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 (176497)	11/30/2005 11:47:29 AM
From: Lou Weed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<No, WWII was primarily a battle of American and British (including colonial) forces against the combined armies of Germany, Japan, and Italy>> What?!?!?!?!? Have you forgot about the USSR, remember those guys???? Looking at the table that YOU provided it shows that they had 27 million in deaths and casualties (a factor of 40 more than the next allied nation on the list....the UK). The US ended up with the same as France (600,000) followed by the Poles. <<Maybe less of a "world war" than is normally the perception, eh?>> Where you draw this conclusion from is baffling to me.....your own table shows just how global the effects were!!! MON.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (176497)	11/30/2005 12:40:03 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"No, WWII was primarily a battle of American and British (including colonial) forces against the combined armies of Germany, Japan, and Italy" So Russia doesn't count,even tho they lost more than all the others combined? What would have happened if Hitler had blitzkreiged Stalingrad in 2 days? en.wikipedia.org Ditto Leningrad? history.colstate.edu You think we could have pulled off D-Day if Russia had rolled over like Poland and France? No Eastern Front, maybe 2 mil more to greet us on the beaches.