[QUOTE="JiveT"]Parappa the Rapper was one of those games that was cool for about2 hours. PUNCH, KICK, ITS ALL IN THE MIND! I really liked that one.nhh12345

Are you kidding? Microtransactions are a terrible game. Sell me a complete experience and don't nickel and dime me out of a good time.

Ill-fated wasn't the proper term, but it got stalled, and it took them a long time to finally accomplish their ultimate objective of taking Rome. I can't quite think of the right word for it now, but while it ultimately succeeded, it wasn't a hallmark of military efficiency. 

And I agreed with your second part when I said that they couldn't have carried out the invasion right away in the very post you were responding to.

sonicmj1

 So what's your point? The allies had no responsibility to Russia because they didn't have the ability to act. Russia only hampered anti Nazy efforts with their Finland/Poland actions. (Since we're all for truth in history, the Russians slaughtered 4,000 Polish officers, wiping out the entirety of their upper command)

Sony always announces "potential" but never live up to it.ReverseCycology

Good, they're far behind Microsoft in the not living up to announced potential department. See: Halo.

They were already fighting in Africa and America participated in the ill-fated invasion of Italy. 

Still, your point is valid in that there was stuff to deal with before they started a full-scale invasion of Europe. That's why I said earlier that this wasn't the only factor involved. The US had a lot to deal with, and Britain was not in much of a position to act. I certainly wouldn't have expected them to invade in 1942 or anything like that.

Perhaps my understanding isn't perfect, but I do believe that while they weren't necessarily waiting just outside France with boats trying to time the invasion to hurt Russia the most, opening up a front in France wasn't exactly a number one priority.  

sonicmj1

How was the invasion of Italy ill-fated?

And why do you believe that British fighting in the colonies has anything to do with their ability to launch an assault on Europe? The allies, including America, deciding to attack Germany before Germany hit Russia or was significantly weakened would've resulted in nothing more than utter defeat. The Western Allies didn't have a choice, and that was the fault of Russia's commanders for the most part.

I guess were all saying the same thing with regards to WW2, it just seems to have been lost in translation along the way. Russia were primarily responsible for the end of the war but they were not necessarily alone. I think that a major problem is the allies have been deified to an extent, rgardless of the fact that they did reprehensible things as well. (see the whole complicity in the holocaust thing and the russians raping ferman women in retaliation upon invading germany). regarles, we all seem to agree and that is that. 

As for your point about SPR, i still maintain that you are wrong. The accuracy of a war flick is not measured by its ability to make war veterans cry.  It is measured by the ccracy in repesenting the events that took place. But then again movies = entertainment, so a certain amount of dramatic license is to be expected

As for my point about american education being sanitised.  I doubt there are many that come out of the american public education systemwho are truly aware of the horrors that the european settlers who setlled in america comitted. Feel free to prove me wrong, i have only read a few accoutns of the subject so it'd be nice to hear your views as well

NorthlandMan

No, we are still confusing a few things. Russia did not "win the war." They were the main reason for one element of the war's end. However, they weren't alone in that element, and they certainly don't deserve the blanket statement of "winning the war." Do not restate it. It is wrong.

Secondly, SPR making veterans cry is what makes it historically accurate. It captured on film the best that any film has ever done the experiences of veterans. It wasn't trying to make a point about Americans being the only ones fighting the war, as Zwei ignorantly suggested. It was only trying to capture the experiences of American soldiers during the invasion. Therefore, it is historically okay, even if the people used are composites. You are wrong about this point like about the latter point, do not bring this up again.

The American education system does not fail, while, as I've reiterated too many times, all historical interpretations are subject to bias, American history books have become increasingly morally complex. They do not view issues with slavery with a grain of salt or the Native American genocide as nothing special as you've ignorantly suggested. If people walk out of American history class with that understanding, it's because of their refusal or boredom with the material, and not the material itself.

None of you guys know anything at all. If you guys actually took even a socials or history class in grade 11, you would already know that all the allies helped each other considerably which helped brought the Germans down. THATS FACT.

America did not win the war singlehandley. IMO, they just sped it up and finished with the other allies quickly. In fact. many historians agree with that point.

As in the case as WHICH COUNTRY DID MORE in WW2, hands down it was the U.S. You have to realize that the U.S was fighting ON TWO FRONTS!! Europe and the Pacific. France was already invaded and England was getting their butts bombed and was basically asking the U.S for assistance (goods and all that other stuff). HELL, even the great Stalin wanted the Americans to make a western front so that Germany would divert attention to both western and eastern fronts and that the russian losses in the Eastern Front wouldnt be massive. Thats actually ironic since the one who suffered the msot casualties was not even Poland but russia.

But you have to give credit to Russia, since the bulk of the german army was in the eastern front. THey really manhandled the germans there no argument.

But since japan was part of WW2, america was basically fighting all by itself. THe pacific war was a naval war. all becasue of the u.s 

Fkid

Yes, we've concluded that Zwei's original comments and the dude with the Grindhouse Av who agreed with him were completely stupid in their estimation that "Russia won the war." That argument is long past. We've already established that Russia was the main reason for the defeat of the Germans, though they had significant help from other sources. Also, while America was the main reason for the downfall of Japan, remember that China played a pretty big part in that section of the war. In fact, I'd argue they deserve a good deal of the credit.

Did I say that they were? The Western allies didn't respond quickly because they didn't want a powerful Russia, because they were suspicious of their movtives. This makes sense, because Russia had allied with Germany before they were attacked, and nobody ever really liked the Communists if they had a choice. They were justified in being concerned about Russia's ambitions for Europe. History would prove that. 

Even so, it probably would have been better for just about everyone if they had acted sooner, because then, they might have been able to reach Germany before Russia secured all of Eastern Europe, leaving the Soviets in a much less powerful position for the Cold War. But hindsight is 20/20.  

sonicmj1

This is a pretty bad post. First of all, thanks in part to Russia's action on Poland, the entirety of Europe was being smacked into oblivion by Germany. The Western Allies consisted of America just punked by Japan on Pearl Harbor and several mini presidents taking refuge on the bombed to **** island of britannia. They didn't have the ability to act because they had to deal with what was in front of them. To imply that the Western Allies were simply waiting for Russia to lose manpower before they invade proves you have no clue as to what you're talking about. Communism was a concern, obviously, but if the Western Allies had a choice they would've invaded Nazi Europe as soon as they could've. Clearly, you're in a place of misunderstanding.

No, I never implied such thing. You just assumed I did. I said we see American movies from a different perispective from you, which is true. That there is bias in movies? of course, but why does it matter, who takes movies as historical facts? it's obvious movies have to take history liberties to make them more enjoyable for the viewers.

I stopped arguing about movies, but I think you got the idea I still was, or that I said that they brainwashed you or something.

And I'm no Academic, and again I never make a claim that I was, I just have read a lot of history books because I really like the subject, I don't have any hidden knowledge, and everybody can read and know everything I know and more, of course.

Like I said since the beginning, you clearly misunderstood me. 

Panzer_Zwei

No, I haven't misunderstood you. You made a silly comment with no grounding in reality and I corrected you on it. You've tried your damndest to move the argument away from the meat of the discussion but the reality is that you've been caught and punished for your mistake. You were wrong about "sanitizing" and you were wrong in your initial post that I quoted. You were wrong, accept it, understand it, don't be a know it all when you don't in the future.

A few points to note

 

Panzer is right. it was the russians that won the war. A mixture of numbers and the russian climate did the nazis inSPR while entertaining and capturing the mayhem of war was fiction, and about as realistic as star warsHistory as taught in american schools is sanitised rubbish. You probably arent aware but your country was built on the back of slaves and the extermination of native americans Anyone who thinks that the citizens of iraq are called iraqians probably watches fox news and voted bush into power . Infer from that what you willIraq before the war was a dictatorship but a stable one but at its head was a prety weak dictator. The coalitions mishandling of the war has led to the deaths of countless civilians. They have divided the country and allowed foreign jihadis to fllood it while ostracising saddams forces and making a powerful enemy. I doubt that the mayhem and death that was caused in that country is going to do anything to quell the threat of terrorism. If anything you just made Osama bin laden and his ilk far more powerful, there is no doubt that there will be repercussions. You reap what you sow

NorthlandMan

Panzer is not right. WW2 was not a singular war between Germany and Russia. Russia was the main reason for Germany's demise, but that was one aspect of the war. Futhermore, the allies were important in helping to stop Germany, as were the terrorists organizations within german land. Main reason for ONE aspect of the war /= THE WINNERS OF THE WAR, PERIOD. If you want to look at it in a truly historical context, then you'd assume that the divvying up of the land and superpowers was pretty equal, down to the last nazi scientist.

SPR accurately captures the feel of WW2 combat for allied soldiers invading France. Ask the Vets of the battles who cried and call it as much to slap you silly for your stupidity.

History is flawed in every book everywhere, every text has bias. American history does not make light of slavery or the Native American genocide. You come from a place of ignorance, so you don't have a point, you are an ignorant.

I remember that! Fun factoids of history.

Britain and France were certainly reluctant to actually get involved in fighting in Europe. America entered the war in 1941, but even as the Russians requested help, the actual full-scale invasion didn't happen until 1944, nearly two years after the Germans began laying siege to Stalingrad. 

Naturally, there are plenty of reasons why it took time for the invasion to begin (and I doubt there was any lack of planning on the Allies part), but forcing the Russians to face as much as possible from Germany was definitely a factor.  

sonicmj1

Russia was the reason why France and Britain didn't respond quicker. Russia, in self interest, screamed to Eastern Poland and wiped out Poland's upper command and remaining military forces. Russia then cut a deal with Germany to protect their land so they could prepare to invade central Europe. When Germany slapped them to oblivion, they had to deal with anti bolsheviks and Finland, the latter of which wouldn't have entered the war had Russia not wasted time trying to secure port bases in the Norwegian region. Finally, Russia didn't help America with Japan until the war was all but over, far from the actual invasion of 1944, Russia pretty much entered the war when there was little fighting to be done, and just land being divvied up between capitalists and communists.

Russia was not a victim by the western allies. Any spin to that end comes from ignorance and nothing more.