- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
You haven't the slightest clue about Armaments Minster Albert Speer and his relocation of German war industry
I would disagree
Allied bombing highly un-effective against armaments facilities
This is still debated in the most vehement of fashions among historians. To claim an absolute, without residing as an historian yourself, is simply preposterous.
You may now argue
Why do you attempt to make an argument for me? Such action is excessively patronizing.
May I remind you that Germany was very close to complete domination of Europe.
Only until they attacked the Soviets
FDR and Churchill, knew nothing whatsoever about the strength of Nazi Germany in Relation to Imperial Japan.
FDR knew the power of the the Germans. He also knew the outcome of operation Barbarossa.
the German Whermarcht employed revolutionary tactics and strategy. This, along with very advanced weaponry made them a seemingly unstoppable force.
The most important lesson from WW2 was that quantity is quality on its own
here are some eye-witness accounts of an actual test of one of these nuclear devices near the Baltic coast. This is corroborated with tests from the alleged sight. This of course cannot be definitively proven, but it is a possibility. The leaders of the Western Allies knew the threat of German Super-weapons was great, this was spurred on by a letter from Albert Einstein to FDR warning about the Nazi nuclear programme.
I can actually guarantee that there was no German nuke after February 20th, 1944.
American and Canadian navy's were in a massive expansion programme. Japan could simply not compete with this.
Americans no, Canadians yes.
Japanese strategies and tactics were also out-dated
Excluding the bonsai charges, that is so utterly false. Just try to think of the tactical significance of pearl harbor, as one example.
Let's think calmly and logically about this. First, WWII was on two main fronts, The Pacific and Europe
Do not patronize me.
Japan was not too powerful compared to other major powers at the time
The Japanese navy was arguably the dominant naval power pre-battle of midway, aided by a fighter, the mitsubishi zero that dominated the skies until later on in the war. The army it possessed, was comprised of virile men, whom would not see the pain of defeat. If this nation did not demonstrate military prowess, then you do not revere military history.
the Allies had a ''Germany First'' strategy
This evidences nothing, except perhaps the genuine plurality of European nations in the allied forces. Germany was the largest threat to the allies due to the nature of their global positioning; they were the threat for a majority of the allies. Japan being on the other side of the world, was to far away to be considered a threat to them ( the Europeans). The other allied powers, the U.S. and China, focused on Japan because of its strength and location relative to them. Yet despite this major threat, the U.S. still provided massive aid to fund the war against the Nazis, albeit indirectly. The lend lease act was certainly an integral part to the Nazis defeat.
now we can say that on a Germany vs. USSR debate alone the USSR would win.
This is so utterly false, the Germans (Hitler) were fighting on two fronts (Britain did not fall in large part to the lend lease act) and the French were not entirely defeated. Fighting on two fronts is difficult even for the most powerful militaries. Even so, the Russians were saved by the harsh condititions of their own winter; they were being pushed back quickly by the Germans, of which were supplied only for warm weather fighting (Hitler expected a decisive, quick victory). I think you can figure out the rest.
Secondly, the Allied bombing of Germany was largely in-effective against war industry and just an attempt at destroying morale.
I'm sorry but the entire argument you attempt to make is false.
The US already has a plutocratic two party dictatorship
yes, but only to alleviate the compromise process, which has obviously been nullified by neither party establishing a "party era". Regardless, calling the complex electoral process in the U.S. a dictatorship is on the outrance of common opinion; a more apt description would be a Republic comprised of a populace so blissfully ignorant, that the former adapted a new standard.
democracy isn't meant to mean voting for the lesser of two evils every four years
The U.S. was founded on the principals of a Republic, allowing power for the elite rather than the common man. A deep seeded mistrust for the common person had wedged its way into the hearts of this nations forefathers; the common man knew nothing about politics. Yet this outlandish view was after all, not a devilish mistrust; American people can only answer about 20% of political questions correctly.
The brilliant foundation from which this country formed, necessitated a voter base comprised of individuals who understood the values of one vote. Therefore, the fault belongs with the people, not the system. This maturated Republic, in which you refer as a Democracy, worked for decades under the two party system. The current political parties are an evolutionized form of politicians whom are accustomed to a nation compromised of the stereotypical common man. Fault the constituents, not the system.
To complete this, multiply the first equation by 7 and the bottom equation by 2 so as the two y's will cancel out. You will then be left with 52x=26 (after the two equations were combined) which will lead to the sum.of x being .5. Fill x in one equation as .5 and solve. You should be left with y=-.5
I alway's found it interesting that the USA were always happy to fund terrorism whilst it was happening in other countries but as soon as it happened in America they expect everyone to feal sorry for them and get behind them
How is this different from any other nation in the world? This level of ignorance only epitomizes the identified reason for the worlds hatred of America; they are the superpower.
Also two wrongs dont make a right so just because another nation does something bad does not justify the USA or anyone else doing the same.
I never made the case that the actions were at all justifiable, rather to the contrary; that guilt and disappointment accompany my thoughts as I think of myself as a supporter of terrorism only by paying taxes to my government. The point I intended to make was: a person whose disdain of the U.S. is based on federal support for terrorism, is adherently ignorant to the actions of common industrialized nations.
Yes during the time of the Empire Britain did not treat the nations that fell under their jurisdiction as well as they should that is historical fact but is irrelavent to this debate.
How is it at all irrelevant? It proves that the U.S. is not the anomaly Europeans so blissfully believe it is, rather following the path of worlds superpower.
look up Operation Cyclone which was when America funded the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups
I wonder what the cost would be for plagiarizing wikipedia? Don't act like you have an in depth understanding when clearly you copy and pasted then added a little of your own elaboration to someone else's work.
Yet, you clearly did not understand this was how the United States fought the Soviets in that war, in fact, that gorilla tactic is not at all unusual, especially in a nuclear world. Actually, here is what KGB General Aleksandr Sakharovsky once said: "In today’s world, when nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should become our main weapon."(of the Soviet Union). Heres another from KGB chairman Yury Andropov:
"a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States."
The U.S. may have used terrorism, but not nearly to the extent of its father, the Soviet Union. The scary thing is, there are many European countries sponsoring the same thing, continually believing the U.S. is alone in its self interested support for terrorism is purely ignorance.
hough I suppose maybe American soldiers dancing in to Vietnam, covering everyone there in agent orange, napalming its schools.. Let me just explain this for people who say "wut?" There is much photographic evidence showing the after effects of this. Little 6 year old girls tripping over the limbs of their now dead friends as they rty to run away, confused as now they too have had their arms blown off and have effectively no back, as it has been completely burned off using agent orange. And whose grandchildren will still be born with hideous deformities. And the Americans still bitch they had their asses kicked.
You clearly are ignorant to the horrors of war. Americans are not the only ones to torture the civilians of their enemy's, it is the nature of warfare. The problem is, people like you only see what they wish rather than look through the roots of history only so they can satisfy their own disgusting beliefs. Here is some of the Viet Cong war crimes http://vnafmamn.com/
and then maybe a few example of the Japanese of ww2 which were nearly as bad as the Nazis, except rather than Jewish, the Chinese were literally test subjects of Japanese hate experiments: http://www.eubios.info/EJ106/EJ106C.htm
"it is obvious that the French and the British led the charge on this intervention, likely because they believed that a protracted struggle over years between the opposition and Qaddafi in Libya would radicalize it and give an opening to al-Qaeda and so pose various threats to Europe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy had been politically mauled, as well, by the offer of his defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, to send French troops to assist Ben Ali in Tunisia (Alliot-Marie had been Ben Ali’s guest on fancy vacations), and may have wanted to restore traditional French cachet in the Arab world as well as to look decisive to his electorate. Whatever Western Europe’s motivations, they were the decisive ones, and the Obama administration clearly came along as a junior partner (something Sen. John McCain is complaining bitterly about)."
It sounds like Obama didn't screw up this one, or the U.S. for that matter. Rather a european country where you reside? Anymore misinformed hatred for the U.S.?