h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

*I never meant that the US won Pearl Harbor, I never said that. I never said it won the war (directly)*

*I admitted I'm not an expert on WWII history*

*Without the lend-lease act, and other help, would Britain have held out? Most historians say no.*

*I will admit that yes, the US won the war.*

*The Japanese were basically the other half of the axis (not including italy). The US defeated them. So defeating half the axis wasn't a major contribution though.*

*Of the allies, the superpowers were France, UK, US. France, well, that's france. Again, we're back to 1/2.*

*Russia was a superpower too*

*I'm not comparing those battles to WWII battles.*

*Battle of Pearl Harbor: Little loss of life compared to many, many other battles in WWII, pacific theater or not. Drastically affected the course of the war...*

*saying the battle of pearl harbor had a HUGE impact is not opinion, it is fact*

and my absolute favourite:

*US won WWII. On the same footing as Newton's laws of motion

dave*

I didn't forget. Neither did you, remember when you said "I thought Russia won the war".

That was wrong.

The reason for justifying the claim that "the US won WWII" is hypothetical statements of what would have happened had the US not entered the war. So let's reverse the situation. What would have happened if the USSR hadn't entered the war?

2 possibilities. Either Germany doesn't attack USSR or USSR is a member of the Axis powers. Let's assume the first, since that is what is typically done in the "US won the war" scenarios.

In this case, Germany has much more resources free to pursue the war in Europe - this would result in increased pressure on the UK. I don't know how close Germany was to beating the UK in the real war, but if it was close, than surely if Germany wasn't fighting a 2 front war odds are good that they could have done much more damage to the UK in a 1 front war.

So basically the argument ends up the same as for the US winning the war. Fair enough. So Russia or the US won the war - without either it would have been lost. So, that's brings us back to the beginning of the whole thing, and this post.

"I thought Russia won the war."

dave

Hey, I got a good one zoomer:

"I thought Russia won the war."

my personal favorite.


That was quite a mindless post you put up. I tried to politely explain where we had diverged by quoting your posts. You respond by listing some statements I made. You don't even bother to connect the dots. THat's some high quality arguing. Keep up the great work!

thanks,
dave

If Britain had not joined the war it probably would have made an alliance with Germany it was isolationist in the 30s. If Russia had not been invaded it probably would have made an alliance with Germany (actually they did and the invasion was a breaking of that alliance). If the US had not had Pearl Harbour they might not have entered the war and who knows what would have happened- probably a big group of *superpowers*. If the Commonwealth had not followed the British entry into the war Britain would have been overrun. If China and Russia hadn't attacked Japan in Manchuria Japan might have had more resources. If Hitler hadn't recovered from the red fever he had as a child there might have never been a Nazi party. If the reparations demanded by France had not been paid by short term loans from the US which were called during the depression, there wouldn't have been a war. If Rommel had been given more resources the Germans would have had all of the oil reserves they needed to win the Battle of the Bulge (he didn't because of the Eastern Front). If Einstein and others hadn't gotten out of Germany because of antisemitism Germany would have had an atomic bomb ahead of the US. If, if, if.

I have explained that original post endlessly. If it still bothers you, you either can't understand it or refuse to. You've made lots of statements that contradict each other, that was the point of the quotes. Where have I contradicted myself?

"I admitted I'm not an expert on WWII history, but I plan on studying it some day."

I love quotes like that from people who insist they know more than I or the people around that HAVE direct experience with either the war itself, or long periods studying it.

It makes me chuckle.



Dave, you keep repeating the word "polite" in your last couple of posts.

Exactly where have you been polite? You've been arrogant, subjective, patronising and ill educated...but not polite.

"russia won the war"

"the war was won by the allies"

those 2 contradict each other don't they?

Dave, Dave, Dave. How many times do I have to explain this. The *Russia won the war* was an ironic statement based on the actual statistical disproof of the commonly held fantasy that the US won the war. It was mockery, Dave. I have said time and again that the only proof you have of your claim that the US won the war is belief. I mocked that belief with actual facts. I am perfectly willing to say the Allies won the war, I'm just going to disprove when some says the US did, that's all.

blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah. Blither Blather blather blither. Blah, blah blah bluh blah. Heehaw - blah blah blah ironic, blah blah. Not funny, blah blah blah. Blah blah facts blah blah blah.

dave

Gee Dave, that's the most cogent post you have put up here.

Dave:

Some of this is a little back in the backlog and I hesitate to get involved in this blithering foolishness, but here goes:

"The US wasn't a major power until AFTER WWII."

when did they get the Philipines? When did they gun boat Tokyo harbour? Actually, the U.S. began flexing its quite potent military muscle around the world within a very short time of independence. Anyone who paid attention to a vaguely competant high school American history teacher would know that to talk of two centuries (all of two centuries [every minute of each of the two hundred years]) of American military and economic clout being exercised around the world was completely accurate. The example of American defeat in the War of 1812 as an argument for American weakness is silly. They lost much more resoundingly in Vietnam (I know some would say that America didn't really lose in Vietnam. Fine. If they didn't lose in Vietnam when they got chased out of the country, then they won in 1814 when the Treaty of Ghent put the borders right back to where they were before the war.)

"what a waste of time arguing history with people who don't about anything before 1930."

yes. true. why am I bothering with you? (I've had a chat with Trunt)

Thermopylae: You really need to have a talk with someone other than that high school history teacher of yours. He's absolutely out to lunch. I had one once that tried to tell me there was a Pope Julian.

Personally, I think it was Alexander the Great that won World War II: if he hadn't gone and died so young, everything would have been different.

Seriously, Dave: Your conception of world history is very strange. That's fine. You sometimes acknowledge that you don't know about certain areas of history. You would be well advised to pay attention to some of the historical tidbits that others offer. And, when you have admitted or demonstrated the gaps in your knowledge, it would be wise to stop pretending that the gaps aren't there.

HI anhaga and welcome.

Rather than say I'm wrong about Thermopylae, why don't you point out what is wrong with what I've said about thermopylae?

dave

Now we get back to the REAL crux of the argument. When Zoomer said Russia won WWII, I accused him of being a conspiracy theory nut. Now, we have Anhaga, zoomer, and Saturnine ALL claiming that the US was a major military force at or near ITS inception.

Consider the fact that none of you will ever admit you are wrong. Why should I bother arguing? It took 7 pages (140 posts) of argument to get zoomer to admit there is more to determining the importance of battles than pure numbers.

The US Navy was PUNY. The army was mostly militia - not professional. How was this a major power?

You 3 observe that the US is the big bully on the block today, and possibly within the last 30-50 years. So you're extrapolating that back to the inception of the US, fitting whatever information you have to your theory.

That's a pretty dumb way of operating, but please, continue.

dave

When did *I* say that the US was a major military force near it's inception? You're making things up again, Dave. I don't know enough about early US history since I only took American History 101 in first year uni. So I'd never consider making strong statements about that era without knowing something about it.

"Thermopylae = mixed, Persians annihilated the spartans and "won" but they didn't advance."

is that all you said of anything more than a word or two about Thermopylae? I think so.

Okay. The 10,000 or so Greeks routed the Persians that were thrown against them in the pass. Repeatedly. They routed wave after wave of Persians. They routed every bloody Persian unit thrown against them. When the Greeks got wind of a Persian plan to outflank them using a route provided by a Greek traitor, the Greeks strategically retreated into the south, leaving a rear guard of 300 Spartans to hold the Persians until the 9500 Greeks could regroup in the south. The three hundred Spartans fought to the last man. The Persians then advanced into Southern Greece, sacked and burned Athens the next year. They won the land battle with far heavier losses than the Greeks at Thermopylae. And they didn't "annihilate the Spartans": they fought a horrible costly battle against a tiny force of Spartans and in the end, overcame that tiny force only to face a hostile landscape ahead of them. And, finally, they did advance and they advanced with great military success. But, at Thermopylae, the Persians got "their asses whopped".



Next week: The Battle of Salamis.

P.S. Just saw the rest of the posts. I'm not going to speak for Zoomer or Saturnine. Dave: Read a history book! Read about 1812-1814!. Read a history of the American Navy! Sorry my responses are so late (and detailed)

Zoomer, you said the US was a major military force when you IMPLICITLY agreed with and defended Saturnine's claim.

If you didn't agree with that statement, why didn't you correct Saturnine? If you didn't agree with it why didn't you correct Anhaga? Why did you let the discussion get sidetracked, if you could have stepped in and proven otherwise?

dave

Anhaga,

The point was that Thermopylae was a hugely important battle. I got the basic numbers right, which were used in the analysis. And yes, the spartans were annihilated. I was using the literal definition of annihilate, which applies to what happens to the SPartans. As I pointed out in my post, they took a ridiculous number of Persians with them.

So what are you trying to prove? Where have you actually proven me wrong? You've split some nice hairs.

Why do you end your post with an insult?

dave

From the Halls of Montezuma
to the shores of Tripoli . . .

Unlike Zoomer, I 'll admit to knowing a bit about early American history. (I suspect that he knows some too)




(hint: google search the song above)


Oh, never mind: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/First-Barbary-War

I didn't correct her because I don't know enough about that part of history as I said. Unlike some researchers here. I was waiting for you to prove her wrong (still waiting, actually...)

Actually, Thermopylae wasn't that important! The Persians won. They got through the pass. The three hundred Spartans died for nothing (as did all those Persians). The important battle was at Salamis. Whether or not the points you are trying to make with your examples are correct, you are betraying a sad lack of knowledge of your examples. That sad lack of knowledge isn't helping your argument; it's just clouding things. What is your argument, anyway? You asked me to point out where you were wrong about Thermopylae. I've done so. I've also offered a bit of information about the U.S. and its overseas escapades in 1801 (more than two centuries ago) As you said once before: You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Please accept it and stop blithering.