Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Top American misconceptions about WWII?

CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:09:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've just realized that my formal education regarding WWII is extremely limited. The textbooks that I have been taught from provide a pretty narrow and biased view of the events in WWII, and I was curious what things I was missing out on.

So here's a my question:

What are the worst misconceptions about WWII held by Americans?

Thanks in advance!
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:12:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 4:09:07 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
I've just realized that my formal education regarding WWII is extremely limited. The textbooks that I have been taught from provide a pretty narrow and biased view of the events in WWII, and I was curious what things I was missing out on.

So here's a my question:

What are the worst misconceptions about WWII held by Americans?

Probably that the war got us out of the Great Depression....

Thanks in advance!
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:39:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 4:09:07 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
I've just realized that my formal education regarding WWII is extremely limited. The textbooks that I have been taught from provide a pretty narrow and biased view of the events in WWII, and I was curious what things I was missing out on.

So here's a my question:

What are the worst misconceptions about WWII held by Americans?

Hitler was evil.

Thanks in advance!
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:55:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 4:39:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/17/2013 4:09:07 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
I've just realized that my formal education regarding WWII is extremely limited. The textbooks that I have been taught from provide a pretty narrow and biased view of the events in WWII, and I was curious what things I was missing out on.

So here's a my question:

What are the worst misconceptions about WWII held by Americans?

Hitler was evil.

Thanks in advance!

I found that one out pretty quickly. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the justification for ethnic cleansing though. After all, Hitler was a Catholic.

Now, anytime someone uses the term Nazi or Hitler as rhetoric it makes me question their understanding of history and their intent by using it.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 5:33:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 4:55:26 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
At 7/17/2013 4:39:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/17/2013 4:09:07 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
I've just realized that my formal education regarding WWII is extremely limited. The textbooks that I have been taught from provide a pretty narrow and biased view of the events in WWII, and I was curious what things I was missing out on.

So here's a my question:

What are the worst misconceptions about WWII held by Americans?

Hitler was evil.

Thanks in advance!

I found that one out pretty quickly. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the justification for ethnic cleansing though. After all, Hitler was a Catholic.

I wouldn't say it was justified, but it was prevalent in the age due to how social Darwinism was being applied to race. The US was also well known as depicting the Japanese as sub-human, and then there's the whole internment camp thing too.

Now, anytime someone uses the term Nazi or Hitler as rhetoric it makes me question their understanding of history and their intent by using it.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 5:58:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 4:55:26 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
At 7/17/2013 4:39:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/17/2013 4:09:07 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
I've just realized that my formal education regarding WWII is extremely limited. The textbooks that I have been taught from provide a pretty narrow and biased view of the events in WWII, and I was curious what things I was missing out on.

So here's a my question:

What are the worst misconceptions about WWII held by Americans?

Hitler was evil.

Thanks in advance!

I found that one out pretty quickly. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the justification for ethnic cleansing though. After all, Hitler was a Catholic.

Now, anytime someone uses the term Nazi or Hitler as rhetoric it makes me question their understanding of history and their intent by using it.

Whoa. I think that ethnic cleansing is plenty justified under certain circumstances, but that's Machiavellian. Killing millions of people for the purposes of ridding the world of degenerates and conquering Europe is not Machiavellian. I sincerely hope that this is some form of bizarre sarcasm.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 6:06:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 5:33:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


I wouldn't say it was justified, but it was prevalent in the age due to how social Darwinism was being applied to race. The US was also well known as depicting the Japanese as sub-human, and then there's the whole internment camp thing too.


Actually that puts thing into perspective. I forgot how strong Hitler's views on Darwinism were.

Even Japan believed that their race was superior.

It's funny how, at the time, each country criticized the acts of another but then turned around and did the same thing to people in their own country.

I watched this 12 hour long documentary, and it mentioned that Hitler criticized Czechoslovakia for it's poor treatment of the Germans inhabiting it. It even said that Hitler used this critique as a springboard for taking control of the area. He wanted to "ensure and protect the rights of the Germans living there".

It all seems very noble and just.

I think it also said that he encouraged the Czechs when they wanted to form their own independent state. I was half asleep though, so I could be wrong.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 6:12:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Good thread.

I'd say the biggest one was that it couldn't have been won without America. In reality, the USSR was always going to win.

The second is that the atomic bombs caused Japan to surrender. When it's a fact that Japan was already planning on surrendering.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 6:43:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 5:58:55 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 4:55:26 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
At 7/17/2013 4:39:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/17/2013 4:09:07 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
I've just realized that my formal education regarding WWII is extremely limited. The textbooks that I have been taught from provide a pretty narrow and biased view of the events in WWII, and I was curious what things I was missing out on.

So here's a my question:

What are the worst misconceptions about WWII held by Americans?

Hitler was evil.

Thanks in advance!

I found that one out pretty quickly. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the justification for ethnic cleansing though. After all, Hitler was a Catholic.

Now, anytime someone uses the term Nazi or Hitler as rhetoric it makes me question their understanding of history and their intent by using it.

Whoa. I think that ethnic cleansing is plenty justified under certain circumstances, but that's Machiavellian. Killing millions of people for the purposes of ridding the world of degenerates and conquering Europe is not Machiavellian. I sincerely hope that this is some form of bizarre sarcasm.

No no, I wasn't defending their actions.
I'm just trying to understand the mindset of Hitler and why he felt the need to kill off the Jews.

In fact, I've read several threads on other forums that demonstrated how, in the beginning, Hitler only intended to exile the Jews from Germany without killing them all.

A quote from one of his speeches read something like "There is plenty of land on this world for the Jews to live. Why does Germany have to take them? We can just kick them out."

Of course it depends on interpretation of the German language and is somewhat speculative of Hitler's mindset. Nevertheless it's a position to consider.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 6:59:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's a misconception that Hitler was an atheist when he and the Nazis actually saw the Holocaust as being ordained by God.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 7:14:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 6:59:35 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
It's a misconception that Hitler was an atheist when he and the Nazis actually saw the Holocaust as being ordained by God.

-1 for Theism.

Now.. how many times in history have people done horrendous things in the name of carrying out Atheism?

No, but seriously, if you can find an event like that I would like to know.

It's tough deciding much about the character of Hitler. I don't think any of us will truly understand his mindset and what caused him to do the things he did. If there was one man's brain I would love to dive into it would have to be Hitler's.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 12:21:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 6:43:59 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
At 7/17/2013 5:58:55 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 4:55:26 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
At 7/17/2013 4:39:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/17/2013 4:09:07 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
I've just realized that my formal education regarding WWII is extremely limited. The textbooks that I have been taught from provide a pretty narrow and biased view of the events in WWII, and I was curious what things I was missing out on.

So here's a my question:

What are the worst misconceptions about WWII held by Americans?

Hitler was evil.

Thanks in advance!

I found that one out pretty quickly. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the justification for ethnic cleansing though. After all, Hitler was a Catholic.

Now, anytime someone uses the term Nazi or Hitler as rhetoric it makes me question their understanding of history and their intent by using it.

Whoa. I think that ethnic cleansing is plenty justified under certain circumstances, but that's Machiavellian. Killing millions of people for the purposes of ridding the world of degenerates and conquering Europe is not Machiavellian. I sincerely hope that this is some form of bizarre sarcasm.

No no, I wasn't defending their actions.
I'm just trying to understand the mindset of Hitler and why he felt the need to kill off the Jews.

Not at all the impression you gave, friend.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 12:21:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 6:59:35 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
It's a misconception that Hitler was an atheist when he and the Nazis actually saw the Holocaust as being ordained by God.

Why do I keep having to refute this all the time?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 1:20:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 12:21:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 6:59:35 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
It's a misconception that Hitler was an atheist when he and the Nazis actually saw the Holocaust as being ordained by God.

Why do I keep having to refute this all the time?

because it's true.

Just kidding.

What's to refute other than that they thought it was ordained by God?

Wasn't Hitler raised a Catholic?
Did the Church not recognize Nazi Germany as a country?

Hitler may have not done things in the Name of God, but it's hard to believe that he's an atheist.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 11:17:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 1:20:35 AM, CanWeKnow wrote:
At 7/18/2013 12:21:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 6:59:35 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
It's a misconception that Hitler was an atheist when he and the Nazis actually saw the Holocaust as being ordained by God.

Why do I keep having to refute this all the time?

because it's true.

Just kidding.

What's to refute other than that they thought it was ordained by God?

Wasn't Hitler raised a Catholic?
Did the Church not recognize Nazi Germany as a country?

Hitler may have not done things in the Name of God, but it's hard to believe that he's an atheist.

Reasoning:

1. Hitler and the Nazi party endorsed a Christian viewpoint of their ideology as state propaganda.

2. Therefore they must have necessarily been Christian.

Interesting how a five year-old might be able to see through this.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 12:57:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 11:17:03 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/18/2013 1:20:35 AM, CanWeKnow wrote:
At 7/18/2013 12:21:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 6:59:35 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
It's a misconception that Hitler was an atheist when he and the Nazis actually saw the Holocaust as being ordained by God.

Why do I keep having to refute this all the time?

because it's true.

Just kidding.

What's to refute other than that they thought it was ordained by God?

Wasn't Hitler raised a Catholic?
Did the Church not recognize Nazi Germany as a country?

Hitler may have not done things in the Name of God, but it's hard to believe that he's an atheist.

Reasoning:

1. Hitler and the Nazi party endorsed a Christian viewpoint of their ideology as state propaganda.

2. Therefore they must have necessarily been Christian.

Interesting how a five year-old might be able to see through this.

No i'm not saying he must have been Christian either, but it casts serious doubt on whether or not he was an Atheist.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 2:57:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 6:12:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Good thread.

I'd say the biggest one was that it couldn't have been won without America. In reality, the USSR was always going to win.

The second is that the atomic bombs caused Japan to surrender. When it's a fact that Japan was already planning on surrendering.

Both assertions are completely wrong, and both seem to endless proliferate themselves for stupid leftists to read and think that they have new jerkoff tools to criticize American imperialism. It's almost like the arguments for creationism.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:04:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 2:57:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Both assertions are completely wrong, and both seem to endless proliferate themselves for stupid leftists to read and think that they have new jerkoff tools to criticize American imperialism. It's almost like the arguments for creationism.

You know, I was a conservative and a libertarian for much longer than I've been liberal.

You could actually make arguments instead of just pointing out how wrong I am.

USSR would have still won:

1. The Red Army numbered about 10 million.

2. The German forces numbered about 3 million.

3. Russia is much harder to invade than Germany.

Japan would have still surrendered:

"The Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing"
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

The point of dropping the bombs was to show off to the USSR and nothing more.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:08:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 2:57:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 6:12:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Good thread.

I'd say the biggest one was that it couldn't have been won without America. In reality, the USSR was always going to win.

The second is that the atomic bombs caused Japan to surrender. When it's a fact that Japan was already planning on surrendering.

Both assertions are completely wrong, and both seem to endless proliferate themselves for stupid leftists to read and think that they have new jerkoff tools to criticize American imperialism. It's almost like the arguments for creationism.

Great argument.
http://www.troll.me...
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:34:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 12:04:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/18/2013 2:57:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Both assertions are completely wrong, and both seem to endless proliferate themselves for stupid leftists to read and think that they have new jerkoff tools to criticize American imperialism. It's almost like the arguments for creationism.

You know, I was a conservative and a libertarian for much longer than I've been liberal.

You could actually make arguments instead of just pointing out how wrong I am.

I don't feel like arguing things which I haven't made assertions about. The person with something to prove should make the argument, especially if he happens to be wrong.

USSR would have still won:

1. The Red Army numbered about 10 million.

2. The German forces numbered about 3 million.

3. Russia is much harder to invade than Germany.

Numbers don't really matter in this instance (although it was actually four million invading Russia) because the Russians were taking huge losses, both in the beginning and in the end. I agree that Hitler probably couldn't have actually annexed large amounts of conquered territory because of the sheer power of the Soviet Union, but if we're operating off of a different, more German favorable timeline here than I don't see why Russia could have destroyed the armies of Europe and occupied it if Germany had neutralized Britain in the West and if the American attempts to invade were disasters, and maybe if Spain had joined the fight on the Axis side, etc.

Japan would have still surrendered:

"The Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing"
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Was he making a speech or was it in a political setting? There's been plenty of actual research into the attitude of the pre-Hiroshima Japan.

The point of dropping the bombs was to show off to the USSR and nothing more.

I would have actually agreed that that would be justified from a Machiavellian standpoint, but I sincerely doubt that it was "just" for intimidation.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:37:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 12:34:55 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

I would have actually agreed that that would be justified from a Machiavellian standpoint, but I sincerely doubt that it was "just" for intimidation.

Oh gawd, Machiavellian? Seriously?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 10:47:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 12:34:55 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/19/2013 12:04:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/18/2013 2:57:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Both assertions are completely wrong, and both seem to endless proliferate themselves for stupid leftists to read and think that they have new jerkoff tools to criticize American imperialism. It's almost like the arguments for creationism.

You know, I was a conservative and a libertarian for much longer than I've been liberal.

You could actually make arguments instead of just pointing out how wrong I am.

I don't feel like arguing things which I haven't made assertions about. The person with something to prove should make the argument, especially if he happens to be wrong.

sigh...so what you're saying is that you don't have a point. Concur.

USSR would have still won:

1. The Red Army numbered about 10 million.

2. The German forces numbered about 3 million.

3. Russia is much harder to invade than Germany.

Numbers don't really matter in this instance (although it was actually four million invading Russia) because the Russians were taking huge losses, both in the beginning and in the end. I agree that Hitler probably couldn't have actually annexed large amounts of conquered territory because of the sheer power of the Soviet Union, but if we're operating off of a different, more German favorable timeline here than I don't see why Russia could have destroyed the armies of Europe and occupied it if Germany had neutralized Britain in the West and if the American attempts to invade were disasters, and maybe if Spain had joined the fight on the Axis side, etc.

Both of the underlined points were due to successful American attempts at intervention in the war, which according to you was a "completely wrong" assertion. You're contradicting yourself here.

The point of dropping the bombs was to show off to the USSR and nothing more.

I would have actually agreed that that would be justified from a Machiavellian standpoint, but I sincerely doubt that it was "just" for intimidation.

I don't think you understand what "Machiavellian" means. You throw it about for reasons I cannot understand. What exactly do you mean by "Machiavellian" here?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:18:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 10:47:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/19/2013 12:34:55 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/19/2013 12:04:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/18/2013 2:57:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Both assertions are completely wrong, and both seem to endless proliferate themselves for stupid leftists to read and think that they have new jerkoff tools to criticize American imperialism. It's almost like the arguments for creationism.

You know, I was a conservative and a libertarian for much longer than I've been liberal.

You could actually make arguments instead of just pointing out how wrong I am.

I don't feel like arguing things which I haven't made assertions about. The person with something to prove should make the argument, especially if he happens to be wrong.

sigh...so what you're saying is that you don't have a point. Concur.

I felt that he had the burden of proof. What's so complocated about that?

USSR would have still won:

1. The Red Army numbered about 10 million.

2. The German forces numbered about 3 million.

3. Russia is much harder to invade than Germany.

Numbers don't really matter in this instance (although it was actually four million invading Russia) because the Russians were taking huge losses, both in the beginning and in the end. I agree that Hitler probably couldn't have actually annexed large amounts of conquered territory because of the sheer power of the Soviet Union, but if we're operating off of a different, more German favorable timeline here than I don't see why Russia could have destroyed the armies of Europe and occupied it if Germany had neutralized Britain in the West and if the American attempts to invade were disasters, and maybe if Spain had joined the fight on the Axis side, etc.

Both of the underlined points were due to successful American attempts at intervention in the war, which according to you was a "completely wrong" assertion. You're contradicting yourself here.

What the hell are you talking about? He claimed that the Soviet Union was "always" going to win. That doesn't seem very likely to me if Hitler had managed to deal with his other threats in time, or if he had captured Baku with its oil supplies or something.

The point of dropping the bombs was to show off to the USSR and nothing more.

I would have actually agreed that that would be justified from a Machiavellian standpoint, but I sincerely doubt that it was "just" for intimidation.

I don't think you understand what "Machiavellian" means. You throw it about for reasons I cannot understand. What exactly do you mean by "Machiavellian" here?

The ethical system in which political expediency is more important than other moral imperatives and the use of cruelty and deceit to maintain authority or to fulfill certain goals is justified.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:20:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 11:18:22 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

The ethical system in which political expediency is more important than other moral imperatives and the use of cruelty and deceit to maintain authority or to fulfill certain goals is justified.

Maybe we could debate that some time. What do you base the moral justification of this system on btw?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:15:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 11:18:22 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/19/2013 10:47:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/19/2013 12:34:55 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/19/2013 12:04:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:

Both of the underlined points were due to successful American attempts at intervention in the war, which according to you was a "completely wrong" assertion. You're contradicting yourself here.

What the hell are you talking about? He claimed that the Soviet Union was "always" going to win. That doesn't seem very likely to me if Hitler had managed to deal with his other threats in time, or if he had captured Baku with its oil supplies or something.

Never mind, I misread FREEDO's original comment.

The point of dropping the bombs was to show off to the USSR and nothing more.

I would have actually agreed that that would be justified from a Machiavellian standpoint, but I sincerely doubt that it was "just" for intimidation.

I don't think you understand what "Machiavellian" means. You throw it about for reasons I cannot understand. What exactly do you mean by "Machiavellian" here?

The ethical system in which political expediency is more important than other moral imperatives and the use of cruelty and deceit to maintain authority or to fulfill certain goals is justified.

Ok.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 8:04:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 12:04:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/18/2013 2:57:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Both assertions are completely wrong, and both seem to endless proliferate themselves for stupid leftists to read and think that they have new jerkoff tools to criticize American imperialism. It's almost like the arguments for creationism.

You know, I was a conservative and a libertarian for much longer than I've been liberal.

You could actually make arguments instead of just pointing out how wrong I am.

USSR would have still won:

1. The Red Army numbered about 10 million.

2. The German forces numbered about 3 million.

3. Russia is much harder to invade than Germany.

Japan would have still surrendered:

"The Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing"
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Eisenhower was not in the Pacific. He's not a reliable source. I think the secretary of war was.

The point of dropping the bombs was to show off to the USSR and nothing more.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Ruckmanite
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2013 1:46:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you are a Muslim, then the Holocaust is just a big fake. Curse those Zionist Jews! lol, I don't get Muslims
Let your words be the genuine picture of your heart- John Wesley
Money is a horrid thing to follow, but a charming thing to meet-Henry James
THE_OPINIONATOR
Posts: 575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 12:00:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 4:09:07 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
I've just realized that my formal education regarding WWII is extremely limited. The textbooks that I have been taught from provide a pretty narrow and biased view of the events in WWII, and I was curious what things I was missing out on.

So here's a my question:

What are the worst misconceptions about WWII held by Americans?

Thanks in advance!

That the American 101st Airborne Division needed to be rescued from the front lines of Bastone and the Arden Forrest by Patton's 3rd army, they could have held back the bulge from moving anymore inward.
My Blog: Life Through The Eyes of a Christian

http://bloggingforjchrist.blogspot.com...

Life Through The Eyes of a Christian Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com...
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 10:10:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 4:09:07 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
I've just realized that my formal education regarding WWII is extremely limited. The textbooks that I have been taught from provide a pretty narrow and biased view of the events in WWII, and I was curious what things I was missing out on.

So here's a my question:

What are the worst misconceptions about WWII held by Americans?

Thanks in advance!

The greatest travesty that American students are the victims of are the political lies that inform their worldview. To this end, Americans are repeatedly told, since birth, that the US "Won" the war against Hitler's Germany. We did not; we played a peripheral role, the zenith of which was our feint on Normandy (D-Day.)

This jab was a major distraction for the German High Command, but was not important otherwise. Nor was our rolling up of Axis forces in North Africa. Our bombing runs into major German cities was much more effective, but did not contribute much to the eventual Allied victory in Europe. Nor did our clown car of hapless generals, such as MacArthur and Patton and Monty.

Bottom line: Germany was defeated by the Soviet Union, and Americans are largely completely unaware of this fact.

In the East, everything was done in massive scale; troop movements that involved millions of men, entire nations emptied out and pressed into military service, made the Eastern Front of WW2 almost mythical in size and scope. Stalingrad was the true "turning point" in Europe, and the Soviet invasion of Germany was ensured by the brilliant psychopathy of it's generals - especially when compared to our rootin-tootin commanders like Patton. The Soviets entered Berlin, and scattered Hitler's bones, yet we Americans claim victory.

Was the American involvement important?
No. What was done to Germany would have happened if we had only used Lend-Lease to equip the UK. In fact, it is possible that American involvement prevented Hitler from ridding the world of Stalin before his inevitable defeat.

Did American involvement speed the end of the war? No.
In fact, had America left Stalin to die at the hands of the Wehrmacht, we might have starved out Japan earlier than 1945. I seriously doubt that Germany could have survived the Soviet mauling they were receiving.

As it stands, the Germans were terrified of the Russian bulldozer. They abandoned themselves to the mercy of the Anglo-American advance in order to escape the Soviet onrush. Unable to win, the German soldiers could still choose who to lose to - and most of them chose to lose to us.

This still would have been the case after the military collapse of the Supreme Soviet.

The biggest myth: America defeated Germany. The truth is, our entry into the Western Theater was only necessary so that we could carry water for the Soviet All-Star battlefront.