Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (176485)	11/30/2005 10:44:08 AM
From: Lou Weed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk......again, comparing this conflict to WW2 is like comparing Oasis to the Beatles! WW2 was as multilateral as you could get (hence WORLD war!!). Americans weren't supplying 85% of the forces and taking all of the casualties.....its just not the same thing for the love of God! BTW I envy you being in Cadiz.....watch out for those beautiful Spanish girls ;-) MON.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (176485)	11/30/2005 11:10:36 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, you missed out the USSR. Perhaps you should ask Google about what they did. They basically won the war against Germany. Sure, the USA helped. <WWII? Primarily American and British, despite the fact that many other nations supported the Allies against Germany, Japan, and Italy.> Yes, against Japan, it was primarily the USA. Almost entirely. But total troops in action would have been mostly Russian I guess. Germany was deep in the USSR besieging Russian cities. Stalin was putting everything into the war. Germany probably had more troops under arms than any, but had to split them to cover the perimeter of the 1000 Year Reich. Which lasted not many decades at all. Mqurice