Ummm. Let's assume this is true, and I don't reject it. What exactly does it have to do with twits who claim that the war was won by the American?
Nothing. I was merely disproving your assertion that the Russian's won the war before the American's became involved. The truth is not so clear cut. The fact is that the synergy of America's vast industrial capacity, the juggernaut that the Russian Armed forces BECAME, along with the Allied bombing campaign won the war.
This is utter bullfeathers. Lend-lease did not supply more than a marginal amount of fuel. Furthermore, the Russians won the war on the ground.
While it is easy to dispute exact totals about what was delivered to Russia, since the information is derived from Russian manifests, what can not be disputed is that it allowed Stalin to maintain an almost 100% war economy. Without American aid, Russia would have had to keep millions of its population engaged in jobs that maintained their infrastructure instead of throwing them into the meat grinder that was the Eastern Front.
Your statement that the war was won on the ground demostrates that you have little concept of how WW2 was actually fought. In the European theatre all sides developed and used combined arms stategems that involved the coordinated use of armor, mechanized infantry, artilery and close air support assets acting in cohesion. Air superiority or at least equivalency was a neccessary component of maintaining any advance. Without it armored units could easilier be separated from their infantry support and destroyed.
Oh agreed. The Japanese never offered to unconditionally surrender. What exactly is your point? Do you think that unconditional surrender is a reasonable demand?
Strike that question. I'm sure you do.
No the Japanese never offered to surrender before the atomic bomb droppings period. The condition that Hirohito be respected was offered when they made their unconditional surrender. Since all the allies where in agreement that Japan had to be demilitarized, it is extremely unlikely that the military junta would have agreed to any terms the allies considered necessary for a surrender prior to an invasion or the eventual dropping of the bomb.
Nonsense. Stalin and Churchill got far more than him.
I find it amusing that you took my assertion that your statement that General Stillwell gave lend lease materials to Mao was factually inaccurate and impossible, out of context to try and make a point.
Not true. Chinese Lend Lease materials went to Chiang Kai-Shek exclusively.
There happy?
Oh indeed he broke them all and it is proof that it doesn't work. He has learnt the lesson. People like Saddam Hussein who listen to American lies wind up in prison and their children are murdered. Every other tinpot dictator in the world understands the message too. Either cowtow to the thugs or make sure you have the means to retaliate against them.
What? Support for Saddam Hussein happened because he was considered the lesser of two evils when Iran was the international bogey man under Khomeini. He could have easily negotiated a peaceful withdrawl from Kuwait but instead choose to pit a third rate military against the combined might of the western world using WW I tactics. If you have followed any of the events of his trial you would realize that he is being tried for events that occurred after American support was withdrawn from his regime.
You work it out. A million people died and tens of millions more had their lives destroyed. Perhaps there might have been another alternative?
You have still failed to demostrate how this was Gandhi's fault. He was always working towards an unified India through peaceful means. He treated Muslim's and Hindu's as equals since they were all Indians first to him. If extremists decided to tear apart the country after his death how can he be blamed? As for alternative means what would you propose? Elements of the Indian army where in revolt against their British masters after WW2. If Gandhi hadn't created the means and pressure for Britain to leave there likely would have massacre's of the British population in India.
It never ceases to amaze me that people make this claim. It's a lie, but even if it wasn't... Palestinians exist and it revolts me to hear people put down their aspirations and steal their homes under such premises.
Ok show me when an identifiable people lived in an independent country called Palestine. I think that the people that have come to be called the Palestinians have to have a homeland of their own. I simply have little sympathy for them. They are their own worst enemies. They have repeatably turned away from opportunities to trade peace and recognition of Isreal for a homeland. In 1977 the PLO and all Palestinian militants since then adopted an OFFICIAL policy of excepting peace and land whenever offered by Isreal and then resume attacking them as soon as possible. With the stated purpose of destroying the nation of Isreal. This was amply demostrated last year when after the Israeli's withdrew from the Gaza strip, Hamas began a missile launching compaign within days. Furthermore they ensure that the conflict continues through indoctrinating their children to hate Jews from birth. Peter Worthington a journalist for the Toronto Sun chronicled in the '90s while travelling through the middle east how they teach their children math.
If there are 7 Jews in a store and a matyr walks in and kills 4 of them how many are left?
With such an attitude and indoctrination in hatred is it surprising that three generations have fought a futile conflict against a militarily superior enemy who is equally fanatical in the defense of their homeland. They are people without a home. The first step towards a reasonable solution has to come for them. Yet they always resort to violence. "They started it", is small comfort when a Merkava has driven through your home.
Yeah. And what? The proof that this scenario would have no consequence is that no country in the world has one. Their militaries are smarter than you.
No country has one because you don't have to make a dirty bomb. You simply replace the conventional explosives in a missile with radioactive material. A matter of a few hours work. One of the reasons why the west is hesitant to invade North Korea or Iran is that they could not be certain that the ruling forces of each respective country would give a damn about the consequences if they thought they where in danger of being deposed.
I've withdrawn from an exhausting full-scale ideological debate, but I'm curious to read counter-arguments to what seem to be common sense. Nevertheless, I think things are starting to become much clearer to me. Anti-establishment is not only fashionable among those punks in the streets 
