By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Best/Worst Presidents

bouzane on 30 May 2012
rocketpig said:
bouzane said:
Britain didn't contribute anything meaningful to the Front with Japan either so what's your point? Although it is worth mentioning that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria saw the Soviets killing or capturing over 700,000 Japanese troops. Also, Romania, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia and Spain all contributed to the Eastern Front. The Italians lost almost all of the 100,000 troops that they provided for the Siege of Stalingrad alone. If you factor in Manchuria the Soviets inflicted over 10.6 million casualties upon the Axis, again, more than all other Allies combined.

The Soviets invaded Manchuria after America had dropped two nuclear devices on the home island. They were picking up scraps and trying to grab land, nothing more.


The vast, vast majority of Axis casualties, in terms of aircraft, vehicles and manpower were inflicted by the USSR. Almost the entire Wehrmacht was eliminated fighting the Soviets. Additionally, the Battle of Berlin was won by the Soviet Union with no other Allies present with the exception of approximately 200,000 Polish soldiers. There is no logical conclusion other than the understanding that the Soviet Union contributed more to the war effort than all other Allies combined. Over nine out of ten German casualties as well as millions of other Axis losses, the most significant defeat of the Luftwaffe, the failure of the Blitzkrieg and the successful invasion of Berlin.



Around the Network
rocketpig on 30 May 2012
bouzane said:
rocketpig said:
bouzane said:
Britain didn't contribute anything meaningful to the Front with Japan either so what's your point? Although it is worth mentioning that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria saw the Soviets killing or capturing over 700,000 Japanese troops. Also, Romania, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia and Spain all contributed to the Eastern Front. The Italians lost almost all of the 100,000 troops that they provided for the Siege of Stalingrad alone. If you factor in Manchuria the Soviets inflicted over 10.6 million casualties upon the Axis, again, more than all other Allies combined.

The Soviets invaded Manchuria after America had dropped two nuclear devices on the home island. They were picking up scraps and trying to grab land, nothing more.


The vast, vast majority of Axis casualties, in terms of aircraft, vehicles and manpower were inflicted by the USSR. Almost the entire Wehrmacht was eliminated fighting the Soviets. Additionally, the Battle of Berlin was won by the Soviet Union with no other Allies present with the exception of approximately 200,000 Polish soldiers. There is no logical conclusion other than the understanding that the Soviet Union contributed more to the war effort than all other Allies combined. Over nine out of ten German casualties as well as millions of other Axis losses, the most significant defeat of the Luftwaffe, the failure of the Blitzkrieg and the successful invasion of Berlin.

Your numbers seemed high to me. I looked into it and according to Wikipedia, Germany lost ~5.5m soldiers to military conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Anyway, I'm not arguing whether the USSR served the majority of casualties in the war. I'm simply refuting your premise that they singled-handedly defeated the Axis powers despite not having meaningful conflict with Japan.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Mr Khan on 30 May 2012
rocketpig said:
Mr Khan said:
rocketpig said:
bouzane said:
2. This may be true but it doesn't change the fact that the Axis was crushed almost entirely by the Soviets with comparatively little being accomplished by the British.

I find it a little difficult to swallow that the Soviets singled-handedly crushed the entirety of the Axis powers when they fought neither Italy nor Japan in force. Italy was almost a laughing stock, for sure... Japan, not so much.

Threat of the Soviet Union (despite their nonagression pact) did hurt the Japanese war effort, as they had significant resources invested in Manchuria awaiting the invasion, which could have been used to build control over the Aleutians or make the difference on Guadalcanal.

They distracted the Japanese, yes. But distraction without major conflict is not the same thing as actually defeating the enemy.

Nowhere did i suggest the Soviets were more influential in the Pacific. Just indicating that their Pacific role spanned the entirety of the war, indirectly.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

rocketpig on 30 May 2012
Mr Khan said:
rocketpig said:
Mr Khan said:
rocketpig said:
bouzane said:
2. This may be true but it doesn't change the fact that the Axis was crushed almost entirely by the Soviets with comparatively little being accomplished by the British.

I find it a little difficult to swallow that the Soviets singled-handedly crushed the entirety of the Axis powers when they fought neither Italy nor Japan in force. Italy was almost a laughing stock, for sure... Japan, not so much.

Threat of the Soviet Union (despite their nonagression pact) did hurt the Japanese war effort, as they had significant resources invested in Manchuria awaiting the invasion, which could have been used to build control over the Aleutians or make the difference on Guadalcanal.

They distracted the Japanese, yes. But distraction without major conflict is not the same thing as actually defeating the enemy.

Nowhere did i suggest the Soviets were more influential in the Pacific. Just indicating that their Pacific role spanned the entirety of the war, indirectly.

Oh, I knew your point. I was simply pointed out that they didn't really fight meaningfully in the Pacific. Almost every major player had impact in every arena... Even the British had influence in the Pacific.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

bouzane on 30 May 2012
rocketpig said:
bouzane said:
rocketpig said:
bouzane said:
Britain didn't contribute anything meaningful to the Front with Japan either so what's your point? Although it is worth mentioning that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria saw the Soviets killing or capturing over 700,000 Japanese troops. Also, Romania, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia and Spain all contributed to the Eastern Front. The Italians lost almost all of the 100,000 troops that they provided for the Siege of Stalingrad alone. If you factor in Manchuria the Soviets inflicted over 10.6 million casualties upon the Axis, again, more than all other Allies combined.

The Soviets invaded Manchuria after America had dropped two nuclear devices on the home island. They were picking up scraps and trying to grab land, nothing more.


The vast, vast majority of Axis casualties, in terms of aircraft, vehicles and manpower were inflicted by the USSR. Almost the entire Wehrmacht was eliminated fighting the Soviets. Additionally, the Battle of Berlin was won by the Soviet Union with no other Allies present with the exception of approximately 200,000 Polish soldiers. There is no logical conclusion other than the understanding that the Soviet Union contributed more to the war effort than all other Allies combined. Over nine out of ten German casualties as well as millions of other Axis losses, the most significant defeat of the Luftwaffe, the failure of the Blitzkrieg and the successful invasion of Berlin.

Your numbers seemed high to me. I looked into it and according to Wikipedia, Germany lost ~5.5m soldiers to military conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Anyway, I'm not arguing whether the USSR served the majority of casualties in the war. I'm simply refuting your premise that they singled-handedly defeated the Axis powers despite not having meaningful conflict with Japan.


Please note that the information that you provided is only for those killed in action. These statistics do not include wounded or captured soldiers. Again, the Eastern Front saw virtually no meaningful contributions made by the other Allies. As far as the Pacific Theater is concerned, I will concede that the Americans achieved victory with little to no outside assistance. However, it is worth mentioning that the Wehrmacht was over triple the size of the Imperial Japanese Army meaning that the Wehrmacht accounted for the vast majority of the Axis' power.



Around the Network
Baalzamon on 30 May 2012
Flanneryaug said:
Wow, this list is a joke. FDR is debatably the best president ever, not one of the worst. Also, while I hate Bush, there have been many worse presidents than him. Also putting Obama on this list means nothing because current presidents are always on the opposite parties worst president list.

Could I please have your reasons for this (I'm just curious)?

Because many of the things that he started that were so "great" at the time are a major part of why our country is going to shit in today's day and age.  Not to mention there is no, nor will there ever be, proof that he did anything to alter the Great Depression (just like no economist could ever prove to me that any President ever changed anything in the economy...it can always be argued both ways and it will always simply be theories).



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

rocketpig on 30 May 2012

I didn't think the Russians believed in capturing Germans. :D

Anyway, I don't think we're really arguing here. It's more semantics than anything. The Russians killed lots of people in WWII. I'm certainly not going to argue that point.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Rath on 30 May 2012
bouzane said:
rocketpig said:
bouzane said:
rocketpig said:
bouzane said:
Britain didn't contribute anything meaningful to the Front with Japan either so what's your point? Although it is worth mentioning that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria saw the Soviets killing or capturing over 700,000 Japanese troops. Also, Romania, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia and Spain all contributed to the Eastern Front. The Italians lost almost all of the 100,000 troops that they provided for the Siege of Stalingrad alone. If you factor in Manchuria the Soviets inflicted over 10.6 million casualties upon the Axis, again, more than all other Allies combined.

The Soviets invaded Manchuria after America had dropped two nuclear devices on the home island. They were picking up scraps and trying to grab land, nothing more.


The vast, vast majority of Axis casualties, in terms of aircraft, vehicles and manpower were inflicted by the USSR. Almost the entire Wehrmacht was eliminated fighting the Soviets. Additionally, the Battle of Berlin was won by the Soviet Union with no other Allies present with the exception of approximately 200,000 Polish soldiers. There is no logical conclusion other than the understanding that the Soviet Union contributed more to the war effort than all other Allies combined. Over nine out of ten German casualties as well as millions of other Axis losses, the most significant defeat of the Luftwaffe, the failure of the Blitzkrieg and the successful invasion of Berlin.

Your numbers seemed high to me. I looked into it and according to Wikipedia, Germany lost ~5.5m soldiers to military conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Anyway, I'm not arguing whether the USSR served the majority of casualties in the war. I'm simply refuting your premise that they singled-handedly defeated the Axis powers despite not having meaningful conflict with Japan.


Please note that the information that you provided is only for those killed in action. These statistics do not include wounded or captured soldiers. Again, the Eastern Front saw virtually no meaningful contributions made by the other Allies. As far as the Pacific Theater is concerned, I will concede that the Americans achieved victory with little to no outside assistance. However, it is worth mentioning that the Wehrmacht was over triple the size of the Imperial Japanese Army meaning that the Wehrmacht accounted for the vast majority of the Axis' power.


Are you comparing the entire of the Wehrmacht to just the Japanese navy? The Kriegsmarine (German navy) was basically crippled by the Treaty of Versailles and not a huge threat to anybody.

 

Also you keep on bringing up how the Russians won the Battle of Berlin, ignoring that this is entirely because Eisenhower let the Russians take Berlin out of diplomacy.

 

I'm not trying to downplay the USSR in WWII - without them Nazi germany would simply not have fallen (apart from perhaps to nuclear bombs) and no invasion from Normandy would have been able to even get a foothold. However I think you're trying to downplay the effect that first the British and then the Americans had in inflicting defeats on the Germans, especially on the German airforce.



SnesTea on 30 May 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
ASStronaut said:

Another thread by an American that thinks the world revolves around The USA.

Other countries have Presidents too, you know.

Thread should be called "Best/Worst US presidents"

Big headed, arrogant yanks.


Hahaha, wow, immature, much?

a) I'm a Brit.

b) Who the fuck really cares?

c) If you want to talk about leaders from other countries, be my guest.

I just want to be the first to say, your thread is awesome. Really opened up my eyes.



Kasz216 on 30 May 2012
Mr Khan said:


4- Theodore Roosevelt: certain racist tendencies, though not overt support for the KKK (which hadn't been revived yet). However, he helped lead the cause of progressivism in the early 20th century for pushing America into modernity.

I'm confused by this.  Roosevelets biggest political challenge throught pretty much his whole presidency was that racists hated him because he was generally way ahead of the curve and more progressive racially then any president before... and many after.  To the point of where he coordinated extremely close with Booker T Washington to do as much as could be done without causing a negative backlash.  In general his opinion on african americans mirrored that of Booker T Washington's.

As a president and person, Roosevelt was decades ahead on the race front.