What if ...... no-one had conquered any nation

[cheri1122]

"We really should have let Germany take them out"?!
That's funny - Germany couldn't have, because Russia so greatly outnumbered them. No matter how many enemy troops Hitler killed, Stalin had 100 more to replace them. If both megalomaniac moronic 'leaders' hadn't been too stupidly stubborn to give up, the war would have ended a lot sooner.
A surprising number of ordinary German citizens did what they could to help - the Russians. They were flat out sick of being bombed, and starving, and knowing Hitler was lying about 'winning the war' - when they began suspecting what was really happening to all the Jews & old & sick & disabled & gay people who'd been sent to concentration camps, quite a few citizens thought their patriotic duty lay in helping Russia, not their own government.
Superior force can't beat common sense.

 

[layoutshooter]

"We really should have let Germany take them out"?!
That's funny - Germany couldn't have, because Russia so greatly outnumbered them. No matter how many enemy troops Hitler killed, Stalin had 100 more to replace them. If both megalomaniac moronic 'leaders' hadn't been too stupidly stubborn to give up, the war would have ended a lot sooner.
A surprising number of ordinary German citizens did what they could to help - the Russians. They were flat out sick of being bombed, and starving, and knowing Hitler was lying about 'winning the war' - when they began suspecting what was really happening to all the Jews & old & sick & disabled & gay people who'd been sent to concentration camps, quite a few citizens thought their patriotic duty lay in helping Russia, not their own government.
Superior force can't beat common sense.

Russia was more than beatable. The ONLY reason they were not is because Hitler was an idiot. Opened up far too many fronts at one time. Russia was not out manned, but were out gunned. German weapons were far superior to Russian weapons. German tactics were better, for the most part. In many engagements the Russians killed as many Russians as the Germans did. Had we not stepped in Russia MAY have been able to defeat the Germans but there would have been a lot more Russians killed, that many fewer for us to deal with later. Same with Germany. We should have let them kill each other off and dealt with Japan first.

Common sense? In Russia? That is funny. That is ALMOST as funny as saying Obama has common sense.

 

[aristotle]

I would suggest that the brutal Russian winter weather did more harm to the advancing Nazi Army than any other factor. The German soldiers found themselves in subzero weather for months on end with their supply line thinly stretched over 1000 miles from home. The Russians had home-court advantage. Hitler overreached and did it at the worst possible season. The German Army had overrun France in a short period of time and thought Russia would similarly fall. Wrong.

 

[AMonger]

None what so ever. Women can be just as nasty, evil and aggressive as men. People are people.

Ever watch one of those Lockup TV shows? Women's prisons are pretty dang scary.
Prison guards say male prisoners about to fight usually stop if a guard shows up. Women prisoners fight regardless.
It may take more to flip the switch, but once it's flipped, women can be just as cruel.

 

[layoutshooter]

I would suggest that the brutal Russian winter weather did more harm to the advancing Nazi Army than any other factor. The German soldiers found themselves in subzero weather for months on end with their supply line thinly stretched over 1000 miles from home. The Russians had home-court advantage. Hitler overreached and did it at the worst possible season. The German Army had overrun France in a short period of time and thought Russia would similarly fall. Wrong.

The winter WAS a MAJOR factor. So was over extension on many fronts.

The Russians did all they could to lose. Purges during major battles. Shooting those who tried to retreat. Placing civilians on the line, against their will. Refusing to upgrade weapons systems.

Hitler COULD have EASILY won WWII. He should have crossed the channel when he drove the Brits off the beach at Dunkirk. They had NO means of stopping them. OR, not invade France at all. Put 100% of his resources into attacking the Soviets right from the get go. They would have had little opposition from the US, if any. Or England for that matter. He should have NEVER allied with Japan.

WE could learn from his mistakes. WE too are not over extending our selves. What else do you expect? It is OBVIOUS that Obama FLUNKED history. He was too busy smoking dope during that class.

WE are at a WONDERFUL time in history now. We have the opportunity to disengage in many theaters without placing our security in jeopardy. We cannot because Mr. Peace Prize is an idiot. Instead of making us STRONGER, he is over extending us and making us far weaker. I guess he is more like the loser leaders in WWII than I thought.

 

[cheri1122]

Ever watch one of those Lockup TV shows?

I'd rather have abdominal surgery performed with a fork. By a blind person. Who has a migraine and some impulse control issues.

Women's prisons are pretty dang scary.
Prison guards say male prisoners about to fight usually stop if a guard shows up. Women prisoners fight regardless.
It may take more to flip the switch, but once it's flipped, women can be just as cruel.

Well, the fact that the women are in prison kind of makes it a stacked deck, doncha think?
I never said anything about women being less 'cruel' - I said they generally use methods other than force as persuasion. And that those other methods just might be a more effective way to fight against the supporters of terrorists than bombing the living daylights out of them. And their kids.

 

[layoutshooter]

Women don't need terrorists to kill their kids, they are MORE that willing do it them selves. It happens in the animal world and the human world on a regular basis.

This is stupid, The VERY idea that one sex is less violent or disgusting than the other is beyond belief and shows we have learned nothing in the last 2 million years.

This article is ONLY with the lampooning of it that was going on earlier.

People have freedom of speech, twits should not and the article was written by a twit.

 

[cheri1122]

Common sense? In Russia? That is funny. That is ALMOST as funny as saying Obama has common sense.

But nowhere near as funny as reading your response to a comment you didn't comprehend. I didn't say Russia had common sense - I said the German citizens did.

 

[layoutshooter]

But nowhere near as funny as reading your response to a comment you didn't comprehend. I didn't say Russia had common sense - I said the German citizens did.

The German citizens had about as much sense as the American citizens do now. BOTH voted in despots believing that evil could save them. Common sense after that fact is too late.

Germans and common sense? That IS funny.

For the MOST part, there is NO such thing as common sense or mankind would NOT be in the mess we are in today.

 

[Jumbuck]

If women ruled you think it would be more peaceful---

Ahab and Jezebel. Ahab wasn't much good, but for real evil you have to look to Jezebel. She was something else.

Way back in the 1500s, consider Queen Elizabeth. She was no slouch when it came to taking property and so on from another nation, notably sending her men against Spanish interests.

In our modern era, if you want to do some digging you'll find women who take a back seat to nobody when it comes to making history "interesting". Golda Meier, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher come to mind, I doubt that any of these women would be above raiding a neighbor's country if she thought it would benefit her own country.

Lest we not forget "Bloody Mary!" She had thousands burned at the stake just for not agreeing with their religion. also, hoe 'bout the race of female warriors called..."Amazons!"

 

[Maverick]

Leaders, whether they be male or female, are driven by the same old thing man is always driven by.

It's not gender specific, and can either be an enlightening force, or one void of conscience. What your seeing from American leaders is the same thing alluded to many times in this thread, and throughout history.

Put another way....if 50 of us normal citizens with a good conscience met up with 50 of our so called "enemies" do you think we could work something out? Probably, but why?

So, Georgie, Bill, Barack, Hillary add nauseam......you're goals and ambitions are better served by voting to send YOUR children off to war first, thereby confirming you deem all these "issues" to be important enough for US dying for. Truth be known, they are not and the people never want war as was the case for the first hundred years of this country.

 

[layoutshooter]

"Put another way....if 50 of us normal citizens with a good conscience met up with 50 of our so called "enemies" do you think we could work something out? Probably, but why?"


Nope. Because the radicals control. Hitler, Stalin and Mao could not have been stopped by singing songs. Also, keep in mind, that many other countries and peoples ideas of "normal" are not what WE consider normal. One cannot project one's own sensibilities onto others. It is unlikely that they are the same. People are NOT the same world wide. They do NOT have the same dreams or beliefs.

That is not to say we are always right, OR, always wrong, but I am not naive enough to believe that all Men are basically good, by our standards and that just a talk could ever solve every problem. It will never happen.

 

[Maverick]

" but I am not naive enough to believe that all Men are basically good, by our standards and that just a talk could ever solve every problem. It will never happen. "

Your very correct layoutshooter. Man is basically evil in nature and always has been. But the point is taking those mentioned leaders and remove them from the equation. They do NOT represent the wishes and goals of the ordinary population. Why do you think Congress has shunned it's constitutional obligation to declare war? They no longer do the bidding of those/us who they actually work FOR.......thereby, those at the top with their own agenda declare FOR US who the enemy is.

We were taught to hate the Japanese, the Germans, middle eastern peoples etc. However, those boots on the ground normal citizens do not actually hate each other, do they? Do you?

Case in point would be the Olympics. Ever seen those normal citizen competitors after competing? Most of them respect and admire their opponent for what they brought to the table in offering of friendly competition. Reports abound of soldiers leaving their positions to converse with the enemy.....only to begin shooting the next day.

I agree with your basic premise but have to respectfully disagree with any notion that normal everyday citizens want to bomb the h*ll out of each other. Even a cursory honest glance at what started most all conflicts bare this out. Generally, somebody wants something that belongs to someone else.

 

[layoutshooter]

I spent 20 years in either the military or defense related work. I was never taught to hate anyone. I was taught to do my job, which was to do everything we could to avoid a war that could wipe out all of man kind in days. To be able to do that job well one had to remain dispassionate. Most I knew who faced an enemy in combat did not 'hate' the enemy. Some ended up that way but most did not.

There were disarmerment programs I backed and some I did not. Not because I wanted a particular weapons systems but because the lack of or the existence of a weapons system made it more dangerous.

I don't believe that man is basically evil, just basically different. Our idea of 'human rights' is vastly different than someone who lives some where else.

Yes, it is the 'leaders' that get us into the messes we are in but I think you will find that the reasons the world is always messing up is complicated. Some wars, like WWII, the reason to fight was clear. Others, like the Cold War, were not as clear but the enemy was just as evil, or in many ways more evil, than those we faced in WWII.

As to those who are in the Olympics, they are not normal, everyday people. They are single minded, elites. Many of those, like the Soviet athletes during the Cold War, were military personnel.

Do I believe that we are always right? Hardly. Do I believe that we are always wrong? Hardly.

Bombing the heck out of a place is not always the solution, should never be the first solution, is seldom the first solution but the use of that solution should always be on the table.

 

[AMonger]

We were taught to hate the Japanese, the Germans, middle eastern peoples etc. However, those boots on the ground normal citizens do not actually hate each other, do they? Do you?

A good example of this is found in Saving Private Ryan. They stormed the machine gun nest and one of them got killed. They eventually took the position and hauled out a Nazi. They were furious, demanding to know if he was the one that shot their guy, and they were going to execute him right there. The captain, however, sent him in a direction, telling him he was to turn himself in to the next allied troops he encountered. He almost had a revolt on his hands.
What he didn't say, and what I thought he should have, is that this Nazi probably didn't want to be there. His government grabbed him, threw a uniform at him, told him what the enemy looked like and told him to shoot them. It would be different if he were an officer, a member of the Nazi Party, or otherwise a true believer, but as long as he was pretty much forced to be there, his situation was no different than theirs, and it would hardly make sense for a Nazi took it personally if one of them killed his friend, would it?

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't know what army you were in but when I was in the US army I was not taught to "hate" the Russians or the VC.