Guns Because

[Blind groper]

Nonsense. If Hitler had taken and pacified all of Europe, England and Ireland and had control of the seas.......................................................................................................................................................................................................

And if I found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, I would be rich.

Let's stick to reality, guys.

[Coito ergo sum]

If our contribution was so minimal, why wasn't Monte the Supreme Allied Commander, or some other Brit? Why not a Russian?

I suspect that Stalin considered himself the Supreme Allied Commander, and I could present a damn good case to support that. He was, after all, commander in charge of 90% of the forces opposing Hitler. Montgomerie was not the super commander because it was not politically astute to make him so.

You suspect? Oh, goodie. Eisenhower held the title, and did the job. The title has continued to be used since the War under NATO auspices.

The point was - if the US contribution was so paltry, why would an American be in that position? Why was the US practically begged to get into the war? What did you need us for? If you asked Americans in 1939 or 1940 whether it was our business to get involved in another stupid European bloodbath, I guarantee you the resounding answer would be "fuck no."

America's contribution to the war in Europe was not minimal, except compared to that of the Soviets. Compared to them, the US was a small player - assisting a bunch of other nations to fight one tenth of Hitler's forces, with the Soviets fighting the other nine tenths.

You're saying 9/10 of Hitler's forces were dedicated to the fight against the Soviets?

Now, it's a bit myopic to claim that the Soviet death toll means they did the most. One must view the war as a whole, IMO, and remember that from May, 1939 to the beginning of Operation Barbarossa in June, 1941 -- i.e. more than 2 full years -- the Soviets supplied the Germans with oil, grain,steel and other materials which they used to feed the German war machine. Thanks a lot, Soviets! Russia was only kept in the war in 1942 by substantial aid in terms of strategic raw materials and tanks, warplanes,trucks and so on from the US and GB. Much of the military equipment used by the Russians in the initial defense of Stalingrad came from the US and GB, and had that not come through, Germany would have wiped its ass with the Soviets. Much of the reason so many Russians died in Operation Barbarossa is because the Soviet defense was inept.

The reason I am saying this is not to denigrate the USA, but to attack the emetic arrogance of a few posters who would try to tell us that the USA came charging into Europe like the white knight to save everyone. That is simply not true. Victory in Europe was mostly owed to the Soviets, and the USA was just one, albeit important, player among a host of others, in dealing with the one tenth effort that took place outside the Soviet sphere.

Victory in Europe was not mostly owned by the Soviets. If anyone made the biggest contribution to the war it was the British. They fought non-stop from the invasion of Poland in 1939 through the end of the war, six years later. The US fought for four years, and before the US formally entered the war, they were supplying Britain. And, they were also supplying Russia once Operation Barbarossa started.

Focusing on Russian attrition is not evidence of Russian dominance in the war effort. They held on for dear life, relying on US and Brit help. Sure, they fought hard, but their contribution to the overall war effort was, essentially, not losing, so they could occupy German forces in the east. This gave the US time to ramp up, and start chipping away (with GB) at the edges of the German expansion. Africa --- the boot of Italy -- and then D-Day in June 1944.

Even in June 1944, victory was not assured, not by a long shot. Nobody knew D-Day would succeed and the plan only did succeed because the Allies managed to dupe Hitler into thinking we were going to land somewhere else. Had Hitler found out about the Normandy invasion ahead of time, we would have been cut to ribbons and would most likely never have been able to land.

[MrJonno]

The Soviets could have lost Stalingrad, in fact they could have lost Moscow its unlikely it would have made much difference, there entire industry had already moved.

The strategic results of US intervention in Europe is probably that the USSR didn't dominate it (if the UK had been defeated in 1940 it would have been the same result as no US invasion of Europe would have been possible)

[Coito ergo sum]

Your theory is that the Russians could have lost Stalingrad AND lost Moscow, and it would have had little effect on the war?

[Seth]

Mods, can we split the WWII/Russia discussion off?

[Blind groper]

You're saying 9/10 of Hitler's forces were dedicated to the fight against the Soviets?

Hitler had 20 divisions. 18 of them were on the eastern front fighting the Soviets.

On the business of American trade/aid, sure it helped. However, the Soviets also had a massive, and mean truly massive, industrial development, that quickly switched to manufacturing war materials. This was moved in its entirety rather quickly to the interior of Russia, away from the front lines. They manufactured the bulk of the war machines and materials needed to fight. American trade/aid helped, but was probably not vital.

[Clinton Huxley]

Everyone knows the yanks won the battles of Kursk and Britain.

[MrJonno]

Your theory is that the Russians could have lost Stalingrad AND lost Moscow, and it would have had little effect on the war?

Millions of extra dead Russians, + a lot of dead Germans and longer to defeat Germany but the end result would have been the same.

The only way Hitler could have done better in the USSR would have been to treat the white russians and the different ethnic groups better , getting them to rebel against Stalin. (which they did to a limited extent) Of course if he was going to treat these as human beings then how was he going to purge the population there for lebensraum making the invasion pointless not to mention making nazi racial ideology look even more moronic

[Jason]

Everyone knows the yanks won the battles of Kursk and Britain.

Actually, that one would have been canucks.

[Blind groper]

I know that Seth, Gallstones, and Collector love anecdotes, so here is one to illustrate the difference between having guns and not having guns.

December 12, 2012.

Item 1. Man with a gun shot his mother dead, then went to Sandy Hook school and killed another 26 people. 27 in total.

Item 2. Same day. Chengping in Henan Province in central China. Man with a knife goes berserk and stabs 22 children and 1 adult. Death toll zero! All 23 victims survived.

While this is just an anecdote, albeit a true one, it illustrates the simple fact that having guns elevates violent crimes into lethal crimes. Not injuries, but deaths. When guns are not available, as in the Chinese example, lives are saved.

As I have said before, of the 24 wealthiest nations, the USA alone has 85% of all firearms murders. Almost 10,000 per year in total. The two things that push the USA to the top of the murder list is gun availability, and the sickness of American gun culture.

[Blind groper]

Going to the fallacy that Seth likes to quote, that self defense justifies gun ownership.

http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstrac ... me.10.aspx


This study shows that, for every act that might be called self defense with a gun, there are 22 acts with a gun in a criminal assault, accidental shooting, suicide, or homicide. Any possible benefit having a gun for self defense confers is massively outweighed by the harm that having a gun creates.

[Seth]

Going to the fallacy that Seth likes to quote, that self defense justifies gun ownership.

http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstrac ... me.10.aspx


This study shows that, for every act that might be called self defense with a gun, there are 22 acts with a gun in a criminal assault, accidental shooting, suicide, or homicide. Any possible benefit having a gun for self defense confers is massively outweighed by the harm that having a gun creates.

Doesn't matter how many people misuse firearms, a SINGLE act of ONE innocent person lawfully protecting their or another person's life completely justifies permitting all otherwise qualified persons to carry handguns for their personal defense.

You cannot correlate lawful self defense with criminal assaults as you have because there is no causative link. Furthermore, removing the handgun from the one victim who uses it to save his life does NOT reduce the number of unlawful assaults, IT INCREASES THEM.

You are improperly, and mendaciously, trying to conflate the simple lawful possession of handguns with the criminal use of handguns. There is no causative link to be found between the two things. A handgun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen causes zero crimes and therefore does not increase the risks to society, only to criminals who might assault THAT PERSON. Handguns are not animate objects, and their use for good or ill depends upon the PERSON USING THEM, and therefore one cannot say that more guns causes more crime, not that such statistical arguments are valid as a consideration in infringing on gun rights to begin with, because they aren't.

[MrJonno]

Doesn't matter how many people misuse firearms, a SINGLE act of ONE innocent person lawfully protecting their or another person's life completely justifies permitting all otherwise qualified persons to carry handguns for their personal defense

No it doesnt as no one has a 'right' to self defence, its just something that is legal in limited circumstances as long as it doesn't harm society as a whole, or in other words if your 'self defence' means 1000 innocent of people die then tough you will just have to die, the needs of society outweigh your personal survival

[Collector1337]

Doesn't matter how many people misuse firearms, a SINGLE act of ONE innocent person lawfully protecting their or another person's life completely justifies permitting all otherwise qualified persons to carry handguns for their personal defense

No it doesnt as no one has a 'right' to self defence, its just something that is legal in limited circumstances as long as it doesn't harm society as a whole, or in other words if your 'self defence' means 1000 innocent of people die then tough you will just have to die, the needs of society outweigh your personal survival

Bullshit.

I absolutely have a right to self defense. Are you actually telling me I have no right to survive? You are honestly telling me that I cannot own a firearm for self defense because it's too much of a threat to "society" so I just need to let myself be victimized for the "greater good?"

I have to give my life for the "needs of society?"

Fuck that shit. I value my life. I'll do anything to survive. People who don't believe in an afterlife should understand this. If this is all there is, then why wouldn't I protect myself with the best tool for self defense there is?

This collectivist shit is truly asinine and disgusting. I won't subscribe to it.

Don't forget, it's the collectivist cultures that don't truly value life, with their kamikazes, suicide bombings, and other "give your life for the cause" instances.

[Jason]

Phallusy