Insider trading in congress

[Duncan Smith]

Re: Insider trading in congress

The casualties are not the main reason to be in the center. The US civilians were lucky to be far far away from the main battle fields (e.g., the Siege of Leningrad, Hiroshima/Dresden bombings)
As for military - it is like playing chess - one may sacrifices on left and right, while other simple overplays the opponent and then mates him.

The history is written by victors:

• Germany surrendered to the US and the SU;
• Japan capitulated to the US.

Did Germany surrender to the US or did they surrender to Western Allies ?
How many troops died in WW2 from each country ( lets ignore civilians ) ?

There is the truth and then there is spin. Spin is what people do when they choose to perceive actual events to match their personal politics. Spin would for example mean inserting the word "US" where "Western Allies" is more appropriate. I haven't done the research recently, but I would suggest you haven't either ( as for Kitich, he's hopeless but that's another topic ).

My opinion, all Canadians should respect the heritage of their country, which is primarily based on immigration from England and France. Revisionist history to appease Americans would be viewed as treasonous in the US if you reverse the roles. Anyone involved in a team effort would never simply credit the second half add-in player who put them "over the top" in a project as being central to the project. Its ridiculous to suggest that England for example has to justify their efforts in WWII and their partnership in winning the war. Absolutely ridiculous. Some would say horrendous.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Insider trading in congress

Did Germany surrender to the US or did they surrender to Western Allies ?
How many troops died in WW2 from each country ( lets ignore civilians ) ?

There is the truth and then there is spin. Spin is what people do when they choose to perceive actual events to match their personal politics. Spin would for example mean inserting the word "US" where "Western Allies" is more appropriate. I haven't done the research recently, but I would suggest you haven't either ( as for Kitich, he's hopeless but that's another topic ).

My opinion, all Canadians should respect the heritage of their country, which is primarily based on immigration from England and France. Revisionist history to appease Americans would be viewed as treasonous in the US if you reverse the roles. Anyone involved in a team effort would never simply credit the second half add-in player who put them "over the top" in a project as being central to the project. Its ridiculous to suggest that England for example has to justify their efforts in WWII and their partnership in winning the war. Absolutely ridiculous. Some would say horrendous.

Who said England has to justify anything? England has always acknowledged the role of US lend/lease and the convoy system in allowing them to maintain the struggle against the Nazis. If the US had not assisted England with it's economic might and it's military might there would have been no D-Day. In fact if the U-boats had not been broken and if Bletchley park had not cracked the Enigma code England would not have been able to hold up for long without food or war material. Last time I checked the English were very grateful and still are to the US.

You're the one who is putting down the role of the US to apparently engrandize the role that Canada played and to start arguments on chesstalk. News flash, Canada is not just England and French and has not been since forever. Do you even acknowledge the Scotts and the Irish? How about the Chinese that built the railway? How about the natives that were already here?

Really can't you just find a lawyer like you just warned me you were going to do and we can have this out in court?

[Duncan Smith]

Re: Insider trading in congress

[QUOTE=Zeljko Kitich;45051][QUOTE=Duncan Smith;45047]

Please Duncan, please, please sue me. I would love to take on your meglomaniac personality and test my knowledge of history in a court of law. Making up outrageus lies denying the role of US veterans in WW1 & WW2 is not something I'm prepared to just let stand. There are lots of witnesses I could call to court from the chess community as to your propensity to say any lie you think will get an argument started. All I seem to have done to cross you is post my opinion without your prior approval or instigation as you put it.

Come on Duncan sue me, you know you want to. Tell me what I can say to make you sue me and I'll gladly do it. Draw your line in the sand and I'll cross it. Let's see your zero tolerance in action.

That's your idea of histoical research looking things up on google. FYI, the current Russian casualty figures are estimated by historians to be about 20 million. All you've managed to prove is that WW1 & WW2 were not fought in America but by America. Well done, you have managed to google and find out what every grade 8 student already knows.

Your childish post is a strong reminder of the low life human being you are.
People like you should be avoided.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Insider trading in congress

I'm not a history expert but I was well educated at one point on WW2.

Anyone thinking the US was the central party in defeating Germany in WW2 is sadly mistaken and needs to do that research for themselves. Is there something about this topic that confuses you ? I think Canadian schools do ( did? ) some good coverage on the topic without the usual propoganda you get from some sources.

I just Googled estimated casualties and the US and UK had around 400k and Russia 8-10 million. That's just a surface check I'm sure with more in depth research it will be even more clear that the US was NOT the central party in the war, they were at best a partner with others in the latter half of the war
( remember, they entered the war late ).

Do not reply arrogantly again suggesting I do research. If you must, reply with properly stated facts and statistics that support your theory. Otherwise, just shut the hell up.

It's obvious of course that the US did not *suffer* the worst of anyone in the war - in fact they came out of WW2 in the best position of anyone, really.

Just because they did not suffer, however, does not mean they were not central to winning the war.

Imagine for a moment that they had appeased Japan and stayed neutral. Japan can now turn more resources into beating up the British. Germany likely wins in North Africa, allowing them to open up a southern front against the Soviets and gain more access to oil. Without the help of US warships and planes, the U-boats are far more effective at cutting the UK off.

USSR came very close to losing in 1941... what if Japan had attacked Kamchatka instead of Pearl Harbor, thus cutting off shipping from the USA, and also preventing 250,000 Soviet troops from moving from the East to attack the Germans in the Winter Offensive?

Ignoring all the what if scenarios, by the end of the war the USA accounted for 40% of all global military production. Their factories produced tanks and guns and trucks and ammunition for every single allied country.

When the British found out their tanks couldn't beat the German tanks, they went to the USA for help and got M3 and later M4 tanks which could. Later in the war it was the USA's P-51 (with a British engine) which enabled the accurate daylight bomber raids over Germany without excessive casualties.

I could go on, but since you'll just ignore any reasonable arguments I or anyone else make, there's no real point, is there?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Insider trading in congress

[QUOTE=Zeljko Kitich;45029][QUOTE=Duncan Smith;45026]

America by and large works and has saved the world in at least two world wars.

Do World War One 1914 to 1918 and World War Two 1939 to 1945 ring any bells? Or did you think Britain was going to win WW2 on their own and reclaim Europe without any US material and military aid? Especially in light of the Nazi/Soviet non-agression pact. Do you know about Roosevelt's 'lend/lease' program? Or do you think the stalemate on the western front in World War One was somehow going to end itself before the Americans arrived?

I don't recall about WW 1 but in WW II Canada was long in the war before the U.S. joined. Canadians were sent to England and flew missions from there. Newfoundland was still under Britain and did not join Canada until 1949. One told me he fought along with the British troops. He had been a Seargent and they busted his rank which he let me to believe was standard for soldiers from Nfld.

I think before the U.S. entered the fighting they were supplying equipment. Going from memory, the RAF 180 was flying U.S. Mitchell bombers.

The Americans were part of the effort but, in my opinion, they did not win the war single handedly.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Insider trading in congress

WWI the Americans definitely helped, even if only by giving the other soldiers some time to rotate out of the front line. What really turned the tide of the war was the introduction of mass tank formations, mostly by the British, and what ended the war was the Spanish Flu...

Without help from the USA via Lend-Lease and similar actions, it's questionable whether Britain could have stayed in the fight, and even the USSR received a fair amount of support in this way, although a far lower percentage of their total military materiel came from the USA than was the case in Britain.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Insider trading in congress

Imagine for a moment that they had appeased Japan and stayed neutral.

Japan attacked the Americans at Pearl Harbour. In addition Japan occupied a couple of the Aleutien Islands.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Insider trading in congress

Don't forget the Philippines.

But that wasn't my point - I was making the point of what might have happened had the USA not been dragged into the war. If you prefer, instead of appeasement we can simply say that Japan realised it would be foolish/stupid to attack the USA and simply did not do so.

[Duncan Smith]

Re: Insider trading in congress

It's obvious of course that the US did not *suffer* the worst of anyone in the war - in fact they came out of WW2 in the best position of anyone, really.

Just because they did not suffer, however, does not mean they were not central to winning the war.

Imagine for a moment that they had appeased Japan and stayed neutral. Japan can now turn more resources into beating up the British. Germany likely wins in North Africa, allowing them to open up a southern front against the Soviets and gain more access to oil. Without the help of US warships and planes, the U-boats are far more effective at cutting the UK off.

USSR came very close to losing in 1941... what if Japan had attacked Kamchatka instead of Pearl Harbor, thus cutting off shipping from the USA, and also preventing 250,000 Soviet troops from moving from the East to attack the Germans in the Winter Offensive?

Ignoring all the what if scenarios, by the end of the war the USA accounted for 40% of all global military production. Their factories produced tanks and guns and trucks and ammunition for every single allied country.

When the British found out their tanks couldn't beat the German tanks, they went to the USA for help and got M3 and later M4 tanks which could. Later in the war it was the USA's P-51 (with a British engine) which enabled the accurate daylight bomber raids over Germany without excessive casualties.

I could go on, but since you'll just ignore any reasonable arguments I or anyone else make, there's no real point, is there?

I think its clear from this thread that the true reality of a situation is less important here then what the perceived reality is of a very small group of people. I couldn't care less what the majority on Chesstalk thinks. If it pains you to see someone support the UK/USSR effort in WW2, too bad, you will have to deal with this. What is unacceptable is the attempt ( with your last comment ) and the posts from Kitich ( the "lies" ) to discredit me personally within the concept of this thread. This is unacceptable and dirty pool. If you truly want to have a respected chess community, this kind of behaviour cannot continue to run unchecked. My opinion. You may think otherwise, that you like this over-the-top combative nature in chess players. I've grown tired of it, I refuse to play ball anymore.

[Duncan Smith]

Re: Insider trading in congress

Don't forget the Philippines.

But that wasn't my point - I was making the point of what might have happened had the USA not been dragged into the war. If you prefer, instead of appeasement we can simply say that Japan realised it would be foolish/stupid to attack the USA and simply did not do so.

Japan did attack the US.

Imagine if the UK and USSR had just rolled over to Germany. Might have changed world history. Oh sorry, didn't want to upset your theory. After all, the US always had an easy time dealing with USSR later on, so a gigantic Germany would have been easy to deal with ?

Consider a football game where the defence holds the opposition in check for 55 minutes and the team is losing 6-0. The offence does nothing until the final 5 minutes then drives for a touchdown and wins 7-6. Who won the game for the team ? Must have been that offence right ?

ps All this talk about the strength of the US and one might ask why they
lost in Vietnam and struggle to maintain order in Iraq. Maybe it was the
Allied team that won the war ? Oh sorry, your theories are under scrutiny
again; I bow down to your infinite war wisdom and certainly the US is
dominant military power that can achieve anything ( George Bush told me
so, it must be true ).

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Insider trading in congress

I've grown tired of it, I refuse to play ball anymore.

And yet, you continue to return!

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Insider trading in congress

Japan did attack the US.

Imagine if the UK and USSR had just rolled over to Germany. Might have changed world history. Oh sorry, didn't want to upset your theory. After all, the US always had an easy time dealing with USSR later on, so a gigantic Germany would have been easy to deal with ?

... what? I'm not even sure that qualifies as a tangent. My point was that USSR/UK could not have won the war without the USA.

Consider a football game where the defence holds the opposition in check for 55 minutes and the team is losing 6-0. The offence does nothing until the final 5 minutes then drives for a touchdown and wins 7-6. Who won the game for the team ? Must have been that offence right ?

So Dec 1941 - Aug 1945 is 5 minutes out of a 60 minute game?

ps All this talk about the strength of the US and one might ask why they
lost in Vietnam and struggle to maintain order in Iraq. Maybe it was the
Allied team that won the war ? Oh sorry, your theories are under scrutiny
again; I bow down to your infinite war wisdom and certainly the US is
dominant military power that can achieve anything ( George Bush told me
so, it must be true ).

They lost in Vietnam for a number of reasons but it really relates to the fact that they did not have the will to win. If they had really wanted to win, and had the public support to win, they would have won.

Iraq is similar in some ways - it was not a conventional invasion. Call it what you will, if they had wanted to seize full control (and become an international pariah), they could have - eventually, and with a lot more troops needed, however.

What do either of these examples have to do with World War 2, however?

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Insider trading in congress

[QUOTE=Duncan Smith;45055][QUOTE=Zeljko Kitich;45051]

Your childish post is a strong reminder of the low life human being you are.
People like you should be avoided.

Come on Duncan, you threatened to sue me; so man up and do so. Don't just make idle threats to try to intimidate others.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Insider trading in congress

[QUOTE=Gary Ruben;45057][QUOTE=Zeljko Kitich;45029]

I don't recall about WW 1 but in WW II Canada was long in the war before the U.S. joined. Canadians were sent to England and flew missions from there. Newfoundland was still under Britain and did not join Canada until 1949. One told me he fought along with the British troops. He had been a Seargent and they busted his rank which he let me to believe was standard for soldiers from Nfld.

I think before the U.S. entered the fighting they were supplying equipment. Going from memory, the RAF 180 was flying U.S. Mitchell bombers.

The Americans were part of the effort but, in my opinion, they did not win the war single handedly.

No they didn't do it single handidly but they were certainly central to both wars and saved the world in both wars. The rest of the world was losing WW2 badly before the Americans declared war on Germany and Japan and became militarily involved. Most of Europe was conquered or allied with Germany, a French puppet regime was installed in the south of France, the Russians were staying out of it with the Nazi/Soviet non-aggression pact. Stalin never intended to start a war with Hitler and was in deep denial that Hitler would attack the Soviet Union. Despite the fact that several agents in the field were sending exact details in about when and generally where the start of the attack on Russia would take place. Stalin would liquidate or imprison anyone who dared to bring him such news. Stalin spent the first days of the Nazi attack in a fetal position in frozen panic on the floor of his residence.

Japan had actually been at war in their theatre of war well before Pearl Harbour and well before the start of WW2 in such places as Manchuria.

The US were also as you suggest providing material support to Britain well before they committed to entering the war under the rather amusing name of lend/lease. How exactly do you get a plane you lent back after it's shot down?

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Insider trading in congress

Well this has all been a little amusing, but you guys should take a course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y