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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (256901)	7/6/2008 8:42:20 AM
From: Sedohr Nod	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794026

You are apparently unaware of the part the USSR played in WWII and how they defeated Germany, not quite single-handedly but did the bulk of the damage I'm confident that Ann is fairly well read in her history...you seem to have a tendency to presume by the bushel load. Surely, Russia played a very large roll in defeating the Germans, but what the hell do you think western Europe would have looked like without US forces checking the Red Tide? Since "idle conjecture" seems to be greatly in play....what if all the native Americans had used the heads of the Europeans to play football with like the Calusa indians of Florida did? While we are at it...what if they had been advanced to the point of repelling the invaders with superior weapons and technology? The USA delayed involvement in WWII in a large part because we had just democratically elected a President with staying out of it as part of his platform. It something that I have found much fault with in the past, but not to the point of pining over a long gone & flawed empire.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (256901)	7/6/2008 9:56:55 AM
From: t4texas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794026

well that's what stalin got for signing a secret non-aggression treaty with hitler. duh. then stalin actually Believed hitler would treat the pact as something valid. had stalin gotten his armies even halfway in fighting shape, russia would not have experienced such a total disaster. "The Eastern Front was unparalleled for its high intensity, ferocity, and brutality. The fighting involved millions of Axis and Soviet troops along the broadest land front in military history. It was by far the deadliest single theatre of war in World War II, with over 5 million deaths on the Axis Forces; Soviet military deaths were about 10.6 million..."

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (256901)	7/6/2008 12:11:40 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794026

Maurice, "your" referred to Britain's enormous loss of it's American colony on July 4, 1776. I've learned since then that you're actually a New Zealander--same church..different pew. Agreed the USSR made a huge contribution to the defeat of Hitler; you overstate it however when you say the war was won "not quite single-handedly" by the Soviets, for you are detracting from not only US efforts but that of the other Allies and Commonwealth nations. There is no doubt the Russians suffered the most. They of course were an ally of Hitler's for a time. And, by the way, after the war, when the Soviets became a threat to all of Europe, to whom did they turn for protection during the Cold War? Prior to our entry into the war, FDR took steps (contrary to American public sentiment, thereby demonstrating why we elect leaders to make timely but difficult decisions) to help with the lend-lease program--providing war material and supplies to England. In the 1940s there was no other nation besides the USA which could have tooled up so quickly to manufacture so many tanks, planes, weapons, ships, trucks, etc. You must admit the US did the heavy lifting in the Pacific; although all the Allies played a role EXCEPT the Russians who only declared war on Japan a few days before the Japanese surrendered. Finally, it has been over two hundred years since the USA became independent; if you're contending that it would have been better had we stayed with England, why confine the argument to the WWII time frame? Consider, could the US have developed the economy, aid programs, social programs, free enterprise system, and the world's strongest military if we stayed as part of the Commonwealth? Remember, our ability to spend huge sums on the military caused the Soviet Union to try to match us, which in turn resulted in their downfall. History would surely be different if the USA did not gain independence from the British Commonwealth, and arguably it would have been to the disadvantage of the entire world. Cheers, Ann

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (256901)	7/6/2008 12:11:41 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794026

If the U.S. had remained part of the British system, we would have been mired in socialism and unable build the MASSIVE amount of arms that defeated Hitler's army. What won the war was the motivated involvement of the most advanced production systems known to man and the guts of the American soldier to use those weapons. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and others would have been fighting Hitler's army with bow and arrows riding horseback, if it weren't for America's incredible factory production. The same is true today. New Zealand couldn't defend itself with its 3 ship Navy if it weren't for America's Naval leadership, both above and under the ocean. A few pirate ships could probably take the island. We don't expect a thank you after so many years, but re-writing history is a bit much Maurice. If the USA had remained part of the British system as did Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and others, the USA might not have hidden behind the Atlantic for so long after hostilities got going. But, it's all water under the bridge and is idle conjecture.