recognize that the Soviets had greater rights to the spoils after the surrender of Germany. It's irrelevant if you disagree with spoils because your leaders do. Like in Iraq, all about the spOILs of war there.
OMG. No one had rights to spoils. Not the Soviets, not the US.
And I don't think the whole of Germany would have been better off under Stalin's control than under the Allies. Quite the opposite, in fact.
So what exactly are you arguing? All I am saying is that the US is the lesser of two evils.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
But the leaders did think they had the right to the spoils, that's the most important thing. And because Stalin and the Americans both thought they had the right to spoils, control of Germany was contested.
What I'm arguing is that Russia was the key player in defeating Germany, so if spoils of war were given according to how much the countries did for defeating Germany, Russia would get the most stuff. And furthermore, because like Russia, the US believed in spoils, the US would ahve to see that it would be more than fair for Russia to assume control of a greater amount of territory. It doesn't matter who the lesser of two evils was. Fair is fair.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
OBAMA '08!
Clinton to Obama: Actions speak louder than words.
Obama to Clinton: Elections speak louder than words.
"When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper." --Mike Huckabee
But the leaders did think they had the right to the spoils, that's the most important thing. And because Stalin and the Americans both thought they had the right to spoils, control of Germany was contested.
What I'm arguing is that Russia was the key player in defeating Germany, so if spoils of war were given according to how much the countries did for defeating Germany, Russia would get the most stuff. And furthermore, because like Russia, the US believed in spoils, the US would ahve to see that it would be more than fair for Russia to assume control of a greater amount of territory. It doesn't matter who the lesser of two evils was. Fair is fair.
So are you in favor of the spoils system?
Why is it that Russia "did more" as you put it. I don't see it that way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
Russia took responsibility for roughly 70% or so of German casualties, and they were the ones fighting in their homeland, taking millions more casualties than anybody else. That's why I say they did more.
And anyway, the Germans surrendered to the Red Army, not the Americans or the British. So if not theoretically as well the Germans at least technically surrendered to the Soviet Union, so technically, as well as theoretically, the Soviet Union won WWII in Europe. And, Europe was where the spoils were. I am not in favor of the spoils system, in the same way I am not in favor of capitalism. But, within the context of each, there are things that are fair, and things that are not. And, within the context of the spoils system, it is fair that Russia gets more spoils than the USA in the same way that it is fair that a dude with a Ph.D earns more than a guy with a GED in capitalsim.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
OBAMA '08!
Clinton to Obama: Actions speak louder than words.
Obama to Clinton: Elections speak louder than words.
"When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper." --Mike Huckabee
Uhh...as to Germany being better under Commie control, how about the fact that German soldiers were desperate to surrender to the (non-Soviet) allies? There are many accounts of Germans being thankful to the US/Britain/whoever when they surrendered to them instead of the russians.
If Germany would've been so better under Commie control, why did the Commies need the Berlin wall, and repression to keep control? Why did West Germany flourish over East? Why was the flow of Germans during occupation to the west?
If you disagree with the spoils system (who here doesn't?) then why are you making an argument based on it?
The soviets didn't win the war, the allies did. Without American $$$ and supplies, the war effort would've crumbled. Without D-Day and the invasion of Italy, Germany could've kept pressure up on the Soviets.
And we could've just nuked the Germans if necessary.
Dropping the bomb on Japan was right. There is a HUGE difference between the thousands killed by the bomb, and the millions who would've died from starvation, or the estimates in the tens of millions of Japanese casualties from an invasion.
It's funny that you say the US believes in spoils when all the Americans here oppose it, and the only support it's getting is from non-Americans of various sorts.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
Russia took responsibility for roughly 70% or so of German casualties, and they were the ones fighting in their homeland, taking millions more casualties than anybody else. That's why I say they did more.
Having the most casualties doesn't equal the most entitlement towards reparations. Plus the cause of the casualties was because of poor Russian military/civilian leadership; not German brutality (although that was a big factor.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
My bad, poor phrasing on my part. I mean that the Russians caused 70% of German casualties, I hope that clears it up.
Apokalypse, I think you misinterpreted what I said. I never said that Germany was better off under Russian control, I was saying that it was fair for Russia to conrtol a greater amount of it.
I think it's clear that at the time of WWII, somebody in America believed in the spoils system.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
OBAMA '08!
Clinton to Obama: Actions speak louder than words.
Obama to Clinton: Elections speak louder than words.
"When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper." --Mike Huckabee
I think it would be fairer to Germany to be under control of the country they feared least.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
Why do you think somebody in America believed in the spoils system? Oh yeah, because we shared Germany and Austria equally, that obviously shows our belief in the spoils system!:rolleyes:
It's the soviets fault that they took the most casualties. A better trained and equipped army wouldn't have, you know, died as much. As to taking more german casualties, for you to say 70%, I'd like a source. It doesn't matter, because the non-soviet allies could have taken out germany even if the soviets didn't. No doubt we needed them as a punching bag, to divert troops, but once we landed in France, the Soviets weren't really necessary. And once we had the Bomb, we could have ended the European war much like we did the Asian.
So you think it would've been fairer to put Germany under an evil, repressive government that killed millions of it's own citizens rather than guaranteeing that at least half of it was free and democratic?
WOW.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
Dude, England Saved itself from invasion at the battle of Britain, and another event where the British destroyed the Axis landing ships. America did not save England from invasion at all. There were detrimental to the Allies war effort in all of Europe, do not get me wrong.
They attacked a military target (Pearl harbor). I in no way think this is an acceptable tactic as a whole, for an unprovoked, brutal attack like that would infuriate a nation; but it was at the very least a military target. Justifying murdering (as you put it) 200000K civilians because of this, after the Japanese tried to surrender, is ludicrous.
This is a nice way of justifying attack, Japan did start it, but in the whole of WW2 America did do a lot of aggressive moves. They were not purely defensive.
You may have a superiority complex. that is the only way i can explain your implications and connotations derived by the context of your statements.
Another country's atrocities are no reason why you should be exempt from morality when dealing with that country.
Starters, justifying the slaughter of 200000K civilians for a attack on a military naval base.
The US was justified in being engaged in a war with Japan, Do not get me wrong, in the grand scheme of things i have supported America's actions though to the 80's. But, IMHO when Japan called for surrender, imposing there conditions of surrender, America should have sent negotiators and diplomats, instead of two nuclear bombs. It was just not really necessary. I will not go into speculation upon possible alternate reasons why America dropped the bomb(s), but i think it has to be looked at in a more open minded way than, "someone kicked me in the back, they must die when they are at my mercy".
Japan was trying to surrender- sort of- conditionally. And all the head honchos wouldn't even agree on that. While they were making offers of surrender, they were going to force the war to drag on and try to force some concessions ala' their successful war against Russia forty years earlier. They at the very least weren't going to seriously consider giving up Korea and Taiwan. Nor was diplomacy between warring states at that time as easy and painless as you seem to think.
And Russia's main contribution to the war effort was to serve as a punching bag until the Nazis got tired. They may have choked the Rhine with their dead, but they didn't win the war single handed.
I think pretty much everyone here has a highly simplified and over-stated impression of history. There's no question that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved American soldiers' lives. You may argue that the lives of 200,000 civilians take precedence over another ten thousand soldiers or so, but it's any country's perogative to put it's own citizens first.
Please the soviets had their troops in these countries already and that probably had a very big influence on those countries that joined with the Soviet Union.
And let me tell you something: No country had the right to the "spoils", but they took stuff anyways, as it is with almost all wars. America just didn't take as much...
Huh?
Wait a minute, who attacked whom? wait... wait... I think I know... wait! Oh yea Pearl Harbor thats it.
How much more would have been killed if the Allies actually invaded Japan with soldiers?
See section 2
Again, you're talking the official surrender.
And the rest of the US didn't have a high influence on California either?
Thank Zeus for Bryspoon, at least I'm not entirely alone against the uber-patriotic American invasion anymore.
Saying Russia was just a punching bag is extremely unappreciative of their efforts as well. 25 million Russians died, 17 million of them being civilians. The Soviets also accounted for about 70% of German casualties.
Clinton to Obama: Actions speak louder than words.
Obama to Clinton: Elections speak louder than words.
"When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper." --Mike Huckabee
Yes they did. So Russia and the US was both at fault. Doesn't mean that they were "entitled to the spoils" as you put it.
See section 1.
Clinton to Obama: Actions speak louder than words.
Obama to Clinton: Elections speak louder than words.
"When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper." --Mike Huckabee
I totally disagree with the use of the atomic bombs on Japan on the grounds of Japans situation at the time. Japan was in ruins, it had been under heavy bombing and it's navy was scuttled in the pacific. Even if Japan wanted conditions with the surrender a more tightened strangle hold of Japan and economic blocks would have worked that out of them quite a bit and eventually lead to a straight-up surrender. Invasion by land was totally unnecessary as you would gain the same results (without millions of dead soldiers) just with a blockade. In saying this though you have to put yourself back into the mindset of the time. The allied public wanted an end to the war, a blockade would have been unpopular and the bombs provided an easy out. They wanted to scare Russia into fairer negotiations of territory and as sick as it seems they wanted to test how effective their new found weapons were (Note the two atomic bombs used were different, plutonium and uranium I believe, correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand not using the Nukes would have given the Americans a good advantage in future conflict, so it is kind of a good thing they showed them off.
This is my opinion based off the History i've done at school and University.
Also, CunniJA, you might want to look further into Soviet involvement in WWII. In particular, Stalin's relationship with Hitler prior to June 22nd, 1941.
(Hint)
The atomic bombs did a good job of killing a few hundred thousand anyway, so that's the same result.
And I think we all know about the non-aggression pact, but that really went down the toilet fast anyway. It's pretty clear that Stalin and Hitler really just wanted more for themselves, I don't think they really cared much about what the other got out of it.
Mono-G is right. The US wanted a real test of their new toy on actual people rather than on some dirt mound in MiddleofNowhere, USA. It's good to get a non-American opinion in there too.
And, the Andrew Jackson thing was just a joke, but he certainly would disagree. However, like Andrew Jackson, the United States believes in spoils, so they should recognize that the Soviets had greater rights to the spoils after the surrender of Germany. It's irrelevant if you disagree with spoils because your leaders do. Like in Iraq, all about the spOILs of war there.
Clinton to Obama: Actions speak louder than words.
Obama to Clinton: Elections speak louder than words.
"When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper." --Mike Huckabee
OMG. No one had rights to spoils. Not the Soviets, not the US.
And I don't think the whole of Germany would have been better off under Stalin's control than under the Allies. Quite the opposite, in fact.
So what exactly are you arguing? All I am saying is that the US is the lesser of two evils.
What I'm arguing is that Russia was the key player in defeating Germany, so if spoils of war were given according to how much the countries did for defeating Germany, Russia would get the most stuff. And furthermore, because like Russia, the US believed in spoils, the US would ahve to see that it would be more than fair for Russia to assume control of a greater amount of territory. It doesn't matter who the lesser of two evils was. Fair is fair.
Clinton to Obama: Actions speak louder than words.
Obama to Clinton: Elections speak louder than words.
"When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper." --Mike Huckabee
So are you in favor of the spoils system?
Why is it that Russia "did more" as you put it. I don't see it that way.
And anyway, the Germans surrendered to the Red Army, not the Americans or the British. So if not theoretically as well the Germans at least technically surrendered to the Soviet Union, so technically, as well as theoretically, the Soviet Union won WWII in Europe. And, Europe was where the spoils were. I am not in favor of the spoils system, in the same way I am not in favor of capitalism. But, within the context of each, there are things that are fair, and things that are not. And, within the context of the spoils system, it is fair that Russia gets more spoils than the USA in the same way that it is fair that a dude with a Ph.D earns more than a guy with a GED in capitalsim.
Clinton to Obama: Actions speak louder than words.
Obama to Clinton: Elections speak louder than words.
"When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper." --Mike Huckabee
If Germany would've been so better under Commie control, why did the Commies need the Berlin wall, and repression to keep control? Why did West Germany flourish over East? Why was the flow of Germans during occupation to the west?
If you disagree with the spoils system (who here doesn't?) then why are you making an argument based on it?
The soviets didn't win the war, the allies did. Without American $$$ and supplies, the war effort would've crumbled. Without D-Day and the invasion of Italy, Germany could've kept pressure up on the Soviets.
And we could've just nuked the Germans if necessary.
Dropping the bomb on Japan was right. There is a HUGE difference between the thousands killed by the bomb, and the millions who would've died from starvation, or the estimates in the tens of millions of Japanese casualties from an invasion.
It's funny that you say the US believes in spoils when all the Americans here oppose it, and the only support it's getting is from non-Americans of various sorts.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
Having the most casualties doesn't equal the most entitlement towards reparations. Plus the cause of the casualties was because of poor Russian military/civilian leadership; not German brutality (although that was a big factor.)
Apokalypse, I think you misinterpreted what I said. I never said that Germany was better off under Russian control, I was saying that it was fair for Russia to conrtol a greater amount of it.
I think it's clear that at the time of WWII, somebody in America believed in the spoils system.
Clinton to Obama: Actions speak louder than words.
Obama to Clinton: Elections speak louder than words.
"When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper." --Mike Huckabee
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει
It's the soviets fault that they took the most casualties. A better trained and equipped army wouldn't have, you know, died as much. As to taking more german casualties, for you to say 70%, I'd like a source. It doesn't matter, because the non-soviet allies could have taken out germany even if the soviets didn't. No doubt we needed them as a punching bag, to divert troops, but once we landed in France, the Soviets weren't really necessary. And once we had the Bomb, we could have ended the European war much like we did the Asian.
So you think it would've been fairer to put Germany under an evil, repressive government that killed millions of it's own citizens rather than guaranteeing that at least half of it was free and democratic?
WOW.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
Was that because of Russian military prowess or because of Hitler invading Russia at an inopportune time?