Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread

Thanks boss, I had no idea. Just to make sure I understood - similar, meaning that they are similar in some respects but not others, so the analogy only stretches so far and is thus not always helpful in understanding the nuances of the original situation, right?

hint: it really kinda does correspond highly and positively

if you can remember, this is why I asked you what metric you would like to use

It's on the person making the claim to define a metric and show that it's a meaningful one. For reasons others and I addressed multiple times in multiple posts already, this has not been shown here. We're just supposed to take it as self evident that this metric means what Victor wants it to mean.

Similar can mean many things. The two situations could be parallels in every important regard, for instance, which makes analogies useful.

I guess we'll take your word for the "real reason" the US deployed the bomb, and what effect that had on ending the war. I can't think of a more authoritative source.

FYI, Bletchley Park was where Alan Turing and his team cracked the Enigma machine.

World War II parallels a football match in every important regard?

right, youre claiming that he is wrong, so what metric would you need to see for him to be right?

or you could google it, just like I googled belcher park

Not in my opinion, no. Test cricket maybe, but there would be little point in constructing an analogy in that sport on this forum. I was already chancing my arm with football.

He's the one making the claim, so he needs to come up with a metric. I can't think of an obvious one and he hasn't shown that the one he's chosen works.

so basically the soviets were going to invade japan and never let go of that land ever again, and the US was like lets just make sure japan stays with the US, we will end the war before russia gets involved (90 days after fall of germany)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conf...

The Soviets wanted the return of South Sakhalin, which had been taken from Russia by Japan in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, and the cession of Kuril Islands by Japan, both of which were approved by Truman. In return, Stalin pledged that the Soviet Union would enter the Pacific War three months after the defeat of Germany.[13][14]

Stalin agreed to enter the fight against the Empire of Japan "in two or three months after Germany has surrendered and the war in Europe is terminated". As a result, the Soviets would take possession of Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, the port of Dalian would be internationalized, and the Soviet lease of Port Arthur would be restored, among other concessions.[25]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_inv...

a reasonable person would say killing 75% of the enemy meant they did the vast majority of work.

that means between all of other the Allied powers, they only killed 25% combined. So lets say america killed 8%, UK killed 8% and china killed 8%

That would mean russia killed close to 10 times the amount of nazis as the next country

do you still think Vic is wrong?

ya but commies bad

wow, this is incredible

one of the best cases of r/confidentlyincorrect i've ever seen

you talk about yalta as evidence that russia wanted japan (FYI nobody contests that)

you act like russia was balls deep in the east and we had to rush in to get there first but then ignore that much of yalta was USA asking russia to please get involved there and offering them various concessions if they did

so you're wrong but ok, no problem, just a matter of interpretation i guess

but here's where the gold is

you then list a bunch of stuff that russia wanted that we would never allow them to have - hence why, according to you, we dropped the nukes

that's clearly where you stopped reading, you found what you thought to be a bias confirming fact and then ran with it

what you don't even realize is russia was granted all of that stuff and did get it

so your entire thesis that we dropped the bomb so russia wouldn't get these islands is a pretty odd thesis given that we both dropped the bomb and gave them those islands

also, since you're on the Russia did everything solo team, if that were the case, and they weren't a minor partner, then why was it that it was the United States dictating the terms?

if Russia was the senior partner, then why weren't they dictating terms, why would they need the USA to agree to give them that land in the first place?

best part is, you didn't even read through your copy/pasted paragraph to the end because it too says that russia was indeed given all that land they requested

it's also a nice reminder that people editing wiki can be ignorant themselves, as dalian is the chinese word for port arthur but the wiki entry treats them as separate entities

nah my thesis is we dropped the bomb so we wouldnt have to split up mainland japan w russia

where did this solo word come from? did you invent it ? I certainly never said it.

in your head do you think the senior partners or the younger partners do the word? and just so you know, senior partner doesnt mean did all the work. It means senior partner.

I don't know how anyone can stand "debating" with you for more than a few posts, because you do so in such a ridiculous matter. No one suggested anything remotely close to USA beating Hitler, and in fact pretty much everyone seems to agree the Soviets' role was major.

Gansta pretty much nails it here:

It seems you've heard enough USA#1 propaganda from morons who believe the US won the war singlehandedly (or like to pretend they do) that you think every argument not lined up with yours is as lacking in nuance as yours are. And the funny thing is that in doing so, you use the same mentality as some of those morons, ignoring the fact that the Soviets' allies involved far more than the Americans. Paralying a quote about lend-lease not winning the war into "Soviets did about 90% to win the war" is as ridiculous as "USA#1 won the war!", which of course no one here is even arguing.

Using the quotes to counter rickroll's post about Soviets starving to death and fighting with pitchforks was reasonable. But undoubtedly he invoked some hyperbole/trolling in response to your nonsense that "Soviets did about 90% of the beating iirc. the West did a good job bombing civilians as usual." The ridiculous posts you'll make to push your "the West is evil" viewpoint (apparently not evil enough for you to actually do anything beyond whine about it and lump together and insult huge groups of people) is just so very, very tiresome.

you're missing the trees for the forest

russia would not have been capable of fighting that war and killing that 75% without allied supplied food, weapons, equipment, and ammo

as we mentioned earlier in the thread, Zhukov himself, (that's the guy who was in charge of the war for russia so you don't need to google him) said that they would have never beaten germany without lend-lease aid piling in

so how then does showing an agreement of occupation that was followed as planned prove your point?

if you want to convince someone what the inside of an orange looks like, is it helpful to instead show them a banana?

i'd respect you more if you admitted you are firing from the hip and didn't read things through than to lie like this because if you're not lying and you genuinely think this way then god help your poor soul

We don't like losers. We like soldiers who didn't get killed.

what percent would you attribute to the Soviets?

and remember, they halted the German advance in late 1941. according to the wiki, 2.1% of lendlease was delivered in 1941. would Moscow have fallen without that 2.1%?

20m soldiers werent killed. most of that number was civilians. that is to be expected bc Germany was and still is a Western power. thats how we fight wars.

vic, it astounds me that you're such a zealot that you don't take the word of all the soviets who were fighting that war who are on record stating they could have never done it without lend-lease because that conflicts with your "everything the west does is evil and russia #1" mantra

Where are you originally from, if you don't mind telling?

why dont you take the word of all of the Soviets that say the opposite?

I mean you are basing this entirely on historian who has been disgraced and the translation of an anonymous conversation as related 3rd hand by a 1950s US historian who may have had an agenda.