The email that almost got Dolphin fired

HuckFinn said:
Laugh emoji. You have no idea who I am. Go back to making dumb remarks about Hawkeye sports.
Click to expand...

There is a group that likes to however wrong they be...label people who disagree. I guess Im the most conservative voting liberal in the world. They think Im Karl Marx who votes Republican. Kind of funny. Kind of idiotic.
 
Adam said:
Well we can agree that undoubtedly Russia took the brunt of Germany's total war effort. I do strongly contest the stated percentages though. During The Nazi invasion of Russia they currently held 7 nations under full occupation. They also had a sizable ground force and armored force in Africa. Clearly there is no way that they could have mustered 80% of their military. The Luftwaffe was also largely unused in Germany's assault on Russia. Mostly because the Luftwaffe was needed still on the western front for bombing runs on Britain and the defense of the Allied Combined Bomber offensive. Russia did however face down the largest wartime assembly of the Wehrmacht. It cost them more than double the military casualties to do so, but impressive none the less.

Many military strategists argue over how Russia would have fared against the full and undivided might of Germany. While noone knows for sure, it was and is largely the opinion of the Allied commanders that Russia could not match Germany by Navy or by Airforce. This likely means that Russia would have eventually suffered total defeat without Allied aid and forcing Germany to defend multiple fronts. Of course Russia does not accept this perception. They believe they were every bit of Germany's military equal, but I find that hard to reconcile with the fact that they suffered such staggering human casualties in simply defending their own soil.

I am still grateful for the human sacrifice that Russia had to pay to stop Germany, however that doesn't all of a sudden make Russia the good guys. They started WW1 by attacking Germany. They condoned the expansion of Nazi Germany. They only had to change to oppose Germany because Hitler went crazy and invaded them. Everything they did beyond that point was neither altruistic or honorary. It was simply war and survival.
Click to expand...

Nobody made them good guys. Thst s your narrow thinking.The Soviet war machine had everday people in it. One cant get the scope of the carnage unless you visit.

You are wrong on percentages.

German military used captured east Europeans and put them west. The had little stomach to fight and would sureebder in droves.

The bridges and forests in the west made it more difficult to mass move troops and armor. Thats why a Soviet attack on the west would have bogged down there. US history really underestimates Soviet industrial power. To that point where an attack hit the lowlands, US forces had no chance against the Soviets. They had a much superior overland resupply route. doviet tanks were superior in number and quality. The US had a great tank, but very few.

In Holland Allies did face superior troops that were recovering from the east. Market Garden Failed as the 82nd AB paras failed to capture the Nijmegan bridge and instead focused on Groesbeek Heights were they struggled with low level German troops until reinforcents on both sides got there and there was one hell of a fight involving the 325 Gliders.

It was likely a blessing as Monty s thrust into Germany would have failed more miserably. Its hard for Americans to admit...Market Garden was a defeat.

It is disengenous and often used that discussing Ww2 failures and mistakes as a diss on the men that fought. Everday soldiers hated commanders. The war was not black and white. Attrocities accured on both sides. It was not common but not unheard of that soldiers killed officers. It was chaos fought by everyday young men who were scared shitless. The real reason they rejected hero status was that plus they livedvwith knowing what they didcwasnt as lwats braved and in combat accidental deaths occurred and combat fatigue set in. Reviewing morning reports are astonishing at combat fatigue numbers. Look up what that means if you dont know.

Stop reading school books and read real unsanitized docs and books.

The real Nuts US response was an exasperated comment of a general at Bastogne when he didnt know what to say or do anymore. You learned it as a brave in your face comment at school.
 
Adam said:
Well Jesus never would have conceived such an idea, but fundamentally yes. "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."

What is welfare teachin cretin? Anyone learning how to fish on Government hand outs?
Click to expand...
Jesus, the man who fed a multitude on five loaves and two fish? Seems like he was down with handouts.
 
HawkGold said:
Nobody made them good guys. Thst s your narrow thinking.The Soviet war machine had everday people in it. One cant get the scope of the carnage unless you visit.

You are wrong on percentages.

German military used captured east Europeans and put them west. The had little stomach to fight and would sureebder in droves.

The bridges and forests in the west made it more difficult to mass move troops and armor. Thats why a Soviet attack on the west would have bogged down there. US history really underestimates Soviet industrial power. To that point where an attack hit the lowlands, US forces had no chance against the Soviets. They had a much superior overland resupply route. doviet tanks were superior in number and quality. The US had a great tank, but very few.

In Holland Allies did face superior troops that were recovering from the east. Market Garden Failed as the 82nd AB paras failed to capture the Nijmegan bridge and instead focused on Groesbeek Heights were they struggled with low level German troops until reinforcents on both sides got there and there was one hell of a fight involving the 325 Gliders.

It was likely a blessing as Monty s thrust into Germany would have failed more miserably. Its hard for Americans to admit...Market Garden was a defeat.

It is disengenous and often used that discussing Ww2 failures and mistakes as a diss on the men that fought. Everday soldiers hated commanders. The war was not black and white. Attrocities accured on both sides. It was not common but not unheard of that soldiers killed officers. It was chaos fought by everyday young men who were scared shitless. The real reason they rejected hero status was that plus they livedvwith knowing what they didcwasnt as lwats braved and in combat accidental deaths occurred and combat fatigue set in. Reviewing morning reports are astonishing at combat fatigue numbers. Look up what that means if you dont know.

Stop reading school books and read real unsanitized docs and books.

The real Nuts US response was an exasperated comment of a general at Bastogne when he didnt know what to say or do anymore. You learned it as a brave in your face comment at school.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand my comments. The philosophical idea that Russia would have lost a heads up war with Germany isn't a knock on Russia. Russia indeed was an industrial power. A fierce land force with untold ranks of soldiers and civilians. Their most powerful weapon was still most likely the willingness to sacrifice however many people it took. America couldn't have beaten either nation heads up in the European theater with out Allies for supply lines. Even with that maybe still couldn't have. However that is a mute point because neither of those nations could have defeated us anywhere on the North American continent either.

As for whether "Russia" was good or bad it isn't really relevant to the common folks actually doing the fighting. Just like average German citizens weren't the same monsters as their government. Russia's government was unequivocally bad. They weren't as bad as the German government, but as soon as Germany was licked Russia and Communism became the new axis of evil. Is Communism truly evil? Not really, but the human practice of communism has always led to death and misery. None of the old communist regime really practice true communism anyways. They more or less used the utopian dream of communism to motivate the public into massive governmental changes. Then protected the new power structure with unspeakable violence.

This is why I still to this day oppose communism, socialism, populism. I even oppose Nationalism when it's used to justify the trampling of basic human rights. On the other hand Nationalism is a fine thing when it relates to national pride and loyalty.

I believe it is ok for America to have American beneficial trade policy. Even if that is unfair to the other nation. I believe it is ok for America to have a set border. To have a border though you must then have laws about crossing it. The surge of humans attempting to cross said border by shear force, is a particular pickle. On one hand they are indeed criminals in the eyes of the current laws. On the other they are suffering humans. I think that it might have been easier to accept the refugees without the dust up had we not been so aloof about illegal immigration for the last 20 years. Estimates of illegal immigrants living here currently range anywhere from 11 to 22 million souls. That is a pretty staggering number.

I think the modern conservative faces a dilemma. To accept the South American caravan can easily be spun as accepting the "open borders" movement. While they may (or might not) feel compassion for the plight of these refugees, open borders is not something that a conservative wants. Meanwhile we have a robust population of illegal immigrants already here. Easily lending credence to the fear of granting those immigrants citizenship for the purpose of voting power. There is also the fear of adding 11 to 22 million new lower economical citizens to a country currently in the throws of demanding more welfare for the poor and middle class. It is not a large stretch to conceive how the government could really screw the pooch on this one. Those fears also don't make that possibility a reality, but it certainly can't be dismissed as impossible.

I know plenty of liberals who have shades of these concerns. I know plenty that do not support open borders. The odd thing is that most of them don't feel comfortable enough to express these thoughts. The left's labeling and name calling has made many moderate liberals uncomfortable with their own thoughts. Needless to say this is a negative side effect to the strategy. It has stymied the exchange of ideas even within the Democratic party. The Republicans have gone through this before too and it didn't work well for them either.
 
Adam said:
Well we can agree that undoubtedly Russia took the brunt of Germany's total war effort. I do strongly contest the stated percentages though. During The Nazi invasion of Russia they currently held 7 nations under full occupation. They also had a sizable ground force and armored force in Africa. Clearly there is no way that they could have mustered 80% of their military. The Luftwaffe was also largely unused in Germany's assault on Russia. Mostly because the Luftwaffe was needed still on the western front for bombing runs on Britain and the defense of the Allied Combined Bomber offensive. Russia did however face down the largest wartime assembly of the Wehrmacht. It cost them more than double the military casualties to do so, but impressive none the less.

Many military strategists argue over how Russia would have fared against the full and undivided might of Germany. While noone knows for sure, it was and is largely the opinion of the Allied commanders that Russia could not match Germany by Navy or by Airforce. This likely means that Russia would have eventually suffered total defeat without Allied aid and forcing Germany to defend multiple fronts. Of course Russia does not accept this perception. They believe they were every bit of Germany's military equal, but I find that hard to reconcile with the fact that they suffered such staggering human casualties in simply defending their own soil.

I am still grateful for the human sacrifice that Russia had to pay to stop Germany, however that doesn't all of a sudden make Russia the good guys. They started WW1 by attacking Germany. They condoned the expansion of Nazi Germany. They only had to change to oppose Germany because Hitler went crazy and invaded them. Everything they did beyond that point was neither altruistic or honorary. It was simply war and survival.
Click to expand...

80% was a figure off the top of my head. It was probably more than that actually before the D-Day landing and less afterwards. But even if the Luftwaffe could have been used more on the eastern front, it wouldn't have helped knock off Russia. In fact, even if the Germans had captured Moscow, the Russians would have likely not capitulated because their industry was set up beyond the Ural Mountains and the Germans had no long range bombers to menace it. Stalin probably would have just set up shop farther to the east and the war would have continued.

Hitler could have emerged victorious if he had just passed on attacking the USSR in 1941 and gone south, to Africa and the Middle East, where British forces would have been swept away easily, assuming Germany and Italy could have supplied their forces. Postpone the attack on the USSR for later.

However, it's not true that Germany couldn't have won, if they were able to pay full attention to the eastern front. Napoleon captured Moscow and waited in vain for the Russians to surrender, then returned to Paris where most of his troops died of disease and cold. In WWI, the Kaiser's troops advanced far into Russia and obtained a favorable peace treaty with lots of land ceded to them. It's really hard to say who would have won if Germany's full attention would have been on the USSR. German generals and Hitler himself marveled at how many Russians they killed and captured, yet how many more the USSR had to throw in there as replacements. It seemed like they had an endless amount of troops.
 
sioux34 said:
Jesus, the man who fed a multitude on five loaves and two fish? Seems like he was down with handouts.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the failure to properly express the idea.

Jesus did support personal charity. He also did not believe in the accumulation of wealth. So if we were all as good as the son of God we wouldn't need Government welfare. Quite possibly wouldn't even need a government.

He did however absolutely believe that the best charity was helping people become self sufficient.

It is my opinion that Government welfare contradicts that underlying principle. Not necessarily in theory, but more in the real world results. This is why I don't believe it is good. I liken it to saying that because Chemotherapy can help some people beat cancer that it is "good". While the truth is Chemotherapy accelerates death in a good percentage of patients. So Chemo is not good, but it is necessary.
 
Adam said:
Sorry for the failure to properly express the idea.

Jesus did support personal charity. He also did not believe in the accumulation of wealth. So if we were all as good as the son of God we wouldn't need Government welfare. Quite possibly wouldn't even need a government.

He did however absolutely believe that the best charity was helping people become self sufficient.

It is my opinion that Government welfare contradicts that underlying principle. Not necessarily in theory, but more in the real world results. This is why I don't believe it is good. I liken it to saying that because Chemotherapy can help some people beat cancer that it is "good". While the truth is Chemotherapy accelerates death in a good percentage of patients. So Chemo is not good, but it is necessary.
Click to expand...

I would say say chemo is good either way. Even if it speeds up death.
 
HawkGold said:
Nobody made them good guys. Thst s your narrow thinking.The Soviet war machine had everday people in it. One cant get the scope of the carnage unless you visit.

You are wrong on percentages.

German military used captured east Europeans and put them west. The had little stomach to fight and would sureebder in droves.

The bridges and forests in the west made it more difficult to mass move troops and armor. Thats why a Soviet attack on the west would have bogged down there. US history really underestimates Soviet industrial power. To that point where an attack hit the lowlands, US forces had no chance against the Soviets. They had a much superior overland resupply route. doviet tanks were superior in number and quality. The US had a great tank, but very few.

In Holland Allies did face superior troops that were recovering from the east. Market Garden Failed as the 82nd AB paras failed to capture the Nijmegan bridge and instead focused on Groesbeek Heights were they struggled with low level German troops until reinforcents on both sides got there and there was one hell of a fight involving the 325 Gliders.

It was likely a blessing as Monty s thrust into Germany would have failed more miserably. Its hard for Americans to admit...Market Garden was a defeat.

It is disengenous and often used that discussing Ww2 failures and mistakes as a diss on the men that fought. Everday soldiers hated commanders. The war was not black and white. Attrocities accured on both sides. It was not common but not unheard of that soldiers killed officers. It was chaos fought by everyday young men who were scared shitless. The real reason they rejected hero status was that plus they livedvwith knowing what they didcwasnt as lwats braved and in combat accidental deaths occurred and combat fatigue set in. Reviewing morning reports are astonishing at combat fatigue numbers. Look up what that means if you dont know.

Stop reading school books and read real unsanitized docs and books.

The real Nuts US response was an exasperated comment of a general at Bastogne when he didnt know what to say or do anymore. You learned it as a brave in your face comment at school.
Click to expand...

Please don't tell me Hogan's Heroes is not a true representation of WWII. I could not handle that. :)

giphy.gif
 
SteveGarvey1 said:
80% was a figure off the top of my head. It was probably more than that actually before the D-Day landing and less afterwards. But even if the Luftwaffe could have been used more on the eastern front, it wouldn't have helped knock off Russia. In fact, even if the Germans had captured Moscow, the Russians would have likely not capitulated because their industry was set up beyond the Ural Mountains and the Germans had no long range bombers to menace it. Stalin probably would have just set up shop farther to the east and the war would have continued.

Hitler could have emerged victorious if he had just passed on attacking the USSR in 1941 and gone south, to Africa and the Middle East, where British forces would have been swept away easily, assuming Germany and Italy could have supplied their forces. Postpone the attack on the USSR for later.

However, it's not true that Germany couldn't have won, if they were able to pay full attention to the eastern front. Napoleon captured Moscow and waited in vain for the Russians to surrender, then returned to Paris where most of his troops died of disease and cold. In WWI, the Kaiser's troops advanced far into Russia and obtained a favorable peace treaty with lots of land ceded to them. It's really hard to say who would have won if Germany's full attention would have been on the USSR. German generals and Hitler himself marveled at how many Russians they killed and captured, yet how many more the USSR had to throw in there as replacements. It seemed like they had an endless amount of troops.
Click to expand...

Well nothing is endless. Russia had a reported 109 million citizens at the start of WW1. Germany had roughly 78 million. Considering that the Russian military suffered casualties at nearly a 3 to 1 ratio at the height of the German invasion strength, it is reasonable to assume that without distraction Russia would have ran out of people well before Germany. Not to mention that Russia would have been forced to continue to conscript less and less able bodied people. They would have had precious little time for training. It is also said that the Russian army by the end of the war looked like starving peasants with incomplete uniforms. Missing shoes, and some soldiers even lacking guns.

We do agree though that Germany wins WW2 and accomplishes the expansion goals of the 3rd Reich if not for picking a fight with Russia. We also agree that the Russians were extremely unlikely to surrender. Very proud and stubborn people. Eventually though you would logically have to assume that the citizens of Russia would have abandoned their government as the German war effort progressed through Russian sovereign land. There's just no telling how many would have had to die to break them. I'm guessing more than half.
 
Adam said:
My mother thank you. You won't get me to say she should have traded the last eight months for a quicker tap out.
Click to expand...

I don't blame you. I was thinking more of the person who has cancer tho. Cancer is so vicious that sometimes a quicker death is mercy. That's all I meant.
 
SteveGarvey1 said:
Love this thread man.

Started out about an email about alleged racist comments by Dolph.

Went into debating what is racism and isn't.

Traveled into the existence of God or not.

Now debating World War II, the Soviet contribution to victory over the Nazis, hidden agendas.
BTW, the Soviets took on 80% of the Nazi war machine, maybe more. The D-Day invasion was as much about being there to protect Western Europe from the Soviets as it was defeating the Nazis. The Allies actually didn't want Hitler to be assassinated because he was screwing up so badly that it was better he remained intact as leader to be able to finish them off. Japan surrendered more because the Soviet Union declared war on them at the end there than because of the atomic bomb (a violation of a non-aggression pact the Soviets and Japanese had signed a few years earlier, making Stalin as much of a hypocrite as Hitler was when he violated the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1941).

Looking forward to what's next. The meaning of the Star Wars movies?
Click to expand...
I am hoping the thread will drift to the movie, "The Hunt for Red October." I have seen that many times and it is one of my favorites but I still haven't figured out that last scene where they fake the sinking of the Red October.
 
PCHawk said:
I don't blame you. I was thinking more of the person who has cancer tho. Cancer is so vicious that sometimes a quicker death is mercy. That's all I meant.
Click to expand...

I understand the thought. I would say that decision is best left to the individual. As long as the individual is given all of the relevant information. This didn't always happen though.
 
HawkGold said:
Nobody made them good guys. Thst s your narrow thinking.The Soviet war machine had everday people in it. One cant get the scope of the carnage unless you visit.

You are wrong on percentages.

German military used captured east Europeans and put them west. The had little stomach to fight and would sureebder in droves.

The bridges and forests in the west made it more difficult to mass move troops and armor. Thats why a Soviet attack on the west would have bogged down there. US history really underestimates Soviet industrial power. To that point where an attack hit the lowlands, US forces had no chance against the Soviets. They had a much superior overland resupply route. doviet tanks were superior in number and quality. The US had a great tank, but very few.

In Holland Allies did face superior troops that were recovering from the east. Market Garden Failed as the 82nd AB paras failed to capture the Nijmegan bridge and instead focused on Groesbeek Heights were they struggled with low level German troops until reinforcents on both sides got there and there was one hell of a fight involving the 325 Gliders.

It was likely a blessing as Monty s thrust into Germany would have failed more miserably. Its hard for Americans to admit...Market Garden was a defeat.

It is disengenous and often used that discussing Ww2 failures and mistakes as a diss on the men that fought. Everday soldiers hated commanders. The war was not black and white. Attrocities accured on both sides. It was not common but not unheard of that soldiers killed officers. It was chaos fought by everyday young men who were scared shitless. The real reason they rejected hero status was that plus they livedvwith knowing what they didcwasnt as lwats braved and in combat accidental deaths occurred and combat fatigue set in. Reviewing morning reports are astonishing at combat fatigue numbers. Look up what that means if you dont know.

Stop reading school books and read real unsanitized docs and books.

*****

I have visited Nijmegan, Osterbeek, etc. since I am Dutch, and also the Huertgen Forrest. You don't hear as much about military disasters. I would like to visit the Chosin Reservoir but don't want to die in North Korea this early in life. Life and military battles are a bunch of disasters that you somehow you recover from (hopefully) and adjust from with good leadership, and supplies.

Amsterdam is an interesting city. My wife and I rented a house there for two weeks once, along a canal. You need to have your wits about you there.
Click to expand...
 
I have visited Nijmegan, Osterbeek, etc. since I am Dutch, and also the Huertgen Forrest. You don't hear as much about military disasters. I would like to visit the Chosin Reservoir but don't want to die in North Korea this early in life. Life and military battles are a bunch of disasters that you somehow you recover from (hopefully) and adjust from with good leadership, and supplies.

Amsterdam is an interesting city. My wife and I rented a house there for two weeks once, along a canal. You need to have your wits about you there.

The siege of Bastogne is also interesting. The Germans had the 101st broken and didn't know it due to a random sehll on a German Command Center.
Adam said:
Well nothing is endless. Russia had a reported 109 million citizens at the start of WW1. Germany had roughly 78 million. Considering that the Russian military suffered casualties at nearly a 3 to 1 ratio at the height of the German invasion strength, it is reasonable to assume that without distraction Russia would have ran out of people well before Germany. Not to mention that Russia would have been forced to continue to conscript less and less able bodied people. They would have had precious little time for training. It is also said that the Russian army by the end of the war looked like starving peasants with incomplete uniforms. Missing shoes, and some soldiers even lacking guns.

We do agree though that Germany wins WW2 and accomplishes the expansion goals of the 3rd Reich if not for picking a fight with Russia. We also agree that the Russians were extremely unlikely to surrender. Very proud and stubborn people. Eventually though you would logically have to assume that the citizens of Russia would have abandoned their government as the German war effort progressed through Russian sovereign land. There's just no telling how many would have had to die to break them. I'm guessing more than half.
Click to expand...

The Soviets weren't very ethnically non diverse. Large segments despised Russians. Russian groups dispised Russians. Ukrainians fought for German in large numbers after the 1930s ethnic cleansing. Bandera's group fought the Soviets into the 50s. We fought a number of Ukrainians in France. I hold the opinion that Stalin baited the Germans but that the tactic went worse than expected. The Germans weren't going past the Urals.

Ukraine and Belarus suffered immensely.

Another part of history left out of our books. in the 50s Hungaria uprising the insurgents slit the throats of the children and wives of Soviet officers to help trigger the brutal crackdown and they expected Western support that never materialized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top