Worst War in History - Armor Games Community

617	113843

offline

Armed_Blade

1,482 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 15, '10 9:48pm UTC

I'm in agreement with Dreth, WWII was fueled much more by the fact that Germanies old glory had been limited and been suppressed by the international population -- Hitler arose to power when a 4.3 Billion German Marks = $1USD. With BS like that by the use of claiming for debts and lones by the international world Germany was stuck in the gutter. Germany was not the only bad guy, Europe was already a spark to go ablaze. Germany just had lots of people, and lots of practice at kicking militaristic butt. That being said, it was pretty easy for them to take the blame. After your countries screwed -- It was simple for Hitler to arise to power with corruption and take control.

The whole Anti-Semitic propoganda was a bit too BS'd for me to believe. I don't disregard it, but in no way do I believe that it was fuel for the war. Also, with Jews having monopolized few European markets here and there it was (for some Germans) readily acceptable for them to not like it. Sort of like here in America, Jews control a large percent of major corporations. (Which is also why your tax money goes to Israel for no reason, lol)

Anyway, I don't really thing WWII was that devastating. If hitler had not lost his ego cap thinking his lil' johnny had a growth spurt near the end of the war, it wouldn't have been WWII's end and the world may be different.

I'm in agreement with Dreth, WWII was fueled much more by the fact that Germanies old glory had been limited and been suppressed by the international population -- Hitler arose to power when a 4.3 Billion German Marks = $1USD. With BS like that by the use of claiming for debts and lones by the international world Germany was stuck in the gutter. Germany was not the only bad guy, Europe was already a spark to go ablaze. Germany just had lots of people, and lots of practice at kicking militaristic butt. That being said, it was pretty easy for them to take the blame. After your countries screwed -- It was simple for Hitler to arise to power with corruption and take control.\r\n\r\nThe whole Anti-Semitic propoganda was a bit too BS'd for me to believe. I don't disregard it, but in no way do I believe that it was fuel for the war. Also, with Jews having monopolized few European markets here and there it was (for some Germans) readily acceptable for them to not like it. Sort of like here in America, Jews control a large percent of major corporations. (Which is also why your tax money goes to Israel for no reason, lol)\r\n\r\nAnyway, I don't really thing WWII was that devastating. If hitler had not lost his ego cap thinking his lil' johnny had a growth spurt near the end of the war, it wouldn't have been WWII's end and the world may be different.

offline

tomertheking

1,751 posts

Jester

Posted January 16, '10 5:38am UTC

mongol invasion- 100 000 000 deathes by biggest estimate- 1/4 0f thens world population. It also made european culture take a decent step back.

offline

FireflyIV

3,224 posts

Nomad

Posted January 16, '10 2:20pm UTC

FireflyIV, wtf are you talking about also. Woodrow Wilson served two consecutive terms relating to the years 1913 to 1921. World War I lasted from 1914 to 1918. His terms were the exact time of WWI.

And yet you are blaming him for the beginning of WW2.

He was an Isolationistic president.

Actually he was pretty much the opposite of isolationist. The LON was his idea, and he ran his election campaign which he lost to the Republicans on the basis of America joining it. He wanted the USA to have a far bigger role in world affairs than they did in the ensuing decades.

So thank you and please learn something before you argue with a well educated person, not an ignorant loser.

Hmm, I think the same could be said for your post, seeing as you consider Wilson an isolationist.

This pissed them off and the League of Nations was founded which pissed them off even worse

It wasn't the founding of the LON that pissed off the Germans, but that they weren't invited to become a member of it until 1926.

The other reason are a quite long list and I don't really feel like typing it all, but in conclusion WWiI didn't lead to WWII.

For me the cause of WW2 in the short/medium term was the great depression. It polarised political groups and enabled the Nazis to come to power. However if it wasn't for WW1, and the economic sanctions placed upon Germany by the TOV, then the effects of the economic collapse in the late 20s would have had a much lesser radicalising on the German people, so in the long term, it was WW1 that caused WW2.

[quote]FireflyIV, wtf are you talking about also. Woodrow Wilson served two consecutive terms relating to the years 1913 to 1921. World War I lasted from 1914 to 1918. His terms were the exact time of WWI.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAnd yet you are blaming him for the beginning of WW2.\r\n\r\n[quote]He was an Isolationistic president.[/quote]\r\n\r\nActually he was pretty much the opposite of isolationist. The LON was his idea, and he ran his election campaign which he lost to the Republicans on the basis of America joining it. He wanted the USA to have a far bigger role in world affairs than they did in the ensuing decades.\r\n\r\n[quote]So thank you and please learn something before you argue with a well educated person, not an ignorant loser.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHmm, I think the same could be said for your post, seeing as you consider Wilson an isolationist.\r\n\r\n[quote]This pissed them off and the League of Nations was founded which pissed them off even worse[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt wasn't the founding of the LON that pissed off the Germans, but that they weren't invited to become a member of it until 1926.\r\n\r\n[quote]The other reason are a quite long list and I don't really feel like typing it all, but in conclusion WWiI didn't lead to WWII. :D[/quote]\r\n\r\nFor me the cause of WW2 in the short/medium term was the great depression. It polarised political groups and enabled the Nazis to come to power. However if it wasn't for WW1, and the economic sanctions placed upon Germany by the TOV, then the effects of the economic collapse in the late 20s would have had a much lesser radicalising on the German people, so in the long term, it was WW1 that caused WW2.

offline

adios194

818 posts

Nomad

Posted January 16, '10 2:56pm UTC

Ok... you need to acknowledge that your wrong. Woodrow Wilson was as isolationistic president. If you want I can paste a page with the definition on it. I guess you can't look it up yourself anyways,you havent looked up anything so far. This has led you to look more and more ignorant.

And yet you are blaming him for the beginning of WW2.

No, I am not blaming him for the war, I he was one of the causes of the Great Depression.

offline

FireflyIV

3,224 posts

Nomad

Posted January 16, '10 3:39pm UTC

Ok... you need to acknowledge that your wrong. Woodrow Wilson was as isolationistic president. If you want I can paste a page with the definition on it

I know what isolationism means, so don't waste your time, although it seems, you do not.

I guess you can't look it up yourself anyways,you havent looked up anything so far.

Neither have you.

In any case, here I go.

''[quote]In 1919, during the bitter fight with the Republican-controlled Senate over the U.S. joining the League of Nations, Wilson collapsed with a debilitating stroke. He refused to compromise, effectively destroying any chance for ratification. The League of Nations was established anyway, but the United States never joined. A Presbyterian of deep religious faith, he appealed to a gospel of service and infused a profound sense of moralism into Wilsonianism. Wilson's idealistic internationalism, now referred to as "Wilsonianism", which calls for the United States to enter the world arena to fight for democracy, has been a contentious position in American foreign policy, serving as a model for "idealists" to emulate and "realists" to reject ever since.[6]

''

Notice the word ''internationalism''? Pretty much the polar opposite of isolationism.

This has led you to look more and more ignorant.

Insults aside, read, learn.

No, I am not blaming him for the war, I he was one of the causes of the Great Depression.

Seeing as he died 5 years before it happened, and had been out of office for 8 years before it happened, I don't think you can blame Wilson's policies for that. Please explain why you think he was the cause of the depression though. This should be good.

[quote]Ok... you need to acknowledge that your wrong. Woodrow Wilson was as isolationistic president. If you want I can paste a page with the definition on it[/quote]\r\n\r\nI know what isolationism means, so don't waste your time, although it seems, you do not.\r\n\r\n[quote]I guess you can't look it up yourself anyways,you havent looked up anything so far.\r\n\r\nNeither have you.\r\n\r\nIn any case, here I go.\r\n\r\n[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson][/url]\r\n\r\n''[quote]In 1919, during the bitter fight with the Republican-controlled Senate over the U.S. joining the League of Nations, Wilson collapsed with a debilitating stroke. He refused to compromise, effectively destroying any chance for ratification. The League of Nations was established anyway, but the United States never joined. A Presbyterian of deep religious faith, he appealed to a gospel of service and infused a profound sense of moralism into Wilsonianism. Wilson's idealistic [b]internationalism[/b], now referred to as "Wilsonianism", which calls for the United States to enter the world arena to fight for democracy, has been a contentious position in American foreign policy, serving as a model for "idealists" to emulate and "realists" to reject ever since.[6][/quote]''\r\n\r\nNotice the word ''internationalism''? Pretty much the polar opposite of isolationism.\r\n\r\n[quote]This has led you to look more and more ignorant.[/quote]\r\n\r\nInsults aside, read, learn.\r\n\r\n[quote]No, I am not blaming him for the war, I he was one of the causes of the Great Depression.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSeeing as he died 5 years before it happened, and had been out of office for 8 years before it happened, I don't think you can blame Wilson's policies for that. Please explain why you think he was the cause of the depression though. This should be good.

offline

NoTomorrow

5 posts

Nomad

Posted January 16, '10 3:59pm UTC

I agree with the Listman. the Eastern front was brutal! Stalingrad anyone??

offline

7432200

134 posts

Nomad

Posted January 17, '10 10:10pm UTC

[quote]I think it would have to be world war 2 because of all the lives that were lost

Lives are nothing.

[/quote]

offline

7432200

134 posts

Nomad

Posted January 17, '10 10:12pm UTC

Wait i forgot my comment
Lives are nothing!!! That first guy is full of crap

offline

adios194

818 posts

Nomad

Posted January 19, '10 2:31am UTC

7432200, ditto. His worshiping of big business caused the majority of the imports and with no exports the money disappears, causing the great depression. Also your calling me ignorant when your the one that left the quote on through out the majority of your post. It concludes one of two things, either your ignorant or you like to talk in the 3rd person and your ignorant.

offline

VoteSocialist

950 posts

Nomad

Posted January 19, '10 3:37am UTC

You can't judge if a war is worse or better based only on numbers. All the logic I have seen here is "If less people died in war A, then war A is better than war B." Now try reading that statementâs converse. I'm getting sick of this. Maybe we should discuss the rationale behind wars, rather than the statistics of the war as our sole source of determining good and bad.

7432200, ditto. His worshiping of big business caused the majority of the imports and with no exports the money disappears, causing the great depression. Also your calling me ignorant when your the one that left the quote on through out the majority of your post. It concludes one of two things, either your ignorant or you like to talk in the 3rd person and your ignorant.

Incidentally, you used four "f"s in that paragraph; five if you count the number 4.

offline

VoteSocialist

950 posts

Nomad

Posted January 19, '10 3:52am UTC

Tell me if you find more, comrade.

offline

FireflyIV

3,224 posts

Nomad

Posted January 19, '10 2:46pm UTC

His worshiping of big business caused the majority of the imports and with no exports the money disappears, causing the great depression.

Something which the Republican government which came in afterwards had the chance to change, and didn't. Blaming people for things that happened after they lost power and died seems pretty futile to me.

Also your calling me ignorant when your the one that left the quote on through out the majority of your post.

Before you start calling people ignorant, you should probably make sure you know what it means first.

It concludes one of two things, either your ignorant or you like to talk in the 3rd person and your ignorant.

Don't use my formatting error to hide behind the fact your argument that Wilson was an isolationist is downright wrong.

offline

Highfire

3,025 posts

Nomad

Posted January 19, '10 4:50pm UTC

The is always the choice to gain peace when in the face of War.
But what shall we do if we're in a state of peace?

Sounds stupid, indeed, but it is indeed a much more intelligent thing than you may first think.

Mongol Empire, wanna know how that happened? Ghanghis Khan rallied the neighboring Tribes against an innocent enemy - China, the reason he done this was to expand the empire (which is quite fair, but done it in ways I wouldn't have) and of course, to only gain peace within their boundries, the reason they were fighting is because they couldn't negotiate, but also because resources were scarce and morales were low.

Ghanghis Khan flipped it over entirely, instead of low morales, he boosted the spirits of his people, making them prosper and fight against the Chinese, this helped Resource Flow and conquering the enemy.

Why'd the fight - to stop fighting eachother.
Did it work - Yes.
What would happen a few generations after we stop fighting? I mean sure we might be fine, but honestly now, you need to feel why you're doing it, a simple law and life doesn't do anything.

Americans would cross the sea for Democracy, but wouldn't cross the street to vote.

That's not my quote, but it is true, from what I hear, anyway.
Knowing that, voting for say, a president, he manages pretty much everything on a country-wide scale or special occasions, then again - judging from what's up a bit, you would go across the sea - risking your life, to fight against an enemy who may or may not be right or wrong (don't go into that). So... prospering for your people and technology isn't as important as killing people for your country? I know I'm sounding like a douche - but hey, I'm making this up as I go along, and all I'm trying to do is make you see why people often fight.

All you need is open-mindedness, as well as thinking hardly about whether it is the right or wrong thing to do, sounds a big like I'm sucking up, I'm not, my 'right' and 'wrong' is probably far more complex and for you, confusing than other people. I'm 12, and I hate the fact other people can't see as I do...

- H

[quote]The is always the choice to gain peace when in the face of War.\r\nBut what shall we do if we're in a state of peace?[/quote]\r\n\r\nSounds stupid, indeed, but it is indeed a much more intelligent thing than you may first think.\r\n\r\nMongol Empire, wanna know how that happened? Ghanghis Khan rallied the neighboring Tribes against an innocent enemy - China, the reason he done this was to expand the empire (which is quite fair, but done it in ways I wouldn't have) and of course, to only gain peace within their boundries, the reason they were fighting is because they couldn't negotiate, but also because resources were scarce and morales were low.\r\n\r\nGhanghis Khan flipped it over entirely, instead of low morales, he boosted the spirits of his people, making them prosper and fight against the Chinese, this helped Resource Flow and conquering the enemy.\r\n\r\nWhy'd the fight - to stop fighting eachother.\r\nDid it work - Yes.\r\nWhat would happen a few generations after we stop fighting? I mean sure we might be fine, but honestly now, you need to feel why you're doing it, a simple law and life doesn't do anything.\r\n\r\n[quote]Americans would cross the sea for Democracy, but wouldn't cross the street to vote.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's not [i]my[/i] quote, but it is true, from what I hear, anyway.\r\nKnowing that, voting for say, a president, he manages pretty much everything on a country-wide scale or special occasions, then again - judging from what's up a bit, you would go across the sea - risking your life, to fight against an enemy who may or may not be right or wrong (don't go into that). So... prospering for your people and technology isn't as important as killing people for your country? I know I'm sounding like a douche - but hey, I'm making this up as I go along, and all I'm trying to do is make you see why people often fight.\r\n\r\nAll you need is open-mindedness, as well as thinking hardly about whether it is the [i]right or wrong[/i] thing to do, sounds a big like I'm sucking up, I'm not, my 'right' and 'wrong' is probably far more complex and for you, confusing than other people. I'm 12, and I hate the fact other people can't see as I do...\r\n\r\n - H

offline

adios194

818 posts

Nomad

Posted January 19, '10 8:01pm UTC

Here you go FireflyIV i didn't know if you could look it up!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
lol

offline

FireflyIV

3,224 posts

Nomad

Posted January 19, '10 8:05pm UTC

Here you go FireflyIV i didn't know if you could look it up!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
lol

So I see you've dropped formatting errors and are now using mildly insulting and distinctly unfunny jokes to cover up the fact your argument is bogus. I have to say, it's a compelling site to see such lack of regard to argument on a discussion forum.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Worst War in History