It should be "TURKS", not OTTOMANS

[Abegweit]

Even if every single german soldier was killed by soviet hands, the above is too simplistic. The allies kept vast resources of the nazi war machine occupied, keeping them from being sent to the eastern front.

Which allies? The Brits and the Empire? The resources that they bottled up weren't very "vast" but, unlike the Americans they did have an impact. Possibly enough to swing the balance to the Russians. Perhaps. It remains that the Russians won the war before the US officially entered it.

In addition, you're forgetting the Pacific and Asian conflicts entirely.

Of course I am. The issue is the German defeat in Europe. This has nothing to do with the Asian theatre, except insofar as it bottled up Brit forces which might have been used in Europe.

The Russian/Japanese "front" was non-existent. I'm not sure they even declared war on each other.

The Soviets finally declared war on Japan after the Americans pointlessly murdered 300,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So? What does this have to do with Germany? The Germans had been overrun 3 months before.

 

[bloodofages]

Hmmm... well, I'll concede to this, if you can provide some sort of credible source. I've never heard that before in any of my classes or in any books I've read, so if you could please provide a link to a credible source, I'd appreciate the knowledge. Thanks!

Hye Blitzkrieg, take a moment and take off that America flag so that you can see the real world, Not sure if i am too late for this, but the Russian did reach Berlin first and thanks to our Russian allies, we as in the USA would have been pushed back into the sea. If it were not for the Brits and the Russians, along with several other people fight the Germans even under occupation, the Germans would have won WW2.

 

[bloodofages]

HolyOne
-Did I ever said that Magyars or any other nation are turk?
-Did I ever said that Turks are the greatest
-Did I ever said that Turks did rule the whole world?
-Did I ever said that Turks are the best nation to enter civ?
-Did I ever said that you must stand in stunned silence in front of our culture?
-Did I ever said that Turks must be praised?
-Did I ever said that Fraxis is insulting us?

NO. HELL NO!!!!

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tes
Tes
Yes
Yes
You did say that. And now you said you did not say it? By the way Vienna, was and still is a important city, if the Greeks wanted to they could have pushed the issue after WW1 and reclaim Istanbual. Those nations that you said could not stop you, did so in WW1 and others wars. Your Empire was very much reduced in Europe to the Istanbul area before WW1 by several other nations, like the Greeks, Bulgaria, Serbia, and i can't think of who else what now. So like all nations, the Turks have felt defeat. Don't worry about it. At least you lost to the European powers. The USA lost to Vietnam, a third world nation.

 

[Peronosporos]

My friend you got it all wrong. Turks have nothing to do with Huns and Mongols.

In 1402, Timur invaded Anatolia and defeated Bayezid in the Battle of Ankara on July 20. Bayezid was captured in battle and subsequently died in captivity, initiating the twelve year Ottoman Interregnum period. Timur's stated motivation for attacking Bayezid and the Ottoman Empire was the restoration of Seljuq authority.

quote from wikipedia. It seems that Mongols fought turks...

His son, King Matthias Corvinus, ruled the Kingdom of Hungary from 1458 to 1490. He strengthened Hungary and its government. Under his rule, Hungary became an important artistic and cultural centre of Europe during the Renaissance. Matthias, whose wife was Italian, imported artisans from Italy and France. Likewise, Hungarian culture influenced others, for example the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. King Matthias Corvinus was also successful in many battles against the Ottoman Empire.

also from wikipedia
And Hungarians actively oppossed Ottoman expansion in the balkans!

Are you telling us that these were cases of civil war!!

On the subject of the ottomans: There were many turkish tribes that were in state of continuous war between them. The one that prevailed was the ottoman branch. Furthermore, the lands that the turks occupied were culturally different and were never assimilated (thus rebelled) by the turkish customs, namely Egypt, Greece, armenia, Kurds, Arabs (modern day syria, lebanon, israel, parts of Iraq). That is the reason that they are called the ottoman empire and not turks.

Let me ask you a question: Do you have Mongol features? Like yellow skin, slidded eyes etc. Probably not, and that means you are not a turk per se but a citizen of a turkish-ottoman empire.

First, I agree the Ottoman empires falls under the Muslim Empire, and it was great from a military standpoint, but if we are going to bother with changing they there should be a Muslim empire with arabs / turks, but no turks seperately. I realize it existed before becoming the muslim/ottoman empire, but its highpoints were when it became/joined the islamic empire (which sort of happened in 751 AD during the Abbasid dynasty).

Sorry friend, Arabs and Turks are completely different. They fought many battles during the 1000 year presence of turks in the region. Even nowadays they do not enjoy an amiable reliationship.

 

[Kristian95]

The Soviets finally declared war on Japan after the Americans pointlessly murdered 300,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So? What does this have to do with Germany? The Germans had been overrun 3 months before.

Ok, I'll finally get involved in this.... You can claim that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was pointless, but then again, president Truman only chose this option because the estimate (based on experience from invading Ivo Jima and Okinawa) suggested US casualties of anywhere between 100000 and 1 million!! Besides it is a well known fact that the Japanese committed many dastardly war crimes in China and other occupied territories. Among these were purposely infecting civilian chinese with diseases and then study the disease in progress by performing "post mortem" analysis on these people, I put "post mortem" in quotes 'cause they did these studies on the people while they were alive and without any anesthesia! To this day the Japanese in general won't admit to this and only see themselves as victims. That doesn't mean every Japanese is like this, but too many are..... try picking up a Japanese history book as they use them in their schools and you will see they hardly mention WWII, and if they do, they will talk about Japan's struggle to try to rid Asia of Western imperialism! Imagine the outcry if Germany suddently removed all references of the holocaust from their history books!

Anyway, there is _no_ country that existed that hasn't at one point or another comitted atrocities! I can point to my own country, Denmark, which during the Kalmar union comitted the Stockholm bloodbath in which Christian II (the king at that time) killed off most of the Swedish nobility....

Thus: let he who is without sin throw the first stone (and I am not even a religious guy!)

 

[Abegweit]

Ok, I'll finally get involved in this.... You can claim that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was pointless, but then again, president Truman only chose this option because the estimate (based on experience from invading Ivo Jima and Okinawa) suggested US casualties of anywhere between 100000 and 1 million!!

That old canard! The only reason to invade Iwo Jima and Okinawa was to get a base of operations from which to rain death on Japanese civilians, whether using conventional bombs or nuclear ones.

Two points:

1) the Japanese had been trying to surrender for many months; their only condition was the one the Americans ultimately accepted - that the Emperor not be touched.

2) there was no more reason to invade Japan than than there was to invade Iwo Jima or Okinawa. The Roosevelt doctrine of unconditional surrender was completely unjustified in either theatre.

Besides it is a well known fact that the Japanese committed many dastardly war crimes in China and other occupied territories. Among these were purposely infecting civilian chinese with diseases and then study the disease in progress by performing "post mortem" analysis on these people, I put "post mortem" in quotes 'cause they did these studies on the people while they were alive and without any anesthesia! To this day the Japanese in general won't admit to this and only see themselves as victims. That doesn't mean every Japanese is like this, but too many are..... try picking up a Japanese history book as they use them in their schools and you will see they hardly mention WWII, and if they do, they will talk about Japan's struggle to try to rid Asia of Western imperialism! Imagine the outcry if Germany suddently removed all references of the holocaust from their history books!

Anyway, there is _no_ country that existed that hasn't at one point or another comitted atrocities! I can point to my own country, Denmark, which during the Kalmar union comitted the Stockholm bloodbath in which Christian II (the king at that time) killed off most of the Swedish nobility....

How precisely do Japanese (still less Danish!) atrocities justify American ones?

Thus: let he who is without sin throw the first stone (and I am not even a religious guy!)

I have never committed mass murderer. I rather doubt that you haven't either. It makes a President or a King to do such things.

 

[Peronosporos]

The Roosevelt doctrine of unconditional surrender was completely unjustified in either theatre.

Very true. Had the terms of surrender been different, the bombs would never have fallen. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply the theatre where the United states could show their teeth to the world (or "who is the boss")

 

[Swedishguy]

Like Iraq nowadays.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Hye Blitzkrieg, take a moment and take off that America flag so that you can see the real world, Not sure if i am too late for this, but the Russian did reach Berlin first and thanks to our Russian allies, we as in the USA would have been pushed back into the sea. If it were not for the Brits and the Russians, along with several other people fight the Germans even under occupation, the Germans would have won WW2.

Wow... You people never cease to amaze me. I think you guys just like to say things about people from the U.S. being wrapped in a flag... this is the third guy. I never said the U.S. singlehandedly won the war. I said without the U.S., Europe was pretty f'kd (which is true). Since you hold the USSR in such high regard, riddle me this... what would've happened to Europe if U.S. didn't come in to help out? What would've stopped the Soviets? Would they have a reason to split Germany in half, or take the whole thing? I just don't know and no one ever will because that's not what happened. And to echo Wodan (above) you completely forgot about the Pacific Theatre of Operations. As a pacifist, I happen to hate the U.S.' decision to drop nuclear bombs, but that's in essence what brought the PTO to an end.

No one's wrapped in any flags. But maybe anti-Americanism has blinded many of you from remembering the U.S. role as well.

BTW I was over this many posts ago, but bloodofages had to bring it back up...

 

[Swedishguy]

Sweden were neutral, in fear of Hitler.

 

[Peronosporos]

Since you hold the USSR in such high regard, riddle me this... what would've happened to Europe if U.S. didn't come in to help out? What would've stopped the Soviets? Would they have a reason to split Germany in half, or take the whole thing?

Yep that's true. I didn't say that you didn't help out in Europe, i am saying that there was no justification whatsoever to drop the A-bomb.
Anyhow the russians did most of the fighting but i don't think they intended to become involved in the fight in the first place. After the German invasion, there was no option left.

BTW I was over this many posts ago, but bloodofages had to bring it back up...

i don't think this will continue further. 2-3 more posts maybe...

 

[Swedishguy]

ONE post!!!

 

[Abegweit]

Since you hold the USSR in such high regard, riddle me this... what would've happened to Europe if U.S. didn't come in to help out? What would've stopped the Soviets? Would they have a reason to split Germany in half, or take the whole thing? I just don't know and no one ever will because that's not what happened.

What happened was that the Americans and Brits condemned 100 million people in Eastern Europe to communism. Simply handed them over to Stalin. Fifteen million Germans were uprooted from their homes and set to fend for themselves in the wasteland that the Americans and Brits had created. Millions of them died. How many will never be known but estimates range as high as nine million German deaths after the war. Millions of Poles were also uprooted, but they at least had former German lands to move into. As you say, no one came know what would have happened had they not "helped" but this was hardly a wonderful outcome.

What's less well known is that the Allies were strongly complicit in the communist takeover of China as well. Both the Americans and Brits at the time preferred commies like Mao to fascists like Chiang Kai-Shek. This despite the fact that the KMT was actively involved in the war against the Japanese while the CPC was conserving its forces for a battle over China which would come after the Americans had decimated the Japanese. Meanwhile, Uncle Joe sent huge amounts of materiel, much of it acquired through Lend-Lease, to Mao. Some came directly from the US.

And to echo Wodan (above) you completely forgot about the Pacific Theatre of Operations. As a pacifist, I happen to hate the U.S.' decision to drop nuclear bombs, but that's in essence what brought the PTO to an end.

It takes a strange sort of pacifist to justify war and mass murder. As I already pointed out, this canard is history written by the victors. Mass murder was not necessary to end the war.

 

[Swedishguy]

Ok, this thread will be on for a while.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

...It takes a strange sort of pacifist to justify war and mass murder. As I already pointed out, this canard is history written by the victors. Mass murder was not necessary to end the war.

Okay, did you read my statement, or just quote it and ignorantly reply? I'm starting to get annoyed with people on this thread . WTH did I say to make you think I was justifying the dropping of bombs. I simply said it ended the PTO. Will you refute this? Is this not fact? Did hundreds of thousands of victims not die to result in the end of the PTO? Yes they did, and yes, the PTO was over with. Whether or not you think this is a just means to an end, it happened. I (indeed being a pacifist) do not agree with this means to an end. This, however, does not change the history of it. I'm finished.

EDIT: And don't you ever try to judge a person who you have no personal knowledge of on such very personal subjects like my pacifism. I take it VERY seriously. How dare you.

 

[Abegweit]

WTH did I say to make you think I was justifying the dropping of bombs. I simply said it ended the PTO. Will you refute this? Is this not fact? Did hundreds of thousands of victims not die to result in the end of the PTO? Yes they did, and yes, the PTO was over with.

If by this, you mean that Truman had to get a chance to use in new playthings in order for the war to end, then I agree. The bloodthirsty tyrant just had to do it - and millions of people the world over cheered him on. Not just Americans.

However Wodan claimed that it was necessary to avoid a million American deaths and you quoted him approvingly. That is simply false. Tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Japanese died needlessly in the Pacific Theatre because of the policies of Roosevelt and Truman, even before the A-bombs were dropped.

Whether or not you think this is a just means to an end, it happened. I (indeed being a pacifist) do not agree with this means to an end.

It not only unjust, it was also also unnecessary. I also am a pacifist but mainly of a pragmatic bent, rather than a moral one. All of the state's wars, whether on fascism or crime or poverty or drug abuse or any other noun, never succeed in doing anything other than killing and destroying. That's all it knows how to do. I personally do not think that killing and destruction advance the human condition. It is shocking to find out how many people do.

You have not sounded much like a pacifist on this thread, claiming that the Americans "helped" in WWII. They had no business in the war at all. Any pacifist would know that. BTW, their involvement started long before Pearl Harbor. Did you think it came as a bolt out of the blue?

BTW, your name and tagline are not exactly pacifist either... but I'll let you away with that since this is just a game, after all.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

...You have not sounded much like a pacifist on this thread, claiming that the Americans "helped" in WWII. They had no business in the war at all. Any pacifist would know that. BTW, their involvement started long before Pearl Harbor. Did you think it came as a bolt out of the blue?

BTW, your name and tagline are not exactly pacifist either... but I'll let you away with that since this is just a game, after all.

You are what I like to classify as an Elitist ignoramus pacifist. If you think the US had no business in a war in which it lost hundreds of sailors in the raid on Pearl Harbor, then you are ignorant. Maybe the real reason for America joining the war in Europe wasn't the slaughtering of the Jewish (and in fact many non-Aryan) people, but since they were being slaughtered, that is a great reason for a pacifist to agree with intervention. If you think a pacifist should live in a mud-hut and smoke pot while singing kumbaya and ignoring mass slaughter, again, you are ignorant. Your elitist attitude to pacifism is sad and limited. If you think a pacifist who's house is being invaded will stand by while his wife is being raped and childred killed then, you are wrong. If you yourself (as quite the pacifist) would stand by and allow this to happen, then I say you are no pacifist, but a coward. Thanks for all your valuable input.

 

[Revolutionary]

@Abegweit

what does any of this have to due with Turks and Ottomans? this is completely off topic

if you wish to discuss WW2 open a thread in the World History forum in the Colosseum

 

[Abegweit]

You are what I like to classify as an Elitist ignoramus pacifist. If you think the US had no business in a war in which it lost hundreds of sailors in the raid on Pearl Harbor, then you are ignorant.

You really do think Pearl Harbor came out of the blue. Yet another comment on the state of American education.

Maybe the real reason for America joining the war in Europe wasn't the slaughtering of the Jewish (and in fact many non-Aryan) people, but since they were being slaughtered, that is a great reason for a pacifist to agree with intervention.

If the purpose of American intervention was to prevent the slaughter of innocents - instead of to cause it - then they quite clearly should have sided with the Germans. The Soviets had already killed millions and the Brits had their campaign well underway while, even according to the official story, the Germans had not even started. Perhaps they wouldn't have if the Americans had not intervened. As you say, who can know? Just don't pretend that American motives were any more noble than those of anyone else, or that it had anything to do with preventing the slaughter of innocents. Quite the contrary. They killed millions, just like every other one of the major powers in the war.

If you think a pacifist should live in a mud-hut and smoke pot while singing kumbaya and ignoring mass slaughter, again, you are ignorant. Your elitist attitude to pacifism is sad and limited. If you think a pacifist who's house is being invaded will stand by while his wife is being raped and childred killed then, you are wrong. If you yourself (as quite the pacifist) would stand by and allow this to happen, then I say you are no pacifist, but a coward. Thanks for all your valuable input.

Such a quintessentially American rant. However, this has nothing to do either with pacifism or history.

 

[scorp24]

minci, nobody was hating on the turks until u started this thread. now, everyone is bashing u. u brought this upon urself. good job.
ps. turkey has never been a great empire - it was average at best. totally overrated.