- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: December 2, 1944 - Was Hürtgen Forest Worth it?
Posted on 12/2/23 at 2:14 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 12/2/23 at 2:14 pm to RollTide1987
Diatribe…I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word. Nice attempt at dismissing my argument.
Also, our troops did nothing to address the Nazi offensive into the USSR; in fact, it was the USSR that did the majority of dying and killing against Nazis in WW2 and they had every right to go into Germany after what they suffered…unprovoked.
Also, our troops did nothing to address the Nazi offensive into the USSR; in fact, it was the USSR that did the majority of dying and killing against Nazis in WW2 and they had every right to go into Germany after what they suffered…unprovoked.
2
Posted on 12/2/23 at 2:20 pm to DogFacedSoldier
UNPROVOKED
—Germany was torpedoing US oil tankers off our Atlantic coast in the summer before Pearl Harbor.
—Germany was torpedoing US oil tankers off our Atlantic coast in the summer before Pearl Harbor.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 2:21 pm to DogFacedSoldier
quote:
Nice attempt at dismissing my argument.
I am not dismissing anything. I merely answered your question. And taking your exaggerated claims of U.S. aggression toward the Germans prior to December 11, 1941, at face value, the question is still ultimately answered by my original response.
quote:
Also, our troops did nothing to address the Nazi offensive into the USSR
This is also true. The Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. We did not join the conflict until December of that same year.
quote:
in fact, it was the USSR that did the majority of dying and killing against Nazis in WW2
Another fact (albeit well-known).
quote:
they had every right to go into Germany after what they suffered
Agreed.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 2:30 pm to DogFacedSoldier
quote:
No, you did not explain why we sent millions to fight Germans and Italians who never attacked us and only declared war on us after we sank multiple of their ships/subs to the bottom of the sea.
What is this dumb and completely inaccurate bullshite?
Posted on 12/2/23 at 2:31 pm to DogFacedSoldier
Jesus Christ. If you want some twisted moral discussion of ww2, then start your own thread.. you look childish here trying to play moral police from wars in the 40’s. And quite frankly you’re wrong.
We had Uboats patrolling and sinking supply ships in international waters.
We had Uboats patrolling and sinking supply ships in international waters.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 2:31 pm to tide06
quote:
Landing in French Riviera
Politics. This was done to placate the French and British.
Somewhat the same with the invasion of Sicily, the Italian Campaign, and Market Garden.
Ike was SAC, but he had political overlords that dictated most of the things you cite.
This post was edited on 12/2/23 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 12/2/23 at 3:13 pm to DogFacedSoldier
quote:
and they had every right to go into Germany
Russia invaded Poland in 1939. They then invaded Finland and the Baltic States amongst others.
Did Russia have a right to do that?
This post was edited on 12/2/23 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 12/2/23 at 3:15 pm to DogFacedSoldier
They declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. As a member of the Axis, they immediately declared war on the US , prompting the US to declare war on Germany and Japan. Prior to 12/7/41, the US Navy protected US merchant shipping which often meant destroying Axis subs and destroyers that openly attacked the merchant ships. The US stayed out of the Pacific war for 4 years and the European war for 27 months. What is your basis for criticizing the US entry into the European war?
Posted on 12/2/23 at 3:42 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Hitler declared war on us once we had declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. Japan was a member of the Axis, and their connection all but forced Hitler’s hand.
quote:
No, you did not explain why we sent millions to fight Germans and Italians who never attacked us and only declared war on us after we sank multiple of their ships/subs to the bottom of the sea.
What is this dumb and completely inaccurate bullshite?
Posted on 12/2/23 at 3:48 pm to michael corleone
This is like having an argument with a wall…okay I will go along with the tit for tat re: attacks on transports by both sides - still explain how this required us sending troops to Europe for land warfare?
There is no solid reason anyone will proffer except that we did and Nazis were bad so ends justified the means.
And what in the heck does USSR attacking anyone in Europe have to do with my question?
There is no solid reason anyone will proffer except that we did and Nazis were bad so ends justified the means.
And what in the heck does USSR attacking anyone in Europe have to do with my question?
Posted on 12/2/23 at 3:57 pm to DogFacedSoldier
quote:
They declared war on us because we were attacking their ships and submarines UNPROVOKED
Well, Hitler declared war on the U.S. in some sort of misguided allegiance to his treaty with Japan. He had only just jumped on the Soviets that Summer before Pearl Harbor.
If you want to suggest we were playing fast and loose with "neutral" status, up to that point, I might agree with you. To say our war with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy was wrong because we "provoked" them, all I can say is "frick you we did."
Posted on 12/2/23 at 4:00 pm to DogFacedSoldier
quote:
And what in the heck does USSR attacking anyone in Europe have to do with my question?
You said Russia was justified in attacking Germany. I asked if they were justified for attacking Poland, Finland and those other countries.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 4:00 pm to DogFacedSoldier
quote:
still explain how this required us sending troops to Europe for land warfare? There is no solid reason anyone will proffer except that we did and Nazis were bad so ends justified the means.
Again, the consequences of inaction would be the total victory of the Nazis resulting in German/Axis global hegemony.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 4:09 pm to tide06
quote:
-Hitler takes USSR.
-Hitler takes North Africa and the Middle East
-Hitler takes the oil fields.
-Hitler takes all of Europe.
-Hitler then takes the UK.
Germany was already stopped in Russia before the US even entered the war.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 4:14 pm to The Boat
quote:
Germany was already stopped in Russia before the US even entered the war.
Only as a direct result of the supplies and other war aid we provided.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 4:16 pm to tide06
quote:
Only as a direct result of the supplies and other war aid we provided.
We provided that aid before entering the war and would have kept doing so.
That is unrelated to the US putting boots in Europe which was the conversation.
So thank you for proving the point.
This post was edited on 12/2/23 at 4:25 pm
Posted on 12/2/23 at 4:32 pm to doubleb
I responded to the poster saying our intervention OF TROOPS ON THE GROUND kept Nazis from taking USSR…which it DID NOT
Also to the other poster re: our lend lease program with USSR; it definitely helped save the day but what in tarnation does that have to do with boots on the ground?
And to the other poster re: Nazi hegemony if we hadn’t intervened…so what? The other result was the ascension of USSR and millions more destroyer under communism…was that a better alternative?
Also to the other poster re: our lend lease program with USSR; it definitely helped save the day but what in tarnation does that have to do with boots on the ground?
And to the other poster re: Nazi hegemony if we hadn’t intervened…so what? The other result was the ascension of USSR and millions more destroyer under communism…was that a better alternative?
Posted on 12/2/23 at 5:01 pm to DogFacedSoldier
quote:
was that a better alternative?
Say if US doesn’t commit troops to defeat Germany, do you think Stalin doesn’t take all of continental Europe?
Say if we don’t commit troops Germany gets the bomb because Germany doesn’t have to defend a Western front and Russia faces Germany on the continent by themselves.
If the US sends troops to just battle Japan there are a ton of questions and possibilities that aren’t good.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 5:09 pm to doubleb
quote:
Say if US doesn’t commit troops to defeat Germany, do you think Stalin doesn’t take all of continental Europe?
Say if we don’t commit troops Germany gets the bomb because Germany doesn’t have to defend a Western front and Russia faces Germany on the continent by themselves.
If the US sends troops to just battle Japan there are a ton of questions and possibilities that aren’t good.
These are quality questions that won't be answered.
There's more stupid in this thread than on the entire front page of the Rant, and it's all from one poster.
Posted on 12/2/23 at 5:22 pm to TigerHornII
The stupid is you saying these are all good points.
All hypotheticals based on absolutely nothing to do with mindsets / policies at the time,
Obviously I struck a nerve with the WW2 pontificators on the OT…the same ones who probably pray for more war to feed the MIC and bleed our country dry.
All hypotheticals based on absolutely nothing to do with mindsets / policies at the time,
Obviously I struck a nerve with the WW2 pontificators on the OT…the same ones who probably pray for more war to feed the MIC and bleed our country dry.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News