Stiltzkin wrote:The only thing I see is hurt egos, people trying to squeeze out every little percentage to make it look as if the WAllies were the be all and end of all things, you are just more academic about it than the others (this is the equivalent of those Wehrmacht fanboys, "if they had produced more Tigers, they would have won", or those Russian ultranationalists, who want to tell us that Talinn, Riga and Kiev are rightfully theirs).
Wow, you sure did miss the point. Where, exactly, in my statement, did you find my "fanboism" for the "WAllies" coming out? Was it when I pointed out the deliberate distortion of the numbers used by the OP?
Meanwhile, I admit to getting a tad irritated when the OP decides to channel the late Trevor Dupuy and deliberately distorts his work to fit his own inane ideas. I WORKED
for Trevor for nearly ten years and for TDI for more than another ten years doing the same work. I had extended daily DISCUSSIONS
with him regarding this work. I ATTENDED
his funeral at Arlington. I WORKED
on the QJM/TNDM. I DID
the work researching the new data and checking the original engagements. I UNDERSTAND
the intent behind the QJM/TNDM.
The pinnacle of military effectiveness and the sole saviours of mankind. If this was really the case (and I think Guaporense stated this before), then the WAllies would have been more serious (and comptetent and here he draws a connection beteween WW1 and WW2) about an effective strategy to contain Hitlers expansion earlier (interventions in the 39 campaign or perhaps even before). I understand that some people are a bit more "patriotic" about it, but this, "the GI was superior to everyone" (S.E. Ambrose mentality), is ridiculous.
Seriously? Again, where did I say anything, anywhere, that resembles this strawman of yours? How is a focus on accurate numbers jingoistic?
Everyone in this forum should be able to realize that the EF was the decisive front in the vast Nazi-Soviet conflict. It was the suffereing of the slavic population that stands unprecedented.
No, everyone in this forum should be able to realize that the EF was A
decisive front in the vast WORLDWIDE
conflict. Yes, it was the decisive front in the vast Nazi-Soviet conflict..but there was rather more to the worldwide war then that. Hint: that is why it is called World
War II rather than the "Nazi-Soviet War".
The "Free World" was also very hesitant about fighting the Communists. Not only did they sell out the eastern European countries to the Communists, the Americans also woke up pretty late to counteract the aggressive expansion in Asia (with the power vacuum of a destroyed Germany and Japan the USSR could expand unhindered), only when a poor 3rd World country like Korea was being left and overturned.
I always love it when perfect irrelevancies get thrown into an argument, because it is so easy then to ignore them.
I do not always agree with Guaporense, he could be a bit more diplomatic about his statements. I do think he slightly diminishes the contributions of some nations but his statements should not be dismissed so hastily, they are based on research.
"Research"? Seriously? Posting a number pulled from thin air and then doing a Wiki search to find something "he remembers reading sometime" that matches it is not "research". If you believe it is, then your fundamental error on this point is rather self evident.
The effectiveness of strategic bombing is still disputed, if anything it was an effective way of killing civilians, but that is what the Nazis were primarily doing in the their wake of destruction anyway. It was retribution.
Sigh...no, it was tit for tat of course, but it was not "retribution". If it was retribution, then the American daylight bombing effort would not have been so obsessed with bombing accuracy metrics and hitting the specific target.
And of course its effectiveness is still disputed, it was disputed at the time. If you actually read the USSBS and BBS reports you will often find how they describe the difficulty of finding measures of effectiveness. In many ways, the sum of their parts do not in fact equal the whole, bt then the summary reports, particularly in the case of the USSBS European War summary, were political documents advocating for an independent U.S. Air Force rather than a measures of effectiveness report.
All of which again has zero to do with the distortion of facts and figures by the OP.
If anything, his posts have more of a leftist character, not comparable to Goebbels or Trump (and I do not think that mentioning Trump in one sentence with Goebbels is a proper observation).
Totalitarian propaganda is totalitarian propaganda, whether it comes from the extreme left or the extreme right. However, if you believe that Trump's lying is somehow superior to Goebbels' lying or vice versa, then so be it.