T1B

Mikey wrote:

Van wrote: The U.S. sure did get off relatively lightly, compared to quite a few other countries during that war. Reading about the Japanese, christ, they suffered 90% casualty rates in some battles.

On a percentage basis though, woo, it was the poor Poles who suffered the worst of any country in the entire war...

This is generally the case when a war is fought on your turf.

sin,
MA

Like I said, we haven't had a home game since 1865. Pearl harbor doesn't count because it was a sneak attack and no actual battles were fought on US soil.

I'm sure the Philippinos will be happy to know that you've traveled back in time and granted them their independence before 1941.

Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union though. The Soviet Union as a whole didn't lose as high of a percentage of their people in that war as Poland did.

The Soviet Union only got the silver medal there...

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

The fact that Poland lost nearly 10% of their entire population to the Holocaust, that pushed them to the gold.

Read the list...

...nevermind.

True, but were any people more used to abuse before WW2 than the Ukrainians?


Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Mikey wrote:no actual battles were fought on US soil.

Actually, there was fighting in Alaska. Relatively insignificant, but technically battles on U.S. soil.

RadioFan wrote:

Mikey wrote:no actual battles were fought on US soil.

Actually, there was fighting in Alaska. Relatively insignificant, but technically battles on U.S. soil.

The Japanese attacked Oregon more than once during WW2. Port Orford (south coast) and Ft. Stevens (upper left corner near the mouth of the Columbia) were the two "big" attacks.

Ft. Stevens is now a state park, and some of the artillery used to fend of the attack is still there.

Matter of fact, Japanese bombs killed 6 people in Oregon.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... regon.html

Dinsdale wrote:Matter of fact, Japanese bombs killed 6 people in Oregon.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... regon.html

Not exactly a large proportion of the total US casualty count.

I wonder if WWII Phillipino casualties get counted as "United States" in the statistics.

Dinsdale wrote:True, but were any people more used to abuse before WW2 than the Ukrainians?


Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

it was your people getting buttfukked in the mouth there dins, not the ukranians or russkies.

But you are right about the ukes being used to getting fukked. Stalin did them as savagely as this board does mstool.

Hitler really missed a chance in not playing the liberator angle.

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:I wonder if WWII Phillipino casualties get counted as "United States" in the statistics.

No.

Weren't the Phillipine armed forces, such as they were, considered part of the US Army at the time?

Mvscal, how do you figure Ukraine wasn't part of the USSR? Ukraine, like a lot of the original USSR countries, was "occupied" by the Soviets. They were still official founding members of the Soviet Union...the USSR.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_ ... viet_Union

In any case though, yep, Ukraine got hit the absolute hardest. 7.5 million from 19 million definitely takes the cake among countries that are now their own sovereign countries.

Anyway, you find the weirdest things when you start looking these things up. Well, I do, anyway.

For example, maybe you already knew all about these wars but some of the entries on this list blew me away...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... death_toll

Never knew just how insanely brutal the Chinese have been. I admit I wasn't aware of the "An Shi Rebellion." Man, 33,000,000 to 36,000,000 million killed in only one country, during a seven year span of the eighth century?

Depending on whose estimate you use that's something akin to the entire death total of WWII and the eighth century Chinese didn't have the advantages of WWII weaponry and travel.

That's just mind boggling, the sheer barbarism that must've been involved in starving and otherwise killing that many people, that quickly...

Van wrote:
Never knew just how insanely brutal the Chinese have been. I admit I wasn't aware of the "An Shi Rebellion." Man, 33,000,000 to 36,000,000 million killed in only one country, during a seven year span of the eighth century?

Depending on whose estimate you use that's something akin to the entire death total of WWII and the eighth century Chinese didn't have the advantages of WWII weaponry and travel.

That's just mind boggling, the sheer barbarism that must've been involved in starving and otherwise killing that many people, that quickly...

Can you imagine what the population of China would be today without the occasional timely culling?
Those people must procreate like rabbits.


BTW...the Khmer Rouge is supposed to have killed about 20% of the population of Cambodia in a four year span.

Mikey, true, but the Chinese lost 2/3rds of their entire population during one seven year stretch there. That's just hard to fathom, especially considering the fact that they had no benefit of modern weaponry. They basically had to kill each other the old fashioned way, one at a time, along with that whole starvation bitch.

I just find that 32,000,000-36,000,000 number over only seven years time to be absolutely incredible. Look at the death totals for WWII and think about how those numbers were achieved and then try to imagine how similar numbers in only one country could've been achieved over nearly the same time span...in the eighth century, minus any mass killing weaponry.

The lack of regard for human life, the sheer bloodlust...these people were animals.

Mikey wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Matter of fact, Japanese bombs killed 6 people in Oregon.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... regon.html

Not exactly a large proportion of the total US casualty count.

Actually, I think it's a 100% proportion of civilians killed in the Lower 48 (which was the only 48 at the time, obviously).

Best:

1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. Jefferson
4. FDR
5. Reagan

Worst:

1. Jimmah

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:They were still official founding members of the Soviet Union...the USSR.

Not by choice.

It wasn't necessarily the choice of many of the other members of the USSR either. They all still count though as being part of the USSR in WWII and that's a large part of how the USSR came to have 23,000,000-27,000,000 million deaths during the war.

By your numbers 7.5 million of those deaths were Ukrainian.

Between the forced collectivization induced mass starvation in the 30s and partisan warfare in WW2, Stalin killed far more Ukranians than the Germans ever did.

Stalin made Hitler look like Pol Pot. Hitler was as evil as evil gets but Stalin tripled Hitler's death total in his own country so I'm not sure why Hitler is usually reviled as the biggest monster of the 20th century. Stalin was every bit as twisted and evil as Hitler, and far more prolific.

I thought you were the one who wanted to split hairs and give proper credit where it was due?

Giving proper credit, yes, though I really don't think that acknowledging the Soviets' overwhelming importance in the war against Hitler could be considered "splitting hairs." I'd say it's more a case of pointing out what ought to be bloody obvious.

The postwar Soviet claims of the "suffering" of their civilian population ring hollow when most of that suffering was really Ukranian suffering and a good portion of that was inflicted by the Red Army and their associated partisans.

True, and the Stalingrad and Moscow civilian suffering during those two sieges was nothing to sneeze at either.

Mvscal, off the topic, if you don't mind my asking...

What do you do for a living? Is it in some way tied to a need for military history knowledge?

More to the point, how did you come by your passion for history and the history of warfare? It can't solely be explained by the time you spent in the military. Plenty of ex-military types are dumber than rocks and equally inquisitive. They know no more about history than a box of bagels.

What's your story there?

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote: minus any mass killing weaponry.

You get about ten or twenty thousand men (maybe more) all armed with semi-automatic crossbows and you can do a lot of killing in pretty short span of time.

Just picturing such a scene...and wishing Mel Gibson was intimately involved with the business end of it.

Stalin? Hitler?

Amateurs.

The alltime heavyweight killin' champ is chairman Mao. If you consider the 30 million or so deaths attributed to WWII to be on the hands of Hitler and Stalin, that gets them almost half way to Mao's numbers.

Figures vary widely, but, I have seen the number 70 million used.

So, for everybody that wants to bag on railroad barrons for dragging them poor chinks here, I'd say they did them a favor.

Van wrote: Stalin made Hitler look like Pol Pot. Hitler was as evil as evil gets but Stalin tripled Hitler's death total in his own country so I'm not sure why Hitler is usually reviled as the biggest monster of the 20th century. Stalin was every bit as twisted and evil as Hitler, and far more prolific.

That's an easy one. Stalin was on the winning team.

smackaholic wrote:

Van wrote: Stalin made Hitler look like Pol Pot. Hitler was as evil as evil gets but Stalin tripled Hitler's death total in his own country so I'm not sure why Hitler is usually reviled as the biggest monster of the 20th century. Stalin was every bit as twisted and evil as Hitler, and far more prolific.

That's an easy one. Stalin was on the winning team.

For the time being, anyway. Ultimately he lost, as did his team.

Hitler wore much cooler "Evil Guy" outfits. His henchmen looked much more the part, plus he had that whole shaking his fist and screaming like a faggot madman thing going on...

Van wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

Van wrote: Stalin made Hitler look like Pol Pot. Hitler was as evil as evil gets but Stalin tripled Hitler's death total in his own country so I'm not sure why Hitler is usually reviled as the biggest monster of the 20th century. Stalin was every bit as twisted and evil as Hitler, and far more prolific.

That's an easy one. Stalin was on the winning team.

For the time being, anyway. Ultimately he lost, as did his team.

Hitler wore much cooler "Evil Guy" outfits. His henchmen looked much more the part, plus he had that whole shaking his fist and screaming like a faggot madman thing going on...

Don't forget the part about Hitler holding a special place in the hearts of the evil Jews, thought manipulators of the entire universe. That pretty much locks up the number 1 arsehole title for the 20th century

Well, Uncle Joe wasn't exactly a recurring member of Seinfeld either...

No doubt. He has a solid lock on the silver medal. And you could argue that his evilness had a larger aeffect than mao's since mao pretty much kept his evil doings in house other than korea and a few other zipperhead countries that pretty much nobody cares about.

a few other zipperhead countries that pretty much nobody cares about.

Sorry kinda missed the jew connection at first with the seinfeld mention.

Yeah, joe killed a whole buncha jews, but, unlike adolph, I don't think his motivation had much to do with their being jew. He was pretty much an equal opportunity murderer. If he thought that you might possibly have beliefs that didn't fit in with his plan, you were fukking dead. Any sort of religious beliefs meant you were giving props to someone other than uncle joe and that sure the fukk wasn't gonna fly.

Van wrote:

a few other zipperhead countries that pretty much nobody cares about.

Since seeing gran torino a few weeks ago, zipperhead is pretty much my favorite ethnic slur. I like to break it out any chance I get.

mvscal wrote: I've been getting more into economic and social history over the last few years, though.

you mean the way we been holdin' the brothas down?

Any of these stats you post can be found in seconds. A truly educated mind shows range and a moral conscience, for starters. You have shown nothing but childish bigotry and very short little snippets that reveal an all-but complete lack of range--and no real wit. Rove considers himself very intelligent and informed as well, btw. Same with William Buckley, yet another total fraud--like you. :wink:

at least we don't suck jew cock.

Yeah, but eating jew pussy would be nice. :twisted:

.m2 wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:More to the point, how did you come by your passion for history and the history of warfare? It can't solely be explained by the time you spent in the military. Plenty of ex-military types are dumber than rocks and equally inquisitive. They know no more about history than a box of bagels.

What's your story there?

I have a degree in history...unused professionally. My mother was a history teacher so some of the first books I read that weren't See Spot Run were history texts. I've been studying military history recreationally for about 30 years now. I've been getting more into economic and social history over the last few years, though.

Wow, you take out the recreational forays into military history and substitute "librarian" for "history teacher" and you've got a pretty good picture of myself. I still have the first history book I ever read. It was my pop's HS American History textbook. I read it cover to cover when I was 10-11 years old. I then read it at least another 50 times. IMO, it was the best story I'd ever read. In some ways it still is.

1,3,4,7,8,6,5,2

7,1,3,4,8,6,2,5

4, 8, 2, 7, 5, 6, 1, 3

7, 3, 8, 1, 5, 4, 6, 2

None of the bottom half are anything to write home about, though.

Rack Tom for posting the other pics. Is that someone I should recognize?

War Wagon wrote:Your boy TVO and the lib media have had epiletic fits over 4,000 dead in Iraq, but that's beside the point.

Just to be clear. I had an epileptic fit after Therrel Childers was KIA.

BTW- Nice spelling asshat.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

Nice watch.

Hey sailor! Not for nothing was I referred to as "The Mattress"

Martyred wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:

Nice watch.

at first glance it looked like something you usually don't see watches on.