Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Jews were ‘passive’ during Holocaust, so Israel is ashamed – Polish president’s aide
Topic Started: Feb 10 2018, 05:41 PM (449 Views)
George Aligator
Member Avatar

Zionism is the official current ideology of the state of Israel. cf https://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/zionism. You didn't know that, did you? And neither did the nasty little troll who thinks Zionism died in 1947. Pretentious crackers who flunked their GED love to preen and strut on P.com. That is why your endowed chair has a hole in the seat and a potty underneath. Pathetic cowards
Conservatism is a social disease
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

How many of these people have you heard of:
Rolf Isaaksohn, Ans van Dijk, Moshe Merin, Chaim Mordechai Rumkowski, Jozef Andrzej Szerynski, Abraham Gancwajch, Calel Perechodnik, Adam Czerniakow, Alfred Nossig, Stella Goldschlag?
Not too many, I would guess. These are all Jews who held important positions in the Nazi occupation of Poland and worked in the German concentration camp system there.

The propagandists for AIPAC don't talk about those enthusiastic collaborators, so our little alt-right kids can feel indignant about anyone who dares question Israel's murder of innocent Palestinian children. After all, the Jews use nice, American cluster bombs, not that nasty Germany zyklon b. Moral superiority at any price is the goal of the Trumpies.
Conservatism is a social disease
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
voted4reagan
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Feb 11 2018, 05:48 PM
George Aligator
Feb 11 2018, 05:24 PM
voted4reagan
Feb 11 2018, 02:25 PM
See George.. this is how we know you are not the Original Mr Gator. You make a tremendous flaw in your statement above.

"Since WWII, the Zionist movement, which claims to speak for all Jews everywhere"

Now let us examine the very definition of Zionism:


"is the national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Canaan, the Holy Land, or the region of Palestine)"

As The state of Israel hes been already established some 70 years ago... The Term ZIONISM and ZIONIST are being used improperly.. Defense of ones country is not Zionist.

The real George chose his words far more carefully....

Your quibble about the meaning of Zionism is so absurd that at first I thought you were joking. Zionism as a belief system has been around for centuries. Its meaning is as broad and changeable as "Americanism". You seem to have the silly idea that because Zionism before 1947 looked forward to the establishment of the state of Israel, the term "Zionism" has no meaning subsequently.

Under different circumstances I would try to explain to you what Zionism means today and how today's Zionism is related to the earlier belief. However, your provocative insults about my identity are convincing proof that you are a mere troll and therefore not worth wasting time on. I shall be ignoring your ignorant hostility...
Good Job V4. :hooray:

You triggered 120 words of babbling insult from the poser. Still I think you can do better. :rotflmao:
The real George knows where I live... we discussed it a long time ago.. And I know where he is from too..

Where is that George?

Trump needs to focus more so on the male vote. He should have nationalized the Boy Scouts when they decided to admit girls.

Harambe4Trump AKA "FASHY"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

ringotuna
Feb 11 2018, 04:44 PM
Hughmac
Feb 11 2018, 03:52 PM
ringotuna
Feb 11 2018, 08:55 AM
Hughmac
Feb 11 2018, 05:47 AM
Hughmac
Feb 11 2018, 05:25 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepGetting the picture?

France lost defending itself by far more than the US lost both in the Pacific and Europe, and that was only in the 46 days and not the whole duration of the US involvement in WW2. But being a Yank nourished on bulls**t, you think that the French didn't fight and just surrendered. :shakeshead:

You also conveniently forget that if it were not for French help, you would never have obtained independence; i.e. the French "surrender monkeys" saved your ungrateful butts.

Robbie, Robbie, Robbie... :shakeshead:

Cheers
Hughmac
OK, got that wrong: 360,000 was the total allied killed and wounded during the 46 weeks of the Battle of France, the actual number of French killed was 85,310.

Comparing US loses: US Marines: 23,160 killed or missing during whole Pacific campaign. The US Army lost, killed or missing in the Pacific AND South East Asia 41,592. that's a total of just under 63,000.

That's still pretty damned indicative

Cheers
Hughmac

PS: The following shaking head is or me for my xxxx up :shakeshead:
Hughmac, I'm not sure where you got your stats and I'm particularly lost on why you're comparing U.S. losses in the Pacific to French losses in Europe, but here is some casualty data that doesn't quite comport with yours.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war

France's numbers might be a bit deceiving since it doesn't distinguish between Free France and Vichy France.

I'm not trying to take away from the French, their significant contribution in casualties they made during the war, but I have to wonder if you might be trying to do that for the U.S.
Well, you see, it was Robbie, as usual, flinging around his anti-French hot air; you know, lacking the backbone to fight and surrendering, so I pointed out that the French lost more men killed in just 46 days of fighting than the US lost in the Pacific over several years, which is pretty indicative that they certainly did not give up without a hard and bloody fight. Obviously, there were no Free French forces in those 46 days in 1940 - they didn't exist, so the number is purely French loses until they surrendered, after being stabbed in the back by the Italians, whom, you may remember, the French smashed and sent packing even whilst they were fending off the Germans in the north of the country.

Hope that cleared it up ;-)

Cheers
Hughmac
Somewhat, but still very much an apples and oranges comparison. Completely different theatres completely different battles with very little in common. The most striking difference is the timeline you raised. The Pacific War was lengthened due in part to the Allies 'Europe First' policy. Our early Pacific War consisted primarily of Naval battles and submarine assaults on Japan's merchant and military fleets as well as some guerilla warfare. Major land battles didn't begin in earnest until Guadalcanal. From there, Pacific land battles consisted mainly of island hopping and intermittent amphibious assaults. It was not a continuous Blitzkrieg style attack such as the French & Brits dealt with in France. So the point being... that a comparison of 46 days to 4 years is not in my opinion a reasonable side by side comparison.
Hmmm, I was not comparing the two campaigns in any other sense but in the amount of casualties; thus throwing a highlight onto just how many Frenchmen lost there lives in so short a period defending their country. The Pacific Campaign holds a place in the US psychic as a meat grinder, which is why I picked it to bring it home to Robbie that French soldiers fought and died in greater numbers that US soldiers in the Pacific. It was not a comparison of foe, strategy or objective.

I could also compare the killed to Gettysburg - just under 8,000 were killed on both sides, so the battle of France equivalent to 10 Battles of Gettysburg over 46 days in terms of French soldiers killed. Again the number killed is the only comparison point made.

As I said, if you want an example of a nation's tendency to surrender without firing a shot in WW2, it is the Italians, not the French. ;-)

Cheers
Hughmac
Edited by Hughmac, Feb 12 2018, 04:13 AM.
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Hughmac
Feb 12 2018, 04:08 AM
ringotuna
Feb 11 2018, 04:44 PM
Hughmac
Feb 11 2018, 03:52 PM
ringotuna
Feb 11 2018, 08:55 AM
Hughmac
Feb 11 2018, 05:47 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepGetting the picture?
Hughmac, I'm not sure where you got your stats and I'm particularly lost on why you're comparing U.S. losses in the Pacific to French losses in Europe, but here is some casualty data that doesn't quite comport with yours.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war

France's numbers might be a bit deceiving since it doesn't distinguish between Free France and Vichy France.

I'm not trying to take away from the French, their significant contribution in casualties they made during the war, but I have to wonder if you might be trying to do that for the U.S.
Well, you see, it was Robbie, as usual, flinging around his anti-French hot air; you know, lacking the backbone to fight and surrendering, so I pointed out that the French lost more men killed in just 46 days of fighting than the US lost in the Pacific over several years, which is pretty indicative that they certainly did not give up without a hard and bloody fight. Obviously, there were no Free French forces in those 46 days in 1940 - they didn't exist, so the number is purely French loses until they surrendered, after being stabbed in the back by the Italians, whom, you may remember, the French smashed and sent packing even whilst they were fending off the Germans in the north of the country.

Hope that cleared it up ;-)

Cheers
Hughmac
Somewhat, but still very much an apples and oranges comparison. Completely different theatres completely different battles with very little in common. The most striking difference is the timeline you raised. The Pacific War was lengthened due in part to the Allies 'Europe First' policy. Our early Pacific War consisted primarily of Naval battles and submarine assaults on Japan's merchant and military fleets as well as some guerilla warfare. Major land battles didn't begin in earnest until Guadalcanal. From there, Pacific land battles consisted mainly of island hopping and intermittent amphibious assaults. It was not a continuous Blitzkrieg style attack such as the French & Brits dealt with in France. So the point being... that a comparison of 46 days to 4 years is not in my opinion a reasonable side by side comparison.
Hmmm, I was not comparing the two campaigns in any other sense but in the amount of casualties; thus throwing a highlight onto just how many Frenchmen lost there lives in so short a period defending their country. The Pacific Campaign holds a place in the US psychic as a meat grinder, which is why I picked it to bring it home to Robbie that French soldiers fought and died in greater numbers that US soldiers in the Pacific. It was not a comparison of foe, strategy or objective.

I could also compare the killed to Gettysburg - just under 8,000 were killed on both sides, so the battle of France equivalent to 10 Battles of Gettysburg over 46 days in terms of French soldiers killed. Again the number killed is the only comparison point made.

As I said, if you want an example of a nation's tendency to surrender without firing a shot in WW2, it is the Italians, not the French. ;-)

Cheers
Hughmac
I know you're not comparing anything other than casualties. My point however is that because of the differences in time and battle tactics, the casualty comparison is not a very valid comparison. Likewise with Gettysburg, it was a 3 day battle.

Again, I'm not looking to disparage the French. I'll leave that to others. I just see a flaw in your methods of comparisons.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

George Aligator
Feb 11 2018, 06:49 PM
How many of these people have you heard of:
Rolf Isaaksohn, Ans van Dijk, Moshe Merin, Chaim Mordechai Rumkowski, Jozef Andrzej Szerynski, Abraham Gancwajch, Calel Perechodnik, Adam Czerniakow, Alfred Nossig, Stella Goldschlag?
Not too many, I would guess. These are all Jews who held important positions in the Nazi occupation of Poland and worked in the German concentration camp system there.

The propagandists for AIPAC don't talk about those enthusiastic collaborators, so our little alt-right kids can feel indignant about anyone who dares question Israel's murder of innocent Palestinian children. After all, the Jews use nice, American cluster bombs, not that nasty Germany zyklon b. Moral superiority at any price is the goal of the Trumpies.
Be honest George. You had never heard of those collaborators until you googled it.

Poser. :rotflmao:
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Feb 12 2018, 05:15 AM
George Aligator
Feb 11 2018, 06:49 PM
How many of these people have you heard of:
Rolf Isaaksohn, Ans van Dijk, Moshe Merin, Chaim Mordechai Rumkowski, Jozef Andrzej Szerynski, Abraham Gancwajch, Calel Perechodnik, Adam Czerniakow, Alfred Nossig, Stella Goldschlag?
Not too many, I would guess. These are all Jews who held important positions in the Nazi occupation of Poland and worked in the German concentration camp system there.

The propagandists for AIPAC don't talk about those enthusiastic collaborators, so our little alt-right kids can feel indignant about anyone who dares question Israel's murder of innocent Palestinian children. After all, the Jews use nice, American cluster bombs, not that nasty Germany zyklon b. Moral superiority at any price is the goal of the Trumpies.
Be honest George. You had never heard of those collaborators until you googled it.

Poser. :rotflmao:
The current Aligator apparently graduated Magna Cum Laude from Southern New Hampshire University........... ;)
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Robert Stout
Feb 12 2018, 05:29 AM
ringotuna
Feb 12 2018, 05:15 AM
George Aligator
Feb 11 2018, 06:49 PM
How many of these people have you heard of:
Rolf Isaaksohn, Ans van Dijk, Moshe Merin, Chaim Mordechai Rumkowski, Jozef Andrzej Szerynski, Abraham Gancwajch, Calel Perechodnik, Adam Czerniakow, Alfred Nossig, Stella Goldschlag?
Not too many, I would guess. These are all Jews who held important positions in the Nazi occupation of Poland and worked in the German concentration camp system there.

The propagandists for AIPAC don't talk about those enthusiastic collaborators, so our little alt-right kids can feel indignant about anyone who dares question Israel's murder of innocent Palestinian children. After all, the Jews use nice, American cluster bombs, not that nasty Germany zyklon b. Moral superiority at any price is the goal of the Trumpies.
Be honest George. You had never heard of those collaborators until you googled it.

Poser. :rotflmao:
The current Aligator apparently graduated Magna Cum Laude from Southern New Hampshire University........... ;)
I just took note of his usual condescending tone.

Quote:
 
How many of these people have you heard of:.....Not too many, I would guess.


Turns out when ya google "jewish Nazi collaborators" Ole Georgie's list matches perfectly from

Top Ten Jewish Collaborators who were Jews

:rotflmao:
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

George Aligator
Feb 11 2018, 11:59 AM
Anti-Jewish sentiment has a long, deep history in Poland as well as in parts of Russia, not to mention most of the West. The reasons are economic as well as religious and both government and the church have been complicit.

The results have been tragic and obscene. Since WWII, the Zionist movement, which claims to speak for all Jews everywhere, has been using the horrors of the Hitler regime to round up military and economic support for the new Crusader State in Palestine. There is a certain wobbly logic to this argument as compensatory reparations for the unspeakable crimes of the Final Solution would more justly be established in eastern Poland.

The convergence of ancient anti-Jewish hostility and its hijacking by Zionist extremists backed by the power of the United States has been an historical error of tragic proportions. Israel's conduct has inflamed anti-Jewish sentiment once again and the garrison state surrounded by 400 million Arabs is an organ transplant that has failed. The United States has been suckered into propping up a Zionist fantasy. The prices has been hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and the loss of American support throughout Islam, not just the Middle East.
ancient anti-Jewish hostility

if your posts are any indication, the feeling is not 'ancient'... and runs thruout Europe as well as most of the Democratic Party here

That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

jake58
Feb 12 2018, 07:40 AM
George Aligator
Feb 11 2018, 11:59 AM
Anti-Jewish sentiment has a long, deep history in Poland as well as in parts of Russia, not to mention most of the West. The reasons are economic as well as religious and both government and the church have been complicit.

The results have been tragic and obscene. Since WWII, the Zionist movement, which claims to speak for all Jews everywhere, has been using the horrors of the Hitler regime to round up military and economic support for the new Crusader State in Palestine. There is a certain wobbly logic to this argument as compensatory reparations for the unspeakable crimes of the Final Solution would more justly be established in eastern Poland.

The convergence of ancient anti-Jewish hostility and its hijacking by Zionist extremists backed by the power of the United States has been an historical error of tragic proportions. Israel's conduct has inflamed anti-Jewish sentiment once again and the garrison state surrounded by 400 million Arabs is an organ transplant that has failed. The United States has been suckered into propping up a Zionist fantasy. The prices has been hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and the loss of American support throughout Islam, not just the Middle East.
ancient anti-Jewish hostility

if your posts are any indication, the feeling is not 'ancient'... and runs thruout Europe as well as most of the Democratic Party here

Another vocabulary error. ^^^ To say something is ancient does not mean it no longer exists or even that it has changed. Think of the pyramids of Egypt as an example.

Anti-Jewish sentiment is ancient in the West, goes back to attacks on Jews for their treatment of Jesus in the early days of Christianity. The religious strain has been powerfully supplemented by Jewish insistence on maintaining a separate linguistic and social identit, and refusing to integrate with the ruling classes despite their economic successes in many areas. The Jews have never overcome the perception of a minority with secret connections and powers.

I'm glad that I was able to provoke my interlocutors into reading the Google piece on Jewish collaborators. It is helps a lot when the kids do their homework. There is a real horror to the Nazi genocide and the world should not forget or diminish it. However, that history has more than one narrative and today's Israeli Zionists have constructed a narrative of those historical horrors which distorts some events and introduces historical falsehoods about others. This has turned the history into propaganda -- something that happens more often than not -- and makes careful investigation important for Americans concerned with current Middle East policy. Thanks for reading
Conservatism is a social disease
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Siberian
Member Avatar

Germany averaged 4 anti-Semitic crimes a day in 2017 — govt data


https://www.rt.com/news/418527-anti-semitism-crimes-germany/
Goood morning GULAG!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
voted4reagan
Member Avatar

Siberian
Feb 12 2018, 03:47 PM
Germany averaged 4 anti-Semitic crimes a day in 2017 — govt data


https://www.rt.com/news/418527-anti-semitism-crimes-germany/
Russia has Made homosexuality a crime...

You have no right to speak of human rights abuses...

Worry about Mother Russia and how it persecutes members of the LGBT Community.

Let Germany worry about their issues... They are aggressive prosecuting anti-Semitism.

Trump needs to focus more so on the male vote. He should have nationalized the Boy Scouts when they decided to admit girls.

Harambe4Trump AKA "FASHY"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
StillCrazy1
Member Avatar
!!!!
Robert Stout
Feb 11 2018, 06:20 AM
Hughmac
Feb 11 2018, 05:47 AM
Hughmac
Feb 11 2018, 05:25 AM
Robert Stout
Feb 10 2018, 05:59 PM
Siberian
Feb 10 2018, 05:43 PM
The US and the EU bringing pro-Nazi forces in Eastern Europe, like in Ukraine and Estonia, as well promoting revisionism of WWII results and Soviet role in it - now can enjoy the harvest. :)
Russia can once again win the hearts and minds of Eastern Europeans by making them satellite countries....You should know that the USA will never fight a war to save Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, or Finland...Indeed, France would not even fight a war to save itself........... :biggrin:
France lost (killed only - not wounded or missing) 360,000 during the 46 days that the Battle of France lasted. Not many? The US lost during the whole of the Pacific War (killed & missing) 111,606. As for the European theatre the total US killed was 135,576.

Getting the picture?

France lost defending itself by far more than the US lost both in the Pacific and Europe, and that was only in the 46 days and not the whole duration of the US involvement in WW2. But being a Yank nourished on bulls**t, you think that the French didn't fight and just surrendered. :shakeshead:

You also conveniently forget that if it were not for French help, you would never have obtained independence; i.e. the French "surrender monkeys" saved your ungrateful butts.

Robbie, Robbie, Robbie... :shakeshead:

Cheers
Hughmac
OK, got that wrong: 360,000 was the total allied killed and wounded during the 46 weeks of the Battle of France, the actual number of French killed was 85,310.

Comparing US loses: US Marines: 23,160 killed or missing during whole Pacific campaign. The US Army lost, killed or missing in the Pacific AND South East Asia 41,592. that's a total of just under 63,000.

That's still pretty damned indicative

Cheers
Hughmac

PS: The following shaking head is or me for my xxxx up :shakeshead:
Perhaps we should count the number of French versus US troops who surrendered to the enemy in WWII...We improved with time...In the Vietnam War only 55 Americans surrendered in South Vietnam...We performed there better than Japanese troops in WWII...Death before dishonor.......... :victory:
How about instead you acknowledge the numerous actions and members of the French resistance during WW2?
Ever notice the only 2 people Trump refuses to speak ill of are Stormy Daniels and Vladimir Putin?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

ringotuna
Feb 12 2018, 05:01 AM
Hughmac
Feb 12 2018, 04:08 AM
ringotuna
Feb 11 2018, 04:44 PM
Hughmac
Feb 11 2018, 03:52 PM
ringotuna
Feb 11 2018, 08:55 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepGetting the picture?https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war

France's numbers might be a bit deceiving since it doesn't distinguish between Free France and Vichy France.

I'm not trying to take away from the French, their significant contribution in casualties they made during the war, but I have to wonder if you might be trying to do that for the U.S.
Well, you see, it was Robbie, as usual, flinging around his anti-French hot air; you know, lacking the backbone to fight and surrendering, so I pointed out that the French lost more men killed in just 46 days of fighting than the US lost in the Pacific over several years, which is pretty indicative that they certainly did not give up without a hard and bloody fight. Obviously, there were no Free French forces in those 46 days in 1940 - they didn't exist, so the number is purely French loses until they surrendered, after being stabbed in the back by the Italians, whom, you may remember, the French smashed and sent packing even whilst they were fending off the Germans in the north of the country.

Hope that cleared it up ;-)

Cheers
Hughmac
Somewhat, but still very much an apples and oranges comparison. Completely different theatres completely different battles with very little in common. The most striking difference is the timeline you raised. The Pacific War was lengthened due in part to the Allies 'Europe First' policy. Our early Pacific War consisted primarily of Naval battles and submarine assaults on Japan's merchant and military fleets as well as some guerilla warfare. Major land battles didn't begin in earnest until Guadalcanal. From there, Pacific land battles consisted mainly of island hopping and intermittent amphibious assaults. It was not a continuous Blitzkrieg style attack such as the French & Brits dealt with in France. So the point being... that a comparison of 46 days to 4 years is not in my opinion a reasonable side by side comparison.
Hmmm, I was not comparing the two campaigns in any other sense but in the amount of casualties; thus throwing a highlight onto just how many Frenchmen lost there lives in so short a period defending their country. The Pacific Campaign holds a place in the US psychic as a meat grinder, which is why I picked it to bring it home to Robbie that French soldiers fought and died in greater numbers that US soldiers in the Pacific. It was not a comparison of foe, strategy or objective.

I could also compare the killed to Gettysburg - just under 8,000 were killed on both sides, so the battle of France equivalent to 10 Battles of Gettysburg over 46 days in terms of French soldiers killed. Again the number killed is the only comparison point made.

As I said, if you want an example of a nation's tendency to surrender without firing a shot in WW2, it is the Italians, not the French. ;-)

Cheers
Hughmac
I know you're not comparing anything other than casualties. My point however is that because of the differences in time and battle tactics, the casualty comparison is not a very valid comparison. Likewise with Gettysburg, it was a 3 day battle.

Again, I'm not looking to disparage the French. I'll leave that to others. I just see a flaw in your methods of comparisons.
If, to give somebody an idea just how big a brachiosaurus was I say "it's the same height as two double-decker buses, one on top the other, and 5 buses parked end to end," the person visualising that comparison thinks, "Wow that's big; I hadn't realised." Making such a comparison does not mean that I'm putting over the idea that a brontosaurus was a form of public transport or that London Transport and the age of the dinosaurs coincided chronologically or existed an equal amount of time.

Unfortunately, there was no way I could compare double-decker buses or brachiosaurus to the number of French soldiers killed in just 46 days defending their country, so I had to use the Pacific campaign... wait!

The capacity of a double-decker bus in the 90's was 86 people seated meaning that you would need 1,000 double decker buses to fill the seating capacity with the French dead from The Battle of France. :guitar:

Cheers
Hughmac
Edited by Hughmac, Feb 12 2018, 05:30 PM.
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
StillCrazy1
Member Avatar
!!!!
ringotuna
Feb 12 2018, 05:15 AM
George Aligator
Feb 11 2018, 06:49 PM
How many of these people have you heard of:
Rolf Isaaksohn, Ans van Dijk, Moshe Merin, Chaim Mordechai Rumkowski, Jozef Andrzej Szerynski, Abraham Gancwajch, Calel Perechodnik, Adam Czerniakow, Alfred Nossig, Stella Goldschlag?
Not too many, I would guess. These are all Jews who held important positions in the Nazi occupation of Poland and worked in the German concentration camp system there.

The propagandists for AIPAC don't talk about those enthusiastic collaborators, so our little alt-right kids can feel indignant about anyone who dares question Israel's murder of innocent Palestinian children. After all, the Jews use nice, American cluster bombs, not that nasty Germany zyklon b. Moral superiority at any price is the goal of the Trumpies.
Be honest George. You had never heard of those collaborators until you googled it.

Poser. :rotflmao:
How dare someone educate themselves instead of happily being an ignorant moron like you
Ever notice the only 2 people Trump refuses to speak ill of are Stormy Daniels and Vladimir Putin?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

StillCrazy1
Feb 12 2018, 05:27 PM
Robert Stout
Feb 11 2018, 06:20 AM
Hughmac
Feb 11 2018, 05:47 AM
Hughmac
Feb 11 2018, 05:25 AM
Robert Stout
Feb 10 2018, 05:59 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
France lost (killed only - not wounded or missing) 360,000 during the 46 days that the Battle of France lasted. Not many? The US lost during the whole of the Pacific War (killed & missing) 111,606. As for the European theatre the total US killed was 135,576.

Getting the picture?

France lost defending itself by far more than the US lost both in the Pacific and Europe, and that was only in the 46 days and not the whole duration of the US involvement in WW2. But being a Yank nourished on bulls**t, you think that the French didn't fight and just surrendered. :shakeshead:

You also conveniently forget that if it were not for French help, you would never have obtained independence; i.e. the French "surrender monkeys" saved your ungrateful butts.

Robbie, Robbie, Robbie... :shakeshead:

Cheers
Hughmac
OK, got that wrong: 360,000 was the total allied killed and wounded during the 46 weeks of the Battle of France, the actual number of French killed was 85,310.

Comparing US loses: US Marines: 23,160 killed or missing during whole Pacific campaign. The US Army lost, killed or missing in the Pacific AND South East Asia 41,592. that's a total of just under 63,000.

That's still pretty damned indicative

Cheers
Hughmac

PS: The following shaking head is or me for my xxxx up :shakeshead:
Perhaps we should count the number of French versus US troops who surrendered to the enemy in WWII...We improved with time...In the Vietnam War only 55 Americans surrendered in South Vietnam...We performed there better than Japanese troops in WWII...Death before dishonor.......... :victory:
How about instead you acknowledge the numerous actions and members of the French resistance during WW2?
After WWII all Frenchmen claimed they had been in the Resistance.............. :lol:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Siberian
Member Avatar

Hughmac
Feb 12 2018, 05:28 PM
ringotuna
Feb 12 2018, 05:01 AM
Hughmac
Feb 12 2018, 04:08 AM
ringotuna
Feb 11 2018, 04:44 PM
Hughmac
Feb 11 2018, 03:52 PM
Somewhat, but still very much an apples and oranges comparison. Completely different theatres completely different battles with very little in common. The most striking difference is the timeline you raised. The Pacific War was lengthened due in part to the Allies 'Europe First' policy. Our early Pacific War consisted primarily of Naval battles and submarine assaults on Japan's merchant and military fleets as well as some guerilla warfare. Major land battles didn't begin in earnest until Guadalcanal. From there, Pacific land battles consisted mainly of island hopping and intermittent amphibious assaults. It was not a continuous Blitzkrieg style attack such as the French & Brits dealt with in France. So the point being... that a comparison of 46 days to 4 years is not in my opinion a reasonable side by side comparison.
Hmmm, I was not comparing the two campaigns in any other sense but in the amount of casualties; thus throwing a highlight onto just how many Frenchmen lost there lives in so short a period defending their country. The Pacific Campaign holds a place in the US psychic as a meat grinder, which is why I picked it to bring it home to Robbie that French soldiers fought and died in greater numbers that US soldiers in the Pacific. It was not a comparison of foe, strategy or objective.

I could also compare the killed to Gettysburg - just under 8,000 were killed on both sides, so the battle of France equivalent to 10 Battles of Gettysburg over 46 days in terms of French soldiers killed. Again the number killed is the only comparison point made.

As I said, if you want an example of a nation's tendency to surrender without firing a shot in WW2, it is the Italians, not the French. ;-)

Cheers
Hughmac
I know you're not comparing anything other than casualties. My point however is that because of the differences in time and battle tactics, the casualty comparison is not a very valid comparison. Likewise with Gettysburg, it was a 3 day battle.

Again, I'm not looking to disparage the French. I'll leave that to others. I just see a flaw in your methods of comparisons.
If, to give somebody an idea just how big a brachiosaurus was I say "it's the same height as two double-decker buses, one on top the other, and 5 buses parked end to end," the person visualising that comparison thinks, "Wow that's big; I hadn't realised." Making such a comparison does not mean that I'm putting over the idea that a brontosaurus was a form of public transport or that London Transport and the age of the dinosaurs coincided chronologically or existed an equal amount of time.

Unfortunately, there was no way I could compare double-decker buses or brachiosaurus to the number of French soldiers killed in just 46 days defending their country, so I had to use the Pacific campaign... wait!

The capacity of a double-decker bus in the 90's was 86 people seated meaning that you would need 1,000 double decker buses to fill the seating capacity with the French dead from The Battle of France. :guitar:

Cheers
Hughmac
USSR lost during the war (military and civilian population) 340 times more than France.
France did not really participate in WWII, as most of Western countries.
Edited by Siberian, Feb 12 2018, 11:56 PM.
Goood morning GULAG!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hughmac

Siberian
Feb 12 2018, 11:55 PM
Hughmac
Feb 12 2018, 05:28 PM
ringotuna
Feb 12 2018, 05:01 AM
Hughmac
Feb 12 2018, 04:08 AM
ringotuna
Feb 11 2018, 04:44 PM
Hmmm, I was not comparing the two campaigns in any other sense but in the amount of casualties; thus throwing a highlight onto just how many Frenchmen lost there lives in so short a period defending their country. The Pacific Campaign holds a place in the US psychic as a meat grinder, which is why I picked it to bring it home to Robbie that French soldiers fought and died in greater numbers that US soldiers in the Pacific. It was not a comparison of foe, strategy or objective.

I could also compare the killed to Gettysburg - just under 8,000 were killed on both sides, so the battle of France equivalent to 10 Battles of Gettysburg over 46 days in terms of French soldiers killed. Again the number killed is the only comparison point made.

As I said, if you want an example of a nation's tendency to surrender without firing a shot in WW2, it is the Italians, not the French. ;-)

Cheers
Hughmac
I know you're not comparing anything other than casualties. My point however is that because of the differences in time and battle tactics, the casualty comparison is not a very valid comparison. Likewise with Gettysburg, it was a 3 day battle.

Again, I'm not looking to disparage the French. I'll leave that to others. I just see a flaw in your methods of comparisons.
If, to give somebody an idea just how big a brachiosaurus was I say "it's the same height as two double-decker buses, one on top the other, and 5 buses parked end to end," the person visualising that comparison thinks, "Wow that's big; I hadn't realised." Making such a comparison does not mean that I'm putting over the idea that a brontosaurus was a form of public transport or that London Transport and the age of the dinosaurs coincided chronologically or existed an equal amount of time.

Unfortunately, there was no way I could compare double-decker buses or brachiosaurus to the number of French soldiers killed in just 46 days defending their country, so I had to use the Pacific campaign... wait!

The capacity of a double-decker bus in the 90's was 86 people seated meaning that you would need 1,000 double decker buses to fill the seating capacity with the French dead from The Battle of France. :guitar:

Cheers
Hughmac
USSR lost during the war (military and civilian population) 340 times more than France.
France did not really participate in WWII, as most of Western countries.
And battle-field-deaths Argentinosaurus huinculensis (sauropodomorph) steps into the room.

I'm finally getting somewhere getting an American (robbie) to understand that the French did not surrender without a fight and now I've got a Russian reminding me that the Motherland had more people killed in battle than anybody else. Congrats! You might probably like to point out that a large proportion of Russians killed in WW2 were brought about by their own command structure; i.e. insanely sacrificed.

Jesus, you can't swing cat on perspectives without somebody chirping up looking for an argument.

The Belgians fought and died in WW2, The Netherlanders fought and died, the Poles fought and died - all of them before their countries collapsed and then like the Czechs, Norwegians and French, continued to fight in Free Forces and resistance units during the rest of the war in Europe.

Can we just accept that the French did not give up without a fight?

Cheers
Hughmac
H4T wrote: lobal] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Siberian
Member Avatar

French - well, they tried but seeing they don't succeed - immediately surrendered. :)
Of course huge part of Russian losses were caused by cannibalistic approach of commie leaders to own soldiers, no doubt.
So, I propose a fair measure to compare contribution - German losses on specific front :)
They are still Germans either in Russia or France.
in battle for France against allies Germans lost 45 000 killed.
Only in Stalingrad battle they lost over 1 mln (including Romaniabs, Italians etc)
While population of France was just several times smaller than of USSR. And I suspect the difference in GDP was even smaller..

So, yes, France did not really fight... in Russian meaning of the word at least :)

p.s. I really wonder what were GDPs of main countries prior to WWII... will look for it..
Edited by Siberian, Feb 13 2018, 03:47 AM.
Goood morning GULAG!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

StillCrazy1
Feb 12 2018, 05:29 PM
ringotuna
Feb 12 2018, 05:15 AM
George Aligator
Feb 11 2018, 06:49 PM
How many of these people have you heard of:
Rolf Isaaksohn, Ans van Dijk, Moshe Merin, Chaim Mordechai Rumkowski, Jozef Andrzej Szerynski, Abraham Gancwajch, Calel Perechodnik, Adam Czerniakow, Alfred Nossig, Stella Goldschlag?
Not too many, I would guess. These are all Jews who held important positions in the Nazi occupation of Poland and worked in the German concentration camp system there.

The propagandists for AIPAC don't talk about those enthusiastic collaborators, so our little alt-right kids can feel indignant about anyone who dares question Israel's murder of innocent Palestinian children. After all, the Jews use nice, American cluster bombs, not that nasty Germany zyklon b. Moral superiority at any price is the goal of the Trumpies.
Be honest George. You had never heard of those collaborators until you googled it.

Poser. :rotflmao:
How dare someone educate themselves instead of happily being an ignorant moron like you
All of the sudden, I'm beginning to think you don't like me. Was it something I said?
:lol:
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com FOREIGN* & DEFENSE · Next Topic »
Add Reply