I give historical facts, you give insults, that's all I'm seeing.

And you still with the American movies? I never said they brainwashed people, I said they were aimed for Americans, which is true.

obviously anyone who's interested in learning about WWII can learn everthing there is to it from every perispective.

I think you really took it the wrong way.

Panzer_Zwei

Lets get one thing straight, you implied that American purposefully neuters its films to show that America is the only country involved in the War. It was insulting. Then you implied that Russia solely won the war. In reality, while being the main reason for ONE aspect of the war, there was nothing at all singular about their efforts. It was your attempt to stir the pot, and you failed because of your STUPID assumptions.

And before we exit, just so we're clear, everything you said can be found in a google search. You are no academic, you think HC documentaries and WW2 video games are entertaining. You are smart.

Here was his original post:

Der Untergang is a good movie. None of that Americanized WWII rubbish. It shows who won the war, the Russians.

Hilariously stupid all around. "Americanized WWII rubbish" and "It shows who won the war, the Russians."

 Except apparently he wasn't implying anything about Hollywood, America in general, and WW2 in general, because he really meant European campaign and meant nothing about American films. Weakness and stupidity on his part.

Again, in normandy there were all but the reserves of the reserves of the German army, mostly asian people. Whatever strenght the Germans had, they had it focused on the Eastern front.

The whole France invasion was either poorly carried out of they did it in purpose to leave more fighting for the Russians. There was no way for the remaining German troops to pose a real fight for the Allied forces.

Also Stalingrad wasn't any battle, Stalingrad ended up in the completly destruction of the 6th German Army, and the capture of Von Paulus which Hitler had made Field Marshall a day before the surrender, because no German field marshall had surrended in the history of Germany.

The Stalingrad fight was a key point because of many facts, but it wasn' the first time the Germans lost in Russia, since they went to Stalingrad, after they failed to capture Moscow.

Really, and you saying I'm the one who know's nothing... 

Panzer_Zwei

Your total weakness in both logic and historical precedent is now confirmed. Instead of focusing on the subject of the matter, you have conveniently chosen to take the route of a coward by moving the argument around to where it doesn't belong. It doesn't matter that Russia was the main reason why Germany was defeated, we all know that they were the critical component in the whole ordeal. It matters that you were stupid about the American movies brainwashing Americans into think only Americans fought in the war. You were stupid about that, and now you're trying to recite what any 30 minute HC documentary will TELL you.

Stalingrad being referenced as a battle or campaign in this discussion is semantics. Also, there were many critical battles that rival Stalingrad in importance though I would concede that Stalingrad was the most important for the defeat of Germany.

Give up. You aren't smart.

I never said I knew everything, I've said I've read a lot of books about the subject. And you haven't countered anything I've said, you only went on about the movies you thought you were good. Panzer_Zwei

What you said was nonsense and was meant to, in your mind, rile up people. It was stuff that was either complete stretches of the truth, or total misinterpretation of fact. Then, in your backing down phase, a cleverly concocted list of things that everybody and their mother knows about WW2.

You've said nothing to be seriously evaluated, because you inaccurately called SPR historically inaccurate. You made erroneus claims with no founding. And, in total, you've failed to hold up to any inspection that would respect you as a scholar. You have not earned any logical thoughts to be considered as points.

Until you understand that you don't know more than the average person knows, then you will not productive. SPR does not suggest in ANY way that Americans were the sole perpetrators of the end of war in Europe. SPR could be said to be made for American audiences, but it doesn't censor or omit the truth. It accurately captures the experience of WW2 and is supported by veterans who fought.

You don't have a point, you are not smart, get a new day job.

Nobody? You're making some pretty wide generalizations here.

I'm fortunate enough to go to a very good high school, so I have a sense of how the war went, but I might not have had that if I hadn't focused on the Battle of Stalingrad during a World War II group project I did. And considering that I've learned this material pretty recently, I've seen the history textbooks that go into far more detail about the French campaign than the fighting in Russia, which most description tends to boil down to 'they broke the sieges and went West 'till they hit Germany'.

Ignoring that, most popular media concerning World War II in American culture has little to nothing about Russia's fighting, and a lot of people (see our pal Neal, who thinks that Russia was throwing potatoes at the Nazis during World War II) simply don't care enough to know any kind of history at all.

It's an exaggeration to say that all American movies paint a flatly untrue picture of World War II, but the bias exists.  sonicmj1

It's when we live in a world where people who do not read books can be considered those with an opinion. Everybody who is not a numbskull understands the importance of Russia in the war. This is even evidenced by Hollywood itself creating films about it. The fact that your High School texts already elicit the importance is proof positive that this bias that Zwei Douche suggests doesn't exist in his fashion. His suggestion of bias was sweeping to ALL Americans being fed PROPAGANDA, sure, all historical documents are subject to bias, and that's a fact. But that doesn't mean that his sweeping generalizations are CLOSE to the truth of the matter. He's pretending to be smarter and unbiased, but he's not, he only elicits an elementary opinion of the war. His kneejerk responses are proof of it, as anybody who is a true historian does not think that SPR is somehow a propaganda piece.

Oh, and Stalingrad is as referenced as ANY battle in WW2. American sources included.

Whatever makes you feel better. I don't need to call others ignorant to prove my points though.
Panzer_Zwei

That's the problem, you don't have a point, and in order to back yourself up, you claim to be unbiased and know everything. Failure on every level. Now get off this thread, you've sufficiently ruined the fun with your ignorance.

You obviously missed my last post directed for you. Not the above one the other.

And hollywood movies have nothing to do with that. 

Panzer_Zwei

 No, you've already explained. You think you're smarter than everyone else. You think you can draw impractical conclusions from films that accurately capture history in order to be somehow "rogue" but more often than not attempt for the illusion of being "smart." You don't know more than people, and your comments on SPR were ignorant and out of line.

Actually, I know perfectly what I'm talking about, that you don't like it's your problem.
Panzer_Zwei

Pretty soon you'll regret feeling like a know it all when you don't know anything at all. You whined on this thread about nothing, about issues that everybody who isn't a troll already understands. You've cemented yourself as an ignorant and provacateur.