TUCO.I fucking love ww2 history as much as anyone but fucking come on this fucking thread...
Hitler did cut manpower and supplies after the Sicily landing by the US/GB. The Battle of Smolensk and Battle of the Dnieper were after this and he could have used reinforcements to great effect. Also, here's a link for what we supposedly supplied to the Russians ourselveshttp://www.russiandogs.net/what-russ...ied-by-us.html. Fighting a single front compared to multiples is much easier as well.Sure USSR could have won by itself. USSR crushed Germany at Stalingrad in 1942 for a colossal political turning point (not to mention a huge military one) and then crushed them one more time at Kursk 7 months later for a major military turning point. After Kursk in July of 1943, Germany would never go on a major offensive in Eastern Front again.
US/UK were still pissing around in North Africa starting in 1942, and wouldnt even land in Europe (Italy) until September of 1943 (1 month after Kursk) and in France not even for another year.
Just exactly what kind of shit are the careerists at Langley and Pentagon are telling Obama to make him do a full 180 in 5 years?
If BrutulTM is BrutulTarewMarr (spelling? I can't fucking remember) from the early FOH forum days, then he prob has more forum cred then most of the people who came over to Rerolled have.Please enlighten me as to why I should give a 14th of a fuck about what some forum scro thinks.
You meanthisK&P avatar that I shrunk down for Tuco, IIRC?Sure. One month Avatar bet - just keep the Avatar reasonable sized if I loose.No 1/4 Screen taken up by Key & Peele.
I agree with you that in the commonly used vernacular napalm isn't a WMD (I don't consider it to be personally), but according to US Code, Title 18:napalm isn't a WMD
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-...B-sec2332a.htm?2332a. Use of weapons of mass destruction
(a) Offense Against a National of the United States or Within the United States.?A person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction?
(1) against a national of the United States while such national is outside of the United States;
(2) against any person or property within the United States, and
(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;
(B) such property is used in interstate or foreign commerce or in an activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce;
(C) any perpetrator travels in or causes another to travel in interstate or foreign commerce in furtherance of the offense; or
(D) the offense, or the results of the offense, affect interstate or foreign commerce, or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce;
(3) against any property that is owned, leased or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside of the United States; or
(4) against any property within the United States that is owned, leased, or used by a foreign government,
shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Offense by National of the United States Outside of the United States.?Any national of the United States who, without lawful authority, uses, or threatens, attempts, or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction outside of the United States shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death, or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
(c) Definitions.?For purposes of this section?
(1) the term ?national of the United States? has the meaning given in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));
(2) the term ?weapon of mass destruction? means?
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and
(3) the term ?property? includes all real and personal property.
I mean, it sounds fucking ridiculous to me but who the hell knows??921. Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter?
(1) The term ?person? and the term ?whoever? include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.
(2) The term ?interstate or foreign commerce? includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ?State? includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
(3) The term ?firearm? means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4) The term ?destructive device? means?
(A) any explosive,incendiary, or poison gas?
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term ?destructive device? shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.
Statements like that are kinda laughable when you put them in context. Even after D-day, more than 80% of his troops were still fighting on Eastern Front. 250+ German divisions on Eastern Front, something like 50-60 on Western Front during D-Day till the end of war. Amount of divisions transferred to Italy was 7 (out of 200+ on EF). It was basically a meaningless number. The war was won at Kursk before a single American or British boot stepped on European soil.Hitler did cut manpower and supplies after the Sicily landing by the US/GB. The Battle of Smolensk and Battle of the Dnieper were after this and he could have used reinforcements to great effect. Also, here's a link for what we supposedly supplied to the Russians ourselveshttp://www.russiandogs.net/what-russ...ied-by-us.html. Fighting a single front compared to multiples is much easier as well.
Sure they could have beaten Germany. German losses in BoB were around 1800 planes and at least 20,000+ over at Eastern Front (Russian archival data calculates it at 50,000) which might not be outside of realm of possibility considering that Luftwaffe lost close to 100,000 planes during the war. People just dont realize how miniscule Western front was compared to Eastern Front.Maybe the Russians could have beaten Germany without our help. They did have their amazing resilience and the T-34s. Maybe the better question is, could they have beaten Germany without our help, GB's help, and the losses Germany had in the Battle of Britain? I don't think they would have in that case.
Lol, damn that Tuco but I can't help myself. About as fucking useful of a conversation as was happening before(sorry guys).
The thousands of scenarios that people come up with where Hitler could have won just becomes ridiculous at some point. What if Hitler invaded 3 weeks earlier? What if Hitler didn't get tied in Yugoslavia for 3 weeks right before Barbarossa? What if Germans had winter clothing? What if he resumed attack on Moscow in 1942 instead of going for Stalingrad? What if he didn't fall for the Soviet bait at Kursk? What if, what if, what if. If people want "what ifs" so badly - they can go read Harry Turtledove.WOULDA WON.
he would have probably murdered the inhabitants and let Germans colonize the east, that's why Leningrad was sieged and not occupied for example, it was an opportunity to get rid of as many of the inhabitants as possible without tying up alot more troops. the whole point was "lebensraum"Hitler was successful he'd have an empire that was spread too thin over areas that didn't want him around.
ICE BURN.gifWell, if anyone would be an expert on Hitler and control, its you and the rest of the mod squad
Fucking comical. It's a rare feat to get every single thing wrong but there you have it. Stupid assertions, spelling errors and all. Day in and day out, you are the undisputed King of the Retards.he would have probably murdered the inhabitants and let Germans colonize the east, that's why Leningrad was sieged and not occupied for example, it was an opportunity to get rid of as many of the inhabitants as possible wihtout tying up troops. the whole point was "lebensraum"
germans lost the war during the battle of the atlantic/battle of britian phase, specifically the atlantic, if even 1/2 the resources from the losing effort of the battle of britian where tasked to the battle of the atlantic in 1940 germany would have easily won the atlantic battle and probably forced britians capitulation. without a 2 front war, the war in the east becomes alot more winnable.
I believe it was kesslering who was asked by the soviets what he thought the turning point of the war was, they expected him to say Stalingrad but he said it was the battle of britian for the same exact reason, it would have avoided a 2 front war to force england to capitulate.
albert speer also said that defending against the english/us air armada was equivalent by itself to a second front from the sheer amount of manpower and equipment that was needed to be used for defense.
Rand Paul_sl said:Bashar Assad is clearly not an American ally. But does his ouster encourage stability in the Middle East, or would his ouster actually encourage instability?
Are the Islamic rebels our allies? Will they defend American interests? Will they acknowledge Israel's right to exist? Will they impose Shari'a? Will they tolerate Christians, or will they pillage and destroy ancient Christian churches and people?
The President and his Administration have not provided good answers to any of these questions. Those who seek military action have an obligation to publicly address these concerns before dragging our soldiers into another Middle Eastern war. Shooting first and aiming later has not worked for us in the past, and it should not be our game plan now.
(what spelling errors? jesus you have a hard on for attacking me)Fucking comical. It's a rare feat to get every single thing wrong but there you have it. Stupid assertions, spelling errors and all. Day in and day out, you are the undisputed King of the Retards.