SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

msalama · 03-23-10, 04:25 PM

Hey Robbins,

I've no problems whatsoever with anything you say except for the "directly" part, because what really was "direct" was those almost 30 million Russians dead, AND MOST OF THEM CIVILIANS TOO, who had to die because of a genocidal war against "slawische untermenschen" perperated by the Nazis. So putting things into _that_ perspective a claim of the U.S. "directly" causing the downfall of Nazi Germany really sounds a bit daft, now doesn't it?

No-one in their right mind denies the importance of the U.S. involvement in WW2, and your industrial capacity was undoubtedly one of the deciding factors of the war. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it really was the Russians who did most of the dirty work against the Nazis by waging massive land warfare against them, and that said land warfare was actually what carried the day in the end (although not in isolation of course). American war materiel was of course all-important, but when one thinks of what the Russkies had to endure during Operation Barbarossa I'd say it really would be sensible to tone down the hyperbole a bit when boasting of _your_ nation's thriumphs in the European war, no?

When you compare the losses, the Russians more than anyone else paid in sheer blood. And that, my friend, really is "direct" more than anything else. And that's all I have to say concerning this matter I think...

PS. I'm a Finn, and as you may know we fought the Russians in the war - and for a good reason too. But even that doesn't change my opinion on this on a more universal scale, because hey, the war's over already and as you grow older you tend to take a more objective view of things anyway. Because human suffering really is universal, now is it not?

03-23-10, 04:25 PM	#94
msalama Samurai Navy Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: In an octopus's garden Posts: 565 Downloads: 99 Uploads: 0	Hey Robbins, I've no problems whatsoever with anything you say except for the "directly" part, because what really was "direct" was those almost 30 million Russians dead, AND MOST OF THEM CIVILIANS TOO, who had to die because of a genocidal war against "slawische untermenschen" perperated by the Nazis. So putting things into _that_ perspective a claim of the U.S. "directly" causing the downfall of Nazi Germany really sounds a bit daft, now doesn't it? No-one in their right mind denies the importance of the U.S. involvement in WW2, and your industrial capacity was undoubtedly one of the deciding factors of the war. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it really was the Russians who did most of the dirty work against the Nazis by waging massive land warfare against them, and that said land warfare was actually what carried the day in the end (although not in isolation of course). American war materiel was of course all-important, but when one thinks of what the Russkies had to endure during Operation Barbarossa I'd say it really would be sensible to tone down the hyperbole a bit when boasting of _your_ nation's thriumphs in the European war, no? When you compare the losses, the Russians more than anyone else paid in sheer blood. And that, my friend, really is "direct" more than anything else. And that's all I have to say concerning this matter I think... PS. I'm a Finn, and as you may know we fought the Russians in the war - and for a good reason too. But even that doesn't change my opinion on this on a more universal scale, because hey, the war's over already and as you grow older you tend to take a more objective view of things anyway. Because human suffering really is universal, now is it not?