Racially motivated violence at World Cup..

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Fair point, the far right are growing in Europe. Membership of such groups has grown from fractions of a percent to slightly larger fractions of a percent. This does not equal genocide or any other kind of impending doom.

Fractions of 1%? The most popular political party in Switzerland won with slogans and banners with sayings such as "The Swiss are becoming Negroes." Far-right parties are prevalent in France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, UK, etc. Nazi-like parties are involved in state assemblies in Germany.

Really? My mistake, all the "spread the blame!" stuff may have indicated to me that there was blame to spread from myself to someone else :roll:

:roll:

You were trying to pawn off the atrocities of the British Empire onto others. You are not the British Empire.

I'd say a genocide in Europe is about as likely as gays being rounded up in America and sent to concentraton camps.

Considering that many European governments including the UK, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and others all supported concentration camps in the African desert for refugees, I think that there is a higher chance of the genocide in Europe thing!

So there will be a kind of generalized meta-genocide involving everyone who's not white?...

Anyone can be an undesirable. Asian, Black, Buddhist, Scientologist, Muslim, etc.

Anyone can be scapegoat or hated in European society. Unfortunately, history repeatedly shows that they will be genocided... unless action is taken now.

Take a section of the US about as big as germany. Perhaps somewhere in the bible belt, perhaps Texas. How many do you think would support a ban on the building of mosques? How many more if some politician got them fired up about mosques being training centers for terrorists? That Morgan Spurlock 30-days thing makes me think quite a few.

Hey, why don't we take the survey at a KKK rally? I am talking about the entire nation, not a subset. The results would probably be incredibly worse off if we limited the survey to just Eastern Germany or a Nazi-like organization.

I'm going offline for a while. If there's a genocide while I'm gone, let me know.

I don't think that you would want to hear about it 🙁

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I think that the potential for another genocide in Europe is growing by the day.

Please stop saying things like that, you go on about it a lot, it is extremely unhelpful.

Last time we talked, you told me that _I_ wanted to genocide _you_ (or your whole race, or whatever) because I am from Europe... Of course, we (the British) were fighting the Nazi genocide well before the Americans decided to get involved for their own reasons, yet you seemed blissfully unaware of that fact. Little of what you say made sense to me then and it still doesn't.

Of course the US has flaws and has made many mistakes, but don't forget that WE were responsible for saving western europe from living under Hitler/Nazism for who knows how many years.

You may want to read about ww2, the russians are the ones that took the nazis down, we came in and mopped up at the last minute before the russians grabbed all of it.

United States Casualties (Including pacific theatre) 407,300

USSR Casualties 10,700,000

The number of deaths doesn't really mean much, nor any other single statistic.

US industry + Soviet manpower + British resolve + probably many other factors = WW2 win in Europe

US industry was not a major factor for the soviets, the UK, yes.

But yeah, the nazis got stomped, but then the soviets were not all that great either, WW2 was a draw really in europe. At least we saved some of europe before it was too late. (That which we didnt bomb to rubble)

The US provided an overwhelming amount of supplies to the Russians, even in some important raw materials. Hell, even Zhukov mentioned it himself.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I think that the potential for another genocide in Europe is growing by the day.

Please stop saying things like that, you go on about it a lot, it is extremely unhelpful.

Last time we talked, you told me that _I_ wanted to genocide _you_ (or your whole race, or whatever) because I am from Europe... Of course, we (the British) were fighting the Nazi genocide well before the Americans decided to get involved for their own reasons, yet you seemed blissfully unaware of that fact. Little of what you say made sense to me then and it still doesn't.

Of course the US has flaws and has made many mistakes, but don't forget that WE were responsible for saving western europe from living under Hitler/Nazism for who knows how many years.

You may want to read about ww2, the russians are the ones that took the nazis down, we came in and mopped up at the last minute before the russians grabbed all of it.

United States Casualties (Including pacific theatre) 407,300

USSR Casualties 10,700,000

Germany 5,500,000


There is literally no comparison, the germans were long since doomed before we came into the picture.

Wow, good job pal. You posted some simple numbers to prove a point...yet you proved nothing that we all didn't already know (That the USSR suffered the most casualities.

Casualities do not indicate much, other than which country suffered more. The Nazis would not have been defeated if it wasn't for both the US and the USSR, but don't for one second think that the USSR was completely responsible for defeating Germany. German was split between the two fronts, resources/manpower stretched thin.

Get back to me when the Russians did anything significant on the western front. Thanks.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Excelsior


Get back to me when the Russians did anything significant on the western front. Thanks.

Hmm, like maybe the fact that the only major offense the germans could muster after being thrashed by the russians on the eastern front still resulted in the biggest surrender of our forces in the history of the US military ever?

We did pull through and kicked the germans ass in the end after getting it handed to us good, mind you the germans were in pathetic condition by this point in the war.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Excelsior


Get back to me when the Russians did anything significant on the western front. Thanks.

Hmm, like maybe the fact that the only major offense the germans could muster after being thrashed by the russians on the eastern front still resulted in the biggest surrender of our forces in the history of the US military ever?

😕

 

[chcarnage]

Glad to read that nobody fears that the situation will escalate at the World Cup.

Except the one who doesn't know Jack about Swiss politics, didn't grasp the concept of ius sanguinis/solis and still is wondering why there's no refugee camp in Africa despite the overwhelming support the idea has gotten in Europe.

That's as good as it gets. To those who are interested I wish an exciting world cup! :beer:

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Excelsior


Get back to me when the Russians did anything significant on the western front. Thanks.

Hmm, like maybe the fact that the only major offense the germans could muster after being thrashed by the russians on the eastern front still resulted in the biggest surrender of our forces in the history of the US military ever?

😕

Opening of the battle of the bulge, in american history books you only hear how we did win in the end, but not how badly we got thrashed when the germans had a decent amount of supply/strength at the start. It could not have lasted, the germans were without proper ammo and their forces were a mess from the soviets and such a long war.

We did win big in the end though, it was a total waste of what resources the germans had left and we pretty much rolled them up or they willingly surrendered to us facing the oncoming russians after that. But 10s of thousands of young americans were captured in the early part.

Now the pacific war, that was some USA ass kicking.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Opening of the battle of the bulge, in american history books you only hear how we did win in the end, but not how badly we got thrashed when the germans had a decent amount of supply/strength at the start. It could not have lasted, the germans were without proper ammo and their forces were a mess from the soviets and such a long war.

We did win big in the end though, it was a total waste of what resources the germans had left and we pretty much rolled them up or they willingly surrendered to us facing the oncoming russians after that. But 10s of thousands of young americans were captured in the early part.

Now the pacific war, that was some USA ass kicking.

The Battle of the Bulge involved Allied supply shortages. In fact, all sides had supply problems around that time. The Soviet advanced stopped because of supply shortages.

You're thinking too one-dimensionally. You mention the Germans getting thrashed by the Soviets on the Easter Front, but neglect the fact that the Soviet operation which preceded the Battle of the Bulge followed the transfer of German soldiers to Normandy. Everything is linked together. You can't just stop at one point.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Opening of the battle of the bulge, in american history books you only hear how we did win in the end, but not how badly we got thrashed when the germans had a decent amount of supply/strength at the start. It could not have lasted, the germans were without proper ammo and their forces were a mess from the soviets and such a long war.

We did win big in the end though, it was a total waste of what resources the germans had left and we pretty much rolled them up or they willingly surrendered to us facing the oncoming russians after that. But 10s of thousands of young americans were captured in the early part.

Now the pacific war, that was some USA ass kicking.

The Battle of the Bulge involved Allied supply shortages. In fact, all sides had supply problems around that time. The Soviet advanced stopped because of supply shortages.

You're thinking too one-dimensionally. You mention the Germans getting thrashed by the Soviets on the Easter Front, but neglect the fact that the Soviet operation which preceded the Battle of the Bulge followed the transfer of German soldiers to Normandy. Everything is linked together. You can't just stop at one point.

I am not saying we lost, we didnt. I am speaking of American POWs taken in a battle.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Opening of the battle of the bulge, in american history books you only hear how we did win in the end, but not how badly we got thrashed when the germans had a decent amount of supply/strength at the start. It could not have lasted, the germans were without proper ammo and their forces were a mess from the soviets and such a long war.

We did win big in the end though, it was a total waste of what resources the germans had left and we pretty much rolled them up or they willingly surrendered to us facing the oncoming russians after that. But 10s of thousands of young americans were captured in the early part.

Now the pacific war, that was some USA ass kicking.

The Battle of the Bulge involved Allied supply shortages. In fact, all sides had supply problems around that time. The Soviet advanced stopped because of supply shortages.

You're thinking too one-dimensionally. You mention the Germans getting thrashed by the Soviets on the Easter Front, but neglect the fact that the Soviet operation which preceded the Battle of the Bulge followed the transfer of German soldiers to Normandy. Everything is linked together. You can't just stop at one point.

I am not saying we lost, we didnt. I am speaking of American POWs taken in a battle.

😕

I am not disputing some sort of claim that you're saying the US lost. Nor am I disputing the number of American POWs.