I sorta liked Pink Floyd... but Fuck Roger Waters' political dumbassery!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Here's a fun question: do the Allies defeat Germany without the Soviet Union?

Yes, because nukes

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Here's a fun question: do the Allies defeat Germany without the Soviet Union?

The Soviet Union was a member of the Allies so this question is like asking if UT could have beaten USC in '06 without fielding a defense.

[freyguy 4245]

We did invite the Nazis over here way back in 1937 so they could fly their little blimp around.  Hitler was well into killing Jews and other minorities at that point.  Thank God someone with some sense blew it up.

[TexArcher 37519]

Breaking: Pink Floyd co-founder and songwriter has political opinions and doesn't like war. 

To continue this story, please set DeLorean to 1967.

[RomaVicta 29794]

44 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Continuing to defend this shit is dumb as fuck, yes. 

Again, surprising from you. No point in continuing.

[956 Worldwide 34444]

34 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Here's a fun question: do the Allies defeat Germany without the Soviet Union?

It’s relevant to fuck-all when talking about the war in Ukraine in 2022 and even debating it in that context is just playing into Kremlin propaganda.

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

13 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

High Hopes became my favorite Floyd song once I hit my 40s

partial to 'Fearless' and really the whole Meddle album. 

[David Dennison 18661]

30 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The Soviet Union was a member of the Allies so this question is like asking if UT could have beaten USC in '06 without fielding a defense.

Yeah, but if you ask the typical American, they're inclined to believe Murica won WWII all by itself.

[TexArcher 37519]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, but if you ask the typical American, they're inclined to believe Murica won WWII all by itself.

I mean, that's pretty much what they're taught.  The Allies were losing until Pearl Harbor, then we got involved and stormed the beach at Normandy, liberated France, and the Allies won.

Nevermind that the Soviets lost something like 27 million young men, forced the Nazis back, and eventually took Berlin.  

There is no question that the Allies lose without the Soviets.  And it's probably not even very close.

Edited August 8, 2022 by TexArcher

[Kennythetiger 9335]

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

Poor thing . . . the horror  

The one on the right was always the hottest 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Does anyone actually believe we wouldn't have gotten involved in Europe had the Japanese not attacked us at Pearl Harbor?

[Sbbruin 21738]

11 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I mean, that's pretty much what they're taught.  The Allies were losing until Pearl Harbor, then we got involved and stormed the beach at Normandy, liberated France, and the Allies won.

Nevermind that the Soviets lost something like 27 million young men, forced the Nazis back, and eventually took Berlin.  

There is no question that the Allies lose without the Soviets.  And it's probably not even very close.

The biggest issue is the Atlantic Wall would have been virtually impenetrable had all of Germany's resources been dedicated to defending it.  But with so much of the Nazi force fighting on the eastern front, and most of the elite forces (many of the Atlantic Wall defenders were conscripts, and Poles and other reluctant participants), Operation Overloard had a good chance.  We may never have been able to establish a foothold on the continent without the Rooskies.

[SaucyJack 3487]

 

[Goredho 17349]

Russia was asking for the western allies to create a western front for two years before they did.  England and the US were risk averse and chose North Africa and Italy first to open a "southern front".  Russia viewed this poorly.  By the time we did invade at Normandy, the Russia had stopped Germany's thrust (turning point was at Kursk in the summer of 1943) and were retaking lost ground in Russia and advancing back towards Poland.  Does that mean Russia could have won the war in Europe without the western allies, D-Day, etc...?  Maybe, but it would have been at an order of magnitude or more higher cost.

Edited August 8, 2022 by Goredho

[washparkhorn 9935]

 

[956 Worldwide 34444]

38 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I mean, that's pretty much what they're taught.  The Allies were losing until Pearl Harbor, then we got involved and stormed the beach at Normandy, liberated France, and the Allies won.

Nevermind that the Soviets lost something like 27 million young men, forced the Nazis back, and eventually took Berlin.  

There is no question that the Allies lose without the Soviets.  And it's probably not even very close.

The Soviets lost about 8.5 million young men, the rest of the 27 million deaths were civilians who were murdered, died of famine, or “collateral” damage. And a disproportionate number of those were in the former Ukrainian SSR, which is why it’s so perverse to use the war as a justification to invade Ukraine or place themselves beyond criticism. 
 

Anyway, the question is uninteresting. Far more interesting is how the war would have shaken out and how many fewer Soviets would have died if the Soviet Union had not actively collaborated and partnered with Nazi Germany until June, 1941.  For all the shit talking about how the U.S. was isolationist, that inconvenient point is lost.  Even with an isolationist USSR from things are a lot less rosy for the Germans. 
 

 

[David Dennison 18661]

35 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Does anyone actually believe we wouldn't have gotten involved in Europe had the Japanese not attacked us at Pearl Harbor?

Is there any reason to believe we would have?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Is there any reason to believe we would have?

uh, yeah, we were gearing up for it.

[David Dennison 18661]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

uh, yeah, we were gearing up for it.

Prior to December 1941? Not really. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Prior to December 1941? Not really. 

guess we'll have to agree to disagree:
 

Quote

Rooted in an isolationist stance, the United States remained neutral. President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew Americans would not support another European conflict, having suffered numerous casualties during World War I, so he resisted a rush to war. Still, despite the United States’ official proclamation of neutrality on Sept. 5, 1940, FDR began preparing for military involvement by declaring a state of national emergency, increasing the size of the Army and National Guard, and authorizing the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 — the first peacetime draft in US history.

there's nothing special about this link, it's just the first one that came up: https://www.nvlchawaii.org/us-prepares-involvement-world-war-ii

[956 Worldwide 34444]

22 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Russia was asking for the western allies to create a western front for two years before they did.  England and the US were risk averse and chose North Africa and Italy first to open a "southern front".  Russia viewed this poorly.  By the time we did invade at Normandy, the Russia had stopped Germany's thrust (turning point was at Kursk in the summer of 1943) and were retaking lost ground in Russia and advancing back towards Poland.  Does that mean Russia could have won the war in Europe without the western allies, D-Day, etc...?  Maybe, but it would have been at an order of magnitude or more higher cost.

This is a narrative pushed by (poor) Soviet historians and by very few respectable military historians. It’s viewing war like an Axis and Allies game board where you shuffle pieces around and not war through the lens of actually engaging in industrial production and moving men and material across water against a resisting force. Of course Stalin wanted a Western front sooner. You say risk-averse but the people actually planning and executing had to grapple with the chance that a landing might fail, that the Luftwaffe sent the flotilla to the bottom, and what that would mean for the war effort. In production alone, Overlord came after 2.5 years of full industrial mobilization in the U.S., which does not happen overnight.  And of course a lot of that production went east to the Soviets. 

[David Dennison 18661]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

guess we'll have to agree to disagree:
 

there's nothing special about this link, it's just the first one that came up: https://www.nvlchawaii.org/us-prepares-involvement-world-war-ii

Without Pearl Harbor, our involvement in the war was politically untenable. Lend Lease was about as far as the American people were willing to go.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Prior to December 1941? Not really. 

Our government had already decided to join the war, we were just waiting for an excuse.  If it wouldn't have been Pearl Harbor, it would've been something else.  

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

The Allies needed both the US and USSR. Without us in the west and south, more assets are dedicated to taking Moscow. Without them, more assets are dedicated to the Atlantic wall and Mediterranean.  
 

I guess maybe we could have dropped an atomic bomb on Berlin but we only had the 2 and it’s not like we owned the skies of France and west Germany- it could have easily been shot down before it got on target. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

52 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I mean, that's pretty much what they're taught.  The Allies were losing until Pearl Harbor, then we got involved and stormed the beach at Normandy, liberated France, and the Allies won.

Nevermind that the Soviets lost something like 27 million young men, forced the Nazis back, and eventually took Berlin.  

There is no question that the Allies lose without the Soviets.  And it's probably not even very close.

Yep and replace "Soviets" with "United States" and the same still holds. 

[David Dennison 18661]

1 minute ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Our government had already decided to join the war, we were just waiting for an excuse.  If it wouldn't have been Pearl Harbor, it would've been something else.  

Like I said, it was politically untenable.

[Sbbruin 21738]

4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It’s viewing war like an Axis and Allies game board where you shuffle pieces around 

[956 Worldwide 34444]

A reminder to tankies and their apologists that the U.S. started Lend-Lease to the UK and running the submarine blockade in March 1941, and was thus actively doing something to defeat the Nazis while the Soviets had been giddly murdering Finns for no reason and enjoying the fruits of parenting with the Nazis to divide Poland in 1939.

Edited August 8, 2022 by 956 Worldwide

[956 Worldwide 34444]

It is fucking hilarious to say “the U.S. wasn’t in the fight till Pearl Harbor” as if that’s some kind of point for the Soviets. The Soviets weren’t in the fight till they got attacked, either. And they were, in fact, actively helping the Nazis. 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

So, you thought you might like to go to the show?

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

13 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

When are celebrities (who've never really lived in the real world like the rest of us) going to figure out nobody gives a damn about their political thoughts? 

When Republicans stop electing them President?

[chainsaw 9838]

What is his issue against NATO?

[David Dennison 18661]

4 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

What is his issue against NATO?

The argument goes that NATO expansion unnecessarily provokes Russia and makes war more likely.

[Goredho 17349]

14 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This is a narrative pushed by (poor) Soviet historians and by very few respectable military historians. It’s viewing war like an Axis and Allies game board where you shuffle pieces around and not war through the lens of actually engaging in industrial production and moving men and material across water against a resisting force. Of course Stalin wanted a Western front sooner. You say risk-averse but the people actually planning and executing had to grapple with the chance that a landing might fail, that the Luftwaffe sent the flotilla to the bottom, and what that would mean for the war effort. In production alone, Overlord came after 2.5 years of full industrial mobilization in the U.S., which does not happen overnight.  And of course a lot of that production went east to the Soviets. 

Why we didn't open a western front sooner doesn't change the fact that we did not open a western front until after Russia had turned the tide in the east at Kursk.  The timing is indisputable, and that Kursk was the turning point in the eastern front is not simply soviet historical liberty. Churchill stated so in his WWII memoirs.  German General Heinz Guderian wrote:

With the failure of Zitadelle we have suffered a decisive defeat. The armoured formations, reformed and re-equipped with so much effort, had lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come. It was problematical whether they could be rehabilitated in time to defend the Eastern Front ... Needless to say the [Soviets] exploited their victory to the full. There were to be no more periods of quiet on the Eastern Front. From now on, the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative.^[297]

Now none of that means Russia could have stood against Germany alone.  That southern front did pull resources and attention from the east.  We did materially help Russia's war effort.  That truth can coexist with the truth that the tide on the eastern front was turned before we hit the beaches at Normandy.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

What is his issue against NATO?

His mother says he shouldn’t trust it

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The argument goes that NATO expansion unnecessarily provokes Russia and makes war more likely.

Does Soviet expansion not provoke nato/Europe?

[chainsaw 9838]

2 hours ago, Mittens said:

Because it rings hollow when someone is ranting about how terrible something is while also profiting off of it. He's got 30 shows in America, 0 in China, 0 in Russia.  

Russia is involved in a war and taking hostages. I don't think the other financial stakeholders in his tour would allow him to take that kind of a risk.

I don't see a whole lot of bands on world tours making any stops in China, and the most likely reason why not is that the government is going to censor the shit out of you. No Sex, No Drugs, so why bother with the Rock-N-Roll?

[chainsaw 9838]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The argument goes that NATO expansion unnecessarily provokes Russia and makes war more likely.

I watched the video. Waters is comparing the situation to China placing nukes in Mexico and Canada. That seems like a silly comparison, though. Is Waters suggesting we would invade a country nextdoor to us as a defensive measure? Ukraine isn't even a member of NATO, so why invade there?

[Covri 6231]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, but if you ask the typical American, they're inclined to believe Murica won WWII all by itself.

You're got damn right we did!

 

[David Dennison 18661]

10 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Does Soviet expansion not provoke nato/Europe?

Answer: Russian expansion is the inevitable response to increased NATO membership following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Edited August 8, 2022 by David Dennison

[David Dennison 18661]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

I watched the video. Waters is comparing the situation to China placing nukes in Mexico and Canada. That seems like a silly comparison, though. Is Waters suggesting we would invade a country nextdoor to us as a defensive measure? Ukraine isn't even a member of NATO, so why invade there?

Well, we did invade Cuba when it came under Soviet influence. 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Well, we did invade Cuba when it came under Soviet influence. 

Very successfully 

[chainsaw 9838]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Well, we did invade Cuba when it came under Soviet influence. 

But what did NATO do with Ukraine specifically that made it a logical choice for Russia to invade it?

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

But what did NATO do with Ukraine specifically that made it a logical choice for Russia to invade it?

I’ll take a stab. USSR breaks up. NATO brings in Estonia and Lithuania or whichever former Soviet bloc countries. Russia freaks out and wants to take back what remains so that nato doesn’t encroach any further. 
 

it’s just played out over a few decades. But of course their move on Ukraine has prompted nato expansion in the north, which just validates their position of taking back what they can. 

[chainsaw 9838]

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I’ll take a stab. USSR breaks up. NATO brings in Estonia and Lithuania or whichever former Soviet bloc countries. Russia freaks out and wants to take back what remains so that nato doesn’t encroach any further. 
 

it’s just played out over a few decades. But of course their move on Ukraine has prompted nato expansion in the north, which just validates their position of taking back what they can. 

In that scenario shouldn't Russia have invaded Lithuania instead?

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

In that scenario shouldn't Russia have invaded Lithuania instead?

Invading a nato country is kind of a big deal. Like Japan couldn’t just invade california. In for a penny, in for a pound there. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

52 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Like I said, it was politically untenable.

And like I said, there would have been another incident to change that fact if Pearl Harbor never happened.  We'd decided we needed to join, we were going to find a way to join.

[chainsaw 9838]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Invading a nato country is kind of a big deal. Like Japan couldn’t just invade california. In for a penny, in for a pound there. 

I get that, but Russia should leave Ukraine out of it

[David Dennison 18661]

2 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

And like I said, there would have been another incident to change that fact if Pearl Harbor never happened.  We'd decided we needed to join, we were going to find a way to join.

Maybe. We know, however, that the American people were in no mood for war until December 7, 1941.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Just now, chainsaw said:

I get that, but Russia should leave Ukraine out of it

The best way for them to be sure Ukraine doesn’t ever join nato is to re-absorb it. 
it’s also why they’d never stop at Ukraine and can’t be appeased.  They see all these countries that used to be part of the ussr and they think they should all be russian allies.  But many are EU allies and they don’t like that. 

[chainsaw 9838]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

The best way for them to be sure Ukraine doesn’t ever join nato is to re-absorb it. 
it’s also why they’d never stop at Ukraine and can’t be appeased.  They see all these countries that used to be part of the ussr and they think they should all be russian allies.  But many are EU allies and they don’t like that. 

And that's why Waters is wrong as hell on this issue.