The French are Evil!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


That is a very fine line. What about it being illegal to trade things between individuals in a free market economy style (as bad a rape according to the article above). This alludes to the ways of the west being bad, evil, etc.

I don't see how that would lead to fear of the west, but play into the idea that their system is superior, that it would be anti-Lenin or Marxist (a term the soviets used interchangeably even though they are far apart) (a rather funny term since Lenin did allow free trade).

[1stdeadeye]

CB,
You are agueing semantics again.

Hey here is an easy one for you:

World War II FACTS

The Japanese Navy produced around 20 Aircraft Carriers before and during WWII.

The United States Navy produced 122 Aircraft carriers after 12/7/41!

The Soviet Union had a total of 139,748 planes between construction and Lend/Lease.

The United States produced over 300,000 aircraft after 12/7/41!

Production like that is kind of overwhelming, eh?

Imagine 122 Aircraft carriers sitting off the coast of France attacking the Germans. Think they might have hurt the Germans a bit?

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
CB,
You are agueing semantics again.

Hey here is an easy one for you:

World War II FACTS

The Japanese Navy produced around 20 Aircraft Carriers before and during WWII.

The United States Navy produced 122 Aircraft carriers after 12/7/41!

The Soviet Union had a total of 139,748 planes between construction and Lend/Lease.

The United States produced over 300,000 aircraft after 12/7/41!

Production like that is kind of overwhelming, eh?

Imagine 122 Aircraft carriers sitting off the coast of France attacking the Germans. Think they might have hurt the Germans a bit?

Again you place blame on me for just responding to the semantics game. I did not start the game just took part in it.

If you want production numbers let me show you some true to life amazing production numbers.

1945 the USSR had 11.6 million men and woman under arms, 4'/5s of those in combate roles. Muntions output was 30x what it was in WWI and twice that of the Nazis at there high point. Tanks production was 10x what it was in 1940, artillery was double. In 1944 the USSR produced 439,100 machine guns, 2,450,000 rifles and 219 million shells and mines. They produced 40,246 aircraft by 1944. The above was just from Soviet industries and Soviet materials. This is what they got in Lend Lease. 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 132,000 machine guns. Notice as I have said earlier and proved, this was not what Lend Lease in the USSR consisted most of. Russia needed consumer goods way mroe then industrial or war goods.

Your idea of the US with its carriers off of France is a rather shorted sited view. What makes you think that the Germans would allow those carriers there? What makes you think that these planes wouldn't be taken down by German planes? You place WAY too much power on allied airpower, which leaves alot of unanwsered questions. Without the eastern front, hitler would have taken over Britian. Without Britian the US would of had no place to launch their attacks from given that most if not all of Europe would have been taken over by then, and Russia would not allow you to use their bases and such. Without no place to take off from, land, rearm and etc.. you have to rely on aircraft carriers. Now remember the problems that Dolittle had getting the bombers off the aircraft carriers. Imagine that times 100 every day, all day. The US would of had to result to divedombers or bombers the size of fighters, thus reducing their bombing effects drastically. Without the bombing and air attacks the US could not have pushed the Germans off of the beaches enough for an invasion, and dropping a million guys with parachutes is out of the question. Without Britian you would be without the best bomber IMO of the war, the liberater. Without Brtian your bombing would be cut down so much that it isn't funny. So what would the US do?

[71 LS6]

Back to good ole webster.

Why would you use a number three definition to try and prove you are right. That shows a rather week argument. When you get down to the line of things, one can say fear and distrust are the same, as a very low level definition by webster's says so. But I sure hope that anyone on this board can come to the understanding that to distrust is not the same as to fear. I distrust the knowledge of many on this board, but I do not fear them. I distrust that my pizza man will get me my pizza in 30 minutes, but I don't fear him. I distrust my roomate, but I do not fear him. Can you all see the difference. It would be totally against the Soviet mindset and beliefs to ever fear anyone other then itself. What good communist (warning used as an title to those who see themselves as striving for communism) would ever fear an inferior system such as capitalism or its government. The fear should reside in them not us. (Warning the presiding was in the minds of Soviets not me.)

Personally, I consider shrugging off an entire argument merely because it uses a number 3 definition to be an extremely weak response. The number 3 definition for fear was used, because it most strongly supported my argument. If you care to notice, the primary word from #3 that I used was apprehension, which also appears in #1. The number 3 definition for tension was used, beacause numbers 1 and 2 were irrelevant. Often times in the English language, a word has multiple meanings. The fact that it is #3 does not mean that it is a worse definition than #1 or #2. If it makes you feel better, here are #'s 1 and 2:

Tension: 1. A tensing or being tensed 2. mental or nervous strain, often accompanied by muscular taughtness.

Due to the irrelevancy of these uses for the word, I omitted them.

Now, to play your game, you dont distrust that your pizza man will deliver your pizza in 30 minutes; you doubt it. You distrust an individual or group of individuals, not a statement or an idea. Perhaps you mean to say that you distrust your pizza man when he says he will be there in 30 minutes. Or, if you are really hungry, maybe you fear that the pizza will not be there on time. Of course you wouldn't fear the pizza man. Avoid word games; anyone with a dictionary can play. For instance, I believe you meant 'resort' rather than 'result'; 'preceding' instead of 'presiding'; 'than' as opposed to 'then'; and 'would have' rather than 'would of'. Forget the technicalities, because pointing them out obviously doesn't help anyone.

You are right, fear and distrust are quite similar on a low level. Had I known that this discussion was really about semantics, I might have chosen a different word.

Now, if you would like to respond to my previous posts with something more than a complaint that I chose the wrong word, feel free to do so.

1945 the USSR had 11.6 million men and woman under arms, 4'/5s of those in combate roles. Muntions output was 30x what it was in WWI and twice that of the Nazis at there high point. Tanks production was 10x what it was in 1940, artillery was double. In 1944 the USSR produced 439,100 machine guns, 2,450,000 rifles and 219 million shells and mines. They produced 40,246 aircraft by 1944. The above was just from Soviet industries and Soviet materials. This is what they got in Lend Lease. 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 132,000 machine guns. Notice as I have said earlier and proved, this was not what Lend Lease in the USSR consisted most of. Russia needed consumer goods way mroe then industrial or war goods.

Nice numbers, but would you care to inform everyone of the production numbers for the US during that time period? When using numbers in a comparison as supporting evidence in a discussion, it is usually necessary to have a set of numbers to compare them to. Those production figures mean nothing if they have nothing to be compared/contrasted to. By the way, as you have corrected so many others on, the USSR needed more consumer goods, not Russia. Furthermore, how do those numbers have anything to do with this discussion? I think they were to support your argument in 'Could the US or the USSR have defeated the Germans alone?' In which case, Lend-Lease would not have existed. As a result, the USSR would need to produce more consumer goods so that its people could survive, thereby reducing its production of war materials.

That is an entirely separate discussion, and should not even be mentioned in this thread. In fact, this discussion doesn't even belong in this thread. Can anyone enlighten me as to why every thread I read that remotely relates to politics ends up as a discussion about the USSR?

I will end my part in this discussion if anyone chooses to respond by arguing semantics again, because as I said before, IT IS NOT PRODUCTIVE.

Edited for spelling/grammatical errors

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Again you place blame on me for just responding to the semantics game. I did not start the game just took part in it.

Okay, let's argue about "siege" again!

If you want production numbers let me show you some true to life amazing production numbers.

1945 the USSR had 11.6 million men and woman under arms, 4'/5s of those in combate roles. Muntions output was 30x what it was in WWI and twice that of the Nazis at there high point. Tanks production was 10x what it was in 1940, artillery was double. In 1944 the USSR produced 439,100 machine guns, 2,450,000 rifles and 219 million shells and mines. They produced 40,246 aircraft by 1944. The above was just from Soviet industries and Soviet materials. This is what they got in Lend Lease. 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 132,000 machine guns. Notice as I have said earlier and proved, this was not what Lend Lease in the USSR consisted most of. Russia needed consumer goods way mroe then industrial or war goods.

Sounds neat, but how about July 6th? 1,000,000 men and 500,000 tons of materials moved accross the English Channel to invade France?

Here is one for you: Total number of heavy weapons produced in WWII: 542,000 of which 283,000 were made in the USA.
Total number of vehicles made in WWII: 5.1 million of which 2.47 million were made in the USA.

Total number includes both Allied and Axis production, so don't talk about Soviet might. Again, 300,000 aircraft, countless liberty ships, etc... no country came close to American production, not even your vaunted USSR!

Your idea of the US with its carriers off of France is a rather shorted sited view. What makes you think that the Germans would allow those carriers there? What makes you think that these planes wouldn't be taken down by German planes? You place WAY too much power on allied airpower, which leaves alot of unanwsered questions. Without the eastern front, hitler would have taken over Britian. Without Britian the US would of had no place to launch their attacks from given that most if not all of Europe would have been taken over by then, and Russia would not allow you to use their bases and such. Without no place to take off from, land, rearm and etc.. you have to rely on aircraft carriers. Now remember the problems that Dolittle had getting the bombers off the aircraft carriers. Imagine that times 100 every day, all day. The US would of had to result to divedombers or bombers the size of fighters, thus reducing their bombing effects drastically. Without the bombing and air attacks the US could not have pushed the Germans off of the beaches enough for an invasion, and dropping a million guys with parachutes is out of the question. Without Britian you would be without the best bomber IMO of the war, the liberater. Without Brtian your bombing would be cut down so much that it isn't funny. So what would the US do?

How can you assume Britan would have fallen? German U-Boats were designed for raiding shipping lanes. They hid or ran from large scale Naval Encounters. How would the Germans have crossed the Channel. The royal navy would have destroyed and flotilla making the attempt. The British Navy ruled the seas until the American Navy surpassed it. The German Navy was no threat. It was an annoyence. By the way, How would the Germans have found the American Aircraft carriers? We had radar, they did not! The carriers could have been used to send fighter escorts deep into Germany much sooner then the Mustangs w/drop tanks.

The fact that you discount the Royal Navy astounds me. To invade Britan, you must cross the channel. Do you really believe that U-boats in the tightly confined channel could defeat or delay the British Navy? The U-boats would have been depth-charged to hell!

[Collegeboy]

71 LS6. I do think it was you who turned this into a semantics game. I did not discredit your entire post for one of the definitions was a 3rd definition, just the point of comparing definitions. Like you said the English language is limitied in its vocab, thus one word has many meanings. If someone had enough time they can somehow connect bad with good with some 10th definition or so. The USSR did not teach its citizens to fear the US, they wanted them to distrust them, but fear them is out of the question.

As for my post on the USSR during WWII. If you couldn't tell it was in responce to 1DE's post, so maybe you need to ask him why he brought it into this thread.

I don't, or I can't remeber, correcting anyone for saying Russia when they mean the USSR. All I said in my post was that most people don't know they are seperated. But it is expected for someone to use the two interchangably in a nonresearch paper. As long as you know the difference it is ok, heck even my professors uses the terms interchangably.

To 1de

I wonder why the Germans allowed that many men to move across the channel. Do you even think without what the USSR did to the Germans, the Allies could move across the channel that easy and be able to land that easy (compared to what could have happened, it was easy)

Of course the US will have more production numbers then the Soviets. How long did the US sit still while only bombing. The Soviets INCREASED their production UNDER INVASION. I would have loved (not really for I don't want the US to be invaded) to see if the US could have done so.

If the germans were not worried about the USSR, then Germany could have taken Britian for it would have been really a last battle for Europe. Hitler would not have had to hold anything off. What makes you think that Hitler would not have pulled a Cyrpus and invaded by vast amounts of paratroopers. What makes you think that the germans would not use there vast amounts of bombers and bomb Britian for so long that an invasion would have been easy (even more then they did).

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

To 1de

Of course the US will have more production numbers then the Soviets. How long did the US sit still while only bombing. The Soviets INCREASED their production UNDER INVASION. I would have loved (not really for I don't want the US to be invaded) to see if the US could have done so.
You really underestimate the American fighting spirit!

If the germans were not worried about the USSR, then Germany could have taken Britian for it would have been really a last battle for Europe. Hitler would not have had to hold anything off. What makes you think that Hitler would not have pulled a Cyrpus and invaded by vast amounts of paratroopers. What makes you think that the germans would not use there vast amounts of bombers and bomb Britian for so long that an invasion would have been easy (even more then they did).

Battle of Britan ring any bells?

The Luftwaffe was virtually destroyed thanks to the RAF and Radar. Even if the Paratroopers were landed, how are you going to resupply them? The British Navy ruled the seas. Any German crossing would need sea based support to sustain an offensive. The Royal Navy would stop any such attempt. Your hypothetical argument does not work.

I no longer have the time to fight with you over this. Family issues to handle. I'll check back next week.